WI: No West African Jihadi States?

What if the religious reform movement that led to the existence of the Jihadi States of West Africa never existed, or dissipated at an early stage? What would be the consequences? How much more of West Africa would be pagan, at least until the Europeans showed up?
 
What if the religious reform movement that led to the existence of the Jihadi States of West Africa never existed, or dissipated at an early stage? What would be the consequences? How much more of West Africa would be pagan, at least until the Europeans showed up?

Islamification was not primarily by Jihad it was through trade and the dispersal of Sufi brotherhoods.

If anything European trade and demand for slaves encouraged Fula Jihadi States to form with the flow of guns and imported iron from Senegal.

The Jihadi States main function was not to spread Islam, it was to exercise power and form Islamic Orthodoxy in syncretized religious communities.
 
Islamification was not primarily by Jihad it was through trade and the dispersal of Sufi brotherhoods.

If anything European trade and demand for slaves encouraged Fula Jihadi States to form with the flow of guns and imported iron from Senegal.

The Jihadi States main function was not to spread Islam, it was to exercise power and form Islamic Orthodoxy in syncretized religious communities.
You do have to admit that they were part of the process.
 
You do have to admit that they were part of the process.
Jihads clearly didn't alone, syncretized Islam was until the post-colonial era default. Islamification via Fulani jihads only effected kafir Fulani and Hausa who were already coming to Islam via sufism.

This in large part has to do with the fact that Fulani only rarely migrated to areas where malaria is present.

If anything their tendency to enslave and create ideas of White supremacy amongst themselves made the faith distasteful to Lowlanders. It's part of the reason why tensions are still high amongst Hausa-Fulani and Igbo.
 
Jihads clearly didn't alone, syncretized Islam was until the post-colonial era default. Islamification via Fulani jihads only effected kafir Fulani and Hausa who were already coming to Islam via sufism.

This in large part has to do with the fact that Fulani only rarely migrated to areas where malaria is present.

If anything their tendency to enslave and create ideas of White supremacy amongst themselves made the faith distasteful to Lowlanders. It's part of the reason why tensions are still high amongst Hausa-Fulani and Igbo.

Create ideas of white supremacy? I would stay out of the ideology on this case.

However, according to most Arab records, such as Ibn Battuta, the majority of people of the so called Islamic kingdoms were not Muslim. He remarks widely of their lack of basic Islamic topics and sophistication and how they practiced slavery. The reason for this, is perhaps the same as the reasoning in India; that being, African Muslim states refused to actively distribute Islam unto pagan subjects as this removed a population eligible for slavery.

African Muhjahid states changed this. Just like in Indonesia, it is the physical strike and surge that brings the knowledge of Allah. Sufi mystics, and other Dawi only distribute basics, society is always changed by power and the state, never by innocent religion.
 
Create ideas of white supremacy? I would stay out of the ideology on this case.

However, according to most Arab records, such as Ibn Battuta, the majority of people of the so called Islamic kingdoms were not Muslim. He remarks widely of their lack of basic Islamic topics and sophistication and how they practiced slavery. The reason for this, is perhaps the same as the reasoning in India; that being, African Muslim states refused to actively distribute Islam unto pagan subjects as this removed a population eligible for slavery.

African Muhjahid states changed this. Just like in Indonesia, it is the physical strike and surge that brings the knowledge of Allah. Sufi mystics, and other Dawi only distribute basics, society is always changed by power and the state, never by innocent religion.
Peul, like Tuareg Noble castes and Moroccan descended Armna had pre-existing racialized notions of themselves and later racialized notions of themselves informed by Islam.

Islam was at various stages of adoption and usage amongst the people. Ibn Bautta went only to West Sudan with those statements about blacks and their Islam. In Somalia and Kilwa he spoke of their ture faith so please don't generalize the continent.

Like I said the Jihad States did change that for their people namely Fula, Fula Hausa and Hausa however even after the formation of Sokoto which was a Jihad against the practice of Bori within the royal courts they conquered it's remains a backbone of Islam. The same populations that were interweaving Islam into their cosmology willing maintain ties to their pre-existing faith. By the end of European colonialism there was a strong desire to grow ties to Arabian Islam but that was reactionary.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Create ideas of white supremacy? I would stay out of the ideology on this case.

However, according to most Arab records, such as Ibn Battuta, the majority of people of the so called Islamic kingdoms were not Muslim. He remarks widely of their lack of basic Islamic topics and sophistication and how they practiced slavery. The reason for this, is perhaps the same as the reasoning in India; that being, African Muslim states refused to actively distribute Islam unto pagan subjects as this removed a population eligible for slavery.

African Muhjahid states changed this. Just like in Indonesia, it is the physical strike and surge that brings the knowledge of Allah. Sufi mystics, and other Dawi only distribute basics, society is always changed by power and the state, never by innocent religion.

I am trying to understand the slavery being against Islam, slavery was practiced by Islamic states and muslim slave traders have been enslaving Africans, Europeans and other since the 7th century. (There still is a slave trade in Africa currently)

I understand the desire of certain people to make all followers of a faith to interpret the religious book, adhere to religious doctrine and do as I say and do but as stated below every person and even groups tribes will interpret and adhere to their religion (even adopted one) in a different manner. Look at Catholicism in Central and South America practiced by Native Americans it is different that Catholicism practiced in Spain. (But that is a different topic)
 
I am trying to understand the slavery being against Islam, slavery was practiced by Islamic states and muslim slave traders have been enslaving Africans, Europeans and other since the 7th century. (There still is a slave trade in Africa currently)

I understand the desire of certain people to make all followers of a faith to interpret the religious book, adhere to religious doctrine and do as I say and do but as stated below every person and even groups tribes will interpret and adhere to their religion (even adopted one) in a different manner. Look at Catholicism in Central and South America practiced by Native Americans it is different that Catholicism practiced in Spain. (But that is a different topic)
Islam is very compatible with Slavery and in West Sudan/West African Islamic conversion did not save people from being enslaved in North Africa.

Please don't let official views and reality conflate.
 
I am trying to understand the slavery being against Islam, slavery was practiced by Islamic states and muslim slave traders have been enslaving Africans, Europeans and other since the 7th century.

I understand the desire of certain people to make all followers of a faith to interpret the religious book, adhere to religious doctrine and do as I say and do but as stated below every person and even groups tribes will interpret and adhere to their religion (even adopted one) in a different manner. Look at Catholicism in Central and South America practiced by Native Americans it is different that Catholicism practiced in Spain. (But that is a different topic)

No, my point, was that within the realms of the Arabs, other Muslim were not taken as slaves.
 
Peul, like Tuareg Noble castes and Moroccan descended Armna had pre-existing racialized notions of themselves and later racialized notions of themselves informed by Islam.

Islam was at various stages of adoption and usage amongst the people. Ibn Bautta went only to West Sudan with those statements about blacks and their Islam. In Somalia and Kilwa he spoke of their ture faith so please don't generalize the continent.

Like I said the Jihad States did change that for their people namely Fula, Fula Hausa and Hausa however even after the formation of Sokoto which was a Jihad against the practice of Bori within the royal courts they conquered it's remains a backbone of Islam. The same populations that were interweaving Islam into their cosmology willing maintain ties to their pre-existing faith. By the end of European colonialism there was a strong desire to grow ties to Arabian Islam but that was reactionary.

I did not generalize the continent. It was clearly a statement regarding a particular subject. If I do not mention Kilwa, Somalia, etc do not assume I include them.

Oh, I assumed you referred to Europeans as white as opposed to Berber-Arab.

Then we are in agreement. It was the Muhjahid states that brought Islam to the absolute forefront, as opposed to Dawi. Then again, this is the case in essentially every example of mass Muslim expansion.
 

Lusitania

Donor
No, my point, was that within the realms of the Arabs, other Muslim were not taken as slaves.
I wonder if that interprets to only adherents of a particular sect within Islam. There are several groups the largest and most powerful is Sunni and Shia. Was the taking of one of these as Slave by the other seen as wrong?
 
I wonder if that interprets to only adherents of a particular sect within Islam. There are several groups the largest and most powerful is Sunni and Shia. Was the taking of one of these as Slave by the other seen as wrong?

No, it is the overarching opinion of Ahl Sunnah wal Ijma'ah. I refer specifically to the Abbasid state:

A person upon kufr and was previously a Muslim, can not be made a slave as the punishment for apostasy was death.

Shi'i could be taken as slaves in some situations, especially if they are Ghulat. However, often times, they would be subjected to the Hadood or penal code incurring execution or expulsion.

Dhimmi were also not taken as slaves since they had a pact with the Muslim.
 
I wonder if that interprets to only adherents of a particular sect within Islam. There are several groups the largest and most powerful is Sunni and Shia. Was the taking of one of these as Slave by the other seen as wrong?

No, it is the overarching opinion of Ahl Sunnah wal Ijma'ah. I refer specifically to the Abbasid state:

A person upon kufr and was previously a Muslim, can not be made a slave as the punishment for apostasy was death.

Shi'i could be taken as slaves in some situations, especially if they are Ghulat. However, often times, they would be subjected to the Hadood or penal code incurring execution or expulsion.

Dhimmi were also not taken as slaves since they had a pact with the Muslim.
Except in North Africa West African Muslims were made slaves and they used their on convulted knowledge to allow it to happen.
I did not generalize the continent. It was clearly a statement regarding a particular subject. If I do not mention Kilwa, Somalia, etc do not assume I include them.

Oh, I assumed you referred to Europeans as white as opposed to Berber-Arab.

Then we are in agreement. It was the Muhjahid states that brought Islam to the absolute forefront, as opposed to Dawi. Then again, this is the case in essentially every example of mass Muslim expansion.
Well then don't make entire blank statements of the Islamic practices in Africa because clearly with this second statement about whiteness you are one to make asssumptions.


However, according to most Arab records, such as Ibn Battuta, the majority of people of the so called Islamic kingdoms were not Muslim. He remarks widely of their lack of basic Islamic topics and sophistication and how they practiced slavery. The reason for this, is perhaps the same as the reasoning in India; that being, African Muslim states refused to actively distribute Islam unto pagan subjects as this removed a population eligible for slavery.
 
Except in North Africa West African Muslims were made slaves and they used their on convulted knowledge to allow it to happen.

Well then don't make entire blank statements of the Islamic practices in Africa because clearly with this second statement about whiteness you are one to make asssumptions.

You are always very combative.... Regardless, is there evidence of colorism in West Africa as imposed by Arabs or other Muslim groups? I am actually curious because I would enjoy looking into this, more deeply. Mind you, as you know, I am well aware of the older forms during the Abbasid period in the realms of the Arab.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Except in North Africa West African Muslims were made slaves and they used their on convulted knowledge to allow it to happen.

Thank you I was having a hard time understanding the previous statement because wether Islamic or Christian religion was not enough to stop slavery. If that was case the Christians is the Americas or Europe would of been forced to free all Slaves when they converted to Christianity. The same in Islamic countries if the path to freedom was conversion then many if not most would of taken this path but alas it was not
 
You are always very combative.... Regardless, is there evidence of colorism in West Africa as imposed by Arabs or other Muslim groups? I am actually curious because I would enjoy looking into this, more deeply. Mind you, as you know, I am well aware of the older forms during the Abbasid period in the realms of the Arab.

You call it combative, I call it holding peoples incorrect or wrong notions of Africa accountable.

But also I say you flat out stating you assumed and then telling me not to think you assumed warranted a response.

Okay dude it took an hour but I found the fucking video! So there are hundreds of references of Fula self-perception and social perception before and after Arab then later European rule but this video is comprehensive


Also any book on Blacks in North Africa, Tuareg or Arma/Moroccan conquest of Songhai should inform you on colorism (though its not colorism it's racism) that 1. Is not really needing much evidence because it still persists today 2. Long ass paper trail

Thank you I was having a hard time understanding the previous statement because wether Islamic or Christian religion was not enough to stop slavery. If that was case the Christians is the Americas or Europe would of been forced to free all Slaves when they converted to Christianity. The same in Islamic countries if the path to freedom was conversion then many if not most would of taken this path but alas it was not
Yeah apologists like to claim all Muslims were free or freed but it's bullshit.

Here's a good book
https://books.google.com/books?id=T...TAhVP9GMKHd_qB1EQ6AEIQTAH#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
@Revachah Just because I mistakenly assumed, does not make your assumptions carry any more weight.

Well don't state things on a continent wide level ("African Muslim States") then and your written generalization won't be taken for what you wrote. I cannot read your mind, I can only read what you did or did not post. It's a forum, a history forum after all. One with few people that focus on African history and pre-history.
 
Top