Muslim Personalities Who Were Black In Early Islamic History

A brother named Dawud Walid is fighting Muslim color prejudice by telling the stories of dark-skinned Islamic heroes.  According to the project’s Facebook page’s ‘About’ section, “This page was started for Black History Month to share blog entries about prominent black figures in the early history of Islam.”

It’s an excellent page.  Go have a look (Facebook page).  Support the book.

I commend the brothers and sisters involved, but I do have one criticism:  They missed all the big fish.  As far as early Muslims go, we don’t have to stick to the tired slave narratives of freed slaves and sons of “black” slave women.  We can start from the top:

The Rightly Guided Caliphs

For reference only. NOT intended to represent a historical personage.

Umar

Yousef ibn Al-Zaki ibn Abdel Rahman Abu Al-Hajjaj Al-Mizzi said in his book Tahdheeb Al-Kamaal:

“He (Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RAA) was black-skinned (very adam), tall, thick-bearded, bald, ambidextrous, and he dyed his hair with henna and katim…Zarr ibn Hubaish and others described him this way – they described him as very adam complexioned (black-skinned). This is the way that he was described by most scholars knowledgeable of the biographies and the stories of the people of the past and their news.”

Ibn Saad and al-Hakim have recorded a description of Umar as Abu Miriam Zir, a native of Kufa described him. Zir said:

“I went forth with the people of Madina on a festival day, and I saw Umar walking barefoot. He was advanced in years, bald, of a tawny colour-a left handed man, tall, and towering above the people.”

Uthman

For illustration purposes ONLY. NOT intended to represent an actual historical personage.

“He was not tall or short. He had a handsome face, a long beard, dark skin, wide shoulders, and he would dye his hair with saffron. He would cap teeth with gold.”

‘Abdullah bin Hazm said: “I saw ‘Uthman, and I never saw a man or woman more beautiful than him.”

as-Sa’ib said: “I saw him dying his beard yellow, and I never saw an old man more handsome than him.”

Ali

In his book Tarikh Al-Khulafaa (The History of the Caliphs), Imam Al-Suyuti described Ali ibn Abi Talib as follows:
و كان علي شيخا سمينا أصلع كثير الشعر ربعة إلى القصر عظيم البطن عظيم اللحية جدا قد ملأت ما بين منكبيه بيضاء كأنها قطن آدم شديد الأدمة

Ali was a heavyset, bald, hairy man of average height which leaned toward shortness. He had a large stomach and a large beard which filled all that was between his shoulders. His beard was white as if it was cotton and he was a black-skinned man.

Read more: http://savethetruearabs.proboards.com/thread/4#ixzz3fcTVK69W

* َAl-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma (black-skinned) here in his book Taarikh Al-Islaam:

وعن الشعبي قال: رأيت علياً أبيض اللحية، ما رأيت أعظم لحية منه، وفي رأسه زغبات. وقال أبو إسحاق: رأيته يخطب، وعليه إزار ورداء، أنزع، ضخم البطن، أبيض الرأس واللحية. وعن أبي جعفر الباقر قال: كان علي آدم، شديد الأدمة، ثقيل العينين، عظيمهما، وهو إلى القصر أقرب.

* Ibn Jawzi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma (black-skinned) in his book Safwat Al-Safwa.

* Al-Balaadhari describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma (black-skinned) here in his book Ansaab Al-Ashraaf:

وكان علي آدم شديد الادمة، ثقيل العينين، ضخم البطن، أصلع ذا عضلات ومناكب، في أذنيه شعر قد خرج من أذنه، وكان إلى القصر أقرب

* Al-Suyuti describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma (black-skinned) here in Taarikh Al-Khulafaa:

‏‏”‏‏و‏ ‏كان‏‏ ‏علي‏ (بن‏ ‏ابي‏ ‏طالب )‏شيخا‏،‏ ‏سمينا،‏ ‏‏أ‏صلع،‏‏ ‏كثير‏ ‏الشعر،‏ ‏ربعة‏ ‏الى‏ ‏القصر،‏ ‏عظيم‏ ‏البطن،‏ ‏عظيم‏ ‏اللحية‏ ‏جدا،‏ ‏قد‏ ‏ملأت‏ ‏ما‏ ‏بين‏ ‏منكبيه،‏ ‏بيضاء‏ ‏كأنها‏ ‏قطن،‏ ‏آدم‏ ‏شديد‏ ‏الأدمة‏”‏.‏

* Ibn Abdel Barr describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma (black-skinned) here:

وسئل أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين عن صفة علي رضي الله عنه فقال: كان رجلاً آدم شديد الأدمة، مقبل العينين عظيمهما ذا بطن
أصلع ربعة إلى القصر لا يخضب

* Ahmed ibn ‘Amru ibn Al-Dahhaak Abu Bakr Al-Shaibaani describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib (RAA) as shadid al-udma (black-skinned) here:

ومن ذكر علي بن أبي طالب
ابن عَبْد المطلب بن هاشم بن عَبْد مناف بن قصي بن مرة بن كعب بن لؤي يكنى أبا الحسن رَضِيَ الله تعالى عنه واسم أبي طالب عَبْد مناف بن عَبْد المطلب واسم عَبْد المطلب شيبة بن هاشم واسم هاشم عَمْرو بن عب مناف واسم عَبْد مناف المغيرة بن قصي واسم قصي زيد بن كلاب بن مرة بن كعب بن لؤي وكان آدم شديد الأدمة ثقيل العينين عظيمها وقد قالوا أعمش ذا بطن سمنا أصلع دون الربعة عظيم اللحية رضوان الله عليه

* Al-‘Allaama Mohamed ibn Talha Al-Shaafa’ie describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma (black-skinned) here:

كان عليه السلام آدم شديد الادمة، ظاهرة السمرة، عظيم العينين، أقرب إلى القصر من الطول لم يتجاوز حد الاعتدال في ذلك، ذا بطن كثير الشعر، عريض اللحية، أصلع أبيض الرأس واللحية

* Al-Safadi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma (black-skinned) here:

وكان رضي الله عنه رجلاً آدم شديد الأدمة ثقيل العينين عظيمهما، ذا بطن أصلع ربعة إلى القصر لا يخضب

Ibn Asaakir says in Taarikh Dimisq:

وقال زهير بْن معاوية : كَانَ علي يكنى أبا قاسم ، وكان رجلًا آدم شديد الأدمة ، ثقيل العينين عظيمهما ، ذا بطن ، أصلع ، وهو إلى قصر أقرب ، وكان أبيض الرأس واللحية ،

Zuhair ibn Muawia said:  “Ali had the kunya Abu Qaasim and he was shadid al-udma (black-skinned) with big, heavy eyes, a big belly, bald, leaned toward shortness, and he had white hair and a white beard.”

The Companions (Sahaaba) in General

Only one got painted the right color

Most of the people living in Arabia were Arabs, the original Arabs (as opposed the the Arab diaspora of Arabized مُستَعرَب peoples) were related to Sub-Saharan Africans in appearance and every other way.  So, in general, it’s safe to assume that any Arab Sahaaba was “black” unless sound traditions prove otherwise.*

Conclusion:  Islam is neither colorblind nor racist.  It’s real.

Color does matter.  It does exist.  If not, it would not have been mentioned in the Qur-an.  If not, it would not have been mentioned in the ahadith.  It’s a perfectly valid subject, and like every subject, it must constantly be revisited, “dusted off” as it were, to prevent misconceptions from creeping in.  Think about it, if there were valid conversations about skin color all along, would there be so much racism in the Ummah now?

——————–

*Read below for descriptions of the Pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabs:

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.”

http://www.blackarabia.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-did-black-arabs-become-white.html

“(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…(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 Africo-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 nomad 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 Encyclopedia Britanica [9th Edition; 1:245-46 s.v. Arabia) (http://blackarabia.blogspot.com/2011/09/were-black-arabs-who-founded-islam.html)

The dark-skinned South Arabian today is short and “extremely round-headed (brachycephalic)” but he was no doubt originally much taller and dolichocephalic (long-headed) like the so-called Hamites of East Africa.

In the 13th century CE the Muslim traveler Ibn al-Mujāwir described the Mahra as “tall, handsome folk” in his Tārīkh al-mustabsir, 271.1.17 and early pre-Christian skulls found in Hadramawt were markedly dolichocephalic.

It has been suggested that the ‘definite change’ in the racial constitution of the people of Hadramawt resulted from the invasion and inbreeding of brachycephalic whites such as Armenoids or Persians.

Henry Field suggested that Arabia’s current ethnography is the result of the mixing of two distinct basal stocks: The dolichocephalic (long-headed), dark-skinned Mediteranean/Eur-African and the brachycephalic (round-headed) fair-skinned Armenoid. See his “Ancient and Modern Inhabitants of Arabia,” The Open Court 46 (1932): 854 [art.=847-869].

(http://blackarabia.blogspot.com/2011/09/were-black-arabs-who-founded-islam.html)

These findings are corroborated by Persian sources describing their first impression of their Arab Muslim conquerors.

“When Fredon (mythical hero) came, they (the black people) fled from the lands of Iran and settled on the coast of the sea. Now, through the invasion of the Arabs, they (the Zing-i-Siak posht (i.e. the black skinned negroes)) are again diffused through the country of Iran.”

(Bundahishn (Creation of the Origins)- A Zoroastrian text)

[Note: in these last sentences allusion is made to the Blackness of both the original inhabitants of Iran, and of the Arabs.]

You’re saying that the real Arabs are Black?!  What do these historians know anyway?  They’re not Arab or Muslim.  They’re colonialists and Orientalists out to distort Islamic history.

True.  Who better to ask than the Arabs themselves?  How did the Arab historians, grammarians, linguists and pre-Islamic poets describe themselves?  Let’s see:

  “Red (al-hamra’) refers to non-Arabs due to their fair complexion which predominates amongthem. And the Arabs used to say about the non-Arabs with whom white skin was characteristic, such as the Romans, Persians, and their neighbors: ‘They are red-skinned (al-hamra’)…” al-hamra’ means the Persians and Romans…And the Arabs attribute white skin to the slaves.”

(Ibn Manzur [Lisan al-arab IV: 209, 210]) http://blackarabia.blogspot.com/2011/09/in-islam-does-color-of-prophets-matter.html

Couldn’t many “white” people be more accurately described as “red”?

Al-Mubarrad (d. 898), the leading figure in the Basran grammatical tradition, claimed: “The Arabs used to take pride in their brown and black complexion (al-sumra wa al-sawād) and they had a distaste for a white and fair complexion (al-ḥumra wa al-shaqra), and they used to say that such was the complexion of the non-Arabs.”

Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ nahj al-balāghah, V:56.http://www.blackarabia.blogspot.com/2013/04/his-daddy-was-black-his-momma-was-black.html

Lisan El-Arab (an old Arabic dictionary) mentions Shamar’s explanation of the hadiths that say that the prophet Mohamed (pbuh) said that he was sent to the blacks and the reds. Shamar explains the hadiths as follows:

قال شمر: يعنـي العرب والعجم والغالب علـى أَلوان العرب السُّمرة والأُدْمَة وعلـى أَلوان العجم البـياض والـحمرة،

“He means (by the blacks and the reds) the Arabs and the non-Arabs and the complexion of most Arabs is brown and jet-black and the complexion of most non-Arabs is white and red.”

Hmm… Let’s think about that.

Shams El-Din Mohamed ibn Ahmed ibn Othman El-Dhahabi (died1374 A.D.) explains the hadith that mentions that a man was “red-skinned as if he was one of the slaves” as follows:

يريد ألقائل أنه في لون ألموالي ألذين سبوا من نصارى ألشام وألروم و ألعجم

“The speaker means that the man was the color of the slaves who were captured from the Christians of Syria and from the Romans and the Persians.”

Thus, it was common for the Arabs of the past to describe a light-skinned person as having the color of the slaves. This is a known fact.   Ibn Mandhor (1232-1311 A.D.) says in his book Lisan El-Arab:

سبوطة الشعر هي الغالبة علـى شعور العجم من الروم والفرس. و جُعودة الشعر هي الغالبة علـى شعور العرب

“Non-kinky hair is the kind of hair that most non-Arabs like the Romans and Persians have while kinky hair is the kind of hair that most Arabs have.”

Lank hair

Kinky Hair

The Arabs of the past also used the word green to mean black. El-Fadl ibn El-Abbas ibn ‘Utba El-Lahabi said:

وأَنا الأَخْضَرُ، من يَعْرِفُنـي؟ أَخْضَرُ الـجِلْدَةِ فـي بـيتِ العَرَبْ

I am the green one. Who knows me? My skin is green. I am from the family of the Arabs.

Bronze is a copper alloy (combination of copper and tin) and when exposed to air and moisture, it will develop a greenish layer of build-up on its dark brown surface. Hence the association of green with dark-brown skin.

Ibn Mandhor, the author of Lisan El-Arab says this about the verse:

يقول: أَنا خالص لأَن أَلوان العرب السمرة

“He says that he is a pure Arab because the color of the Arabs is brown (dark).”

In Lisan El-Arab, Ibn Mandhor also quotes the author of El-Tahdhib, Saad El-Din Masud ibn Umar El-Taftaazaani (1312-1389 A.D.) as saying the following about the verse:

فـي هذا البـيت قولان: أَحدهما أَنه أَراد أَسود الـجلدة؛ قال: قاله أَبو طالب النـحوي، وقـيل: أَراد أَنه من خالص العرب وصميمهم لأَن الغالب علـى أَلوان العرب الأُدْمَةُ،

“There are two sayings about this verse. One is that he meant that he had black skin. This is what Abu Talib El-Nahwi said. It is also said that he meant that he is a pure unmixed Arab because most Arabs are black-skinned.”

Abdella ibn Berry (1106-1187 A.D.), the “King of the Grammarians” as he was called, said the following about the verse:

قال ابن بري: نسب الـجوهري هذا البـيت للهبـي، وهو الفضل بن العباس بن عُتْبَةَ بن أَبـي لَهَبٍ، وأَراد بالـخضرة سمرة لونه، وإِنما يريد بذلك خـلوص نسبه وأَنه عربـي مـحض، لأَن العرب تصف أَلوانها بالسواد وتصف أَلوان العجم بالـحمرة. وفـي الـحديث: بُعثت إِلـى الأَحمر والأَسود؛ وهذا الـمعنى بعينه هو الذي أَراده مسكين الدارمي فـي قوله أَنا مسكِينٌ لـمن يَعْرِفُنـي، لَوْنِـي السُّمْرَةُ أَلوانُ العَرَبْ

“El-Jawhari attributed this verse to El-Lahabi and he is El-Fadl ibn El-Abbas ibn ‘Utba ibn Abi Lahab and he meant by green the brownness (darkness) of his complexion and he meant by that the purity of his genealogy and that he was an unmixed Arab because the Arabs describe their color as black and they describe the color of the non-Arabs as red. Like the hadith says, ‘I was sent to the red and the black. And this is exactly what Miskeen El-Darimi meant when he said: ‘I am Miskeen, for those who know me. My color is brown (dark), the color of the Arabs’”.

Ibn Mandhor says in his book Lisan El-Arab:

والعرب إِذا قالوا: فلان أَبـيض وفلانة بـيضاء فمعناه الكرم فـي الأَخلاق لا لون الـخـلقة، وإِذا قالوا: فلان أَحمر وفلانة حمراء عنوا بـياض اللون؛

“When the Arabs said that a man or a woman was ‘white’, they meant that the person was honorable. They weren’t talking about his/her complexion. When they (the Arabs) said that a man or a woman was ‘red’, they meant that his/her complexion was white.

The famous, old Arabic dictionary Lisan El Arab also quotes the author of El-Tahdhib, Saad El-Din Masud ibn Umar El-Taftaazaani (1312-1389 A.D.) as saying:

التهذيب: إِذا قالت العرب فلان أَبْـيَضُ وفلانة بَـيْضاء فالـمعنى نَقاء العِرْض من الدنَس والعيوب… لا يريدون به بَـياضَ اللون ولكنهم يريدون الـمدح بالكرم ونَقاءِ العِرْض من العيوب، وإِذا قالوا: فلان أَبْـيَض الوجه وفلانة بَـيْضاءُ الوجه أَرادوا نقاءَ اللون من الكَلَفِ والسوادِ الشائن

“When the Arabs said that a man or a woman was white, they meant that the person had a faultless honor…they didn’t mean white skin. What they meant by this was to praise the person for his/her generosity and faultless honor. When they said that a man or woman had a white face, they meant that the person had a complexion free of blemishes and free of an unattractive blackness.”

http://savethetruearabs.blogspot.com/2009/08/cure-for-racial-prejudice-against-dark_5648.html

Strange Marriage: The Beginning…

By all normal expectations, we shouldn’t have been married. 

In Pakistan and South Asia, there is the issue of caste.  If anyone from there tells you any different, they’re covering it up to fit in.  It is not as all-encompassing in Pakistan as it is in India, but it is very much a part of marriage decisions.  I can prove it.  Go to any Muslim magazine.  Flip to the back.  You’ll see matrimonials.  Read the ads.  You might see, for example, the word “Rajput”.  That’s a caste.  They want to marry someone from their caste.  They only want to marry someone from their caste. 

On top of not being in her caste, or any that I know of, I’m a kalloo, a black.  Anti-dark skin and anti-African racism has the potential to unite the world.  It is one thing that most cultures seem to agree on, including, sickly, dark-skinned people and Africans themselves.  If anyone from anywhere tells you this isn’t true, just go to where they’re from and ask any dark-skinned people or Africans about that.  Or, when you visit a country, compare how many dark-skinned people you see on the street compared to how many you see on TV.  The only ones you’ll see are in the “before” portion of the skin-lightening cream commercials.

And Pakistan is a controversial country to be connected to, to say the least.  A lot of people fear it, or outright hate it.  I remember driving a newly-wed couple from their wedding to a hotel for their honeymoon.

“Are you married, too?”

“Yes.”

“Oh, really?  Where’d you get married?”

“Pakistan.”

Silence…

We really do make an odd-couple.  We’re over a foot apart in height.  I’m black, she’s white.  I’m the far-flung rebel, she’s the goody-goody homebody.  I’m extroverted, she’s introverted.  And our cultures and languages are vastly different.

“Why did you say yes when they asked if you wanted to marry me?”

“I don’t know.”

That’s the answer I always get when I ask, and I believe it.  When she asks me, I can’t come up with anything different.

Life is like a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book.  Remember those?  You read through a situation and it ends with the character facing two choices: 

Choose A and turn to page X. 

Choose B and turn to page Y. 

Your choice, in turn, leads to two more choices.  But you didn’t know what they’d be until you’d already turned the page to them.

Except in life, you can’t turn back the page.  That choice is never available to you.  You don’t come to the options of consequences of your choice, and decide to go back and pick others.  You can only continue to choose.  And that’s it.  There’s no other way to describe it.

It doesn’t matter why I did what I did, because it’s already done;  but I’ll still try to tell you.  For one, the taste of adventure intrigued me.  I’ve always wanted something different.  There’s always been something about where I am- wherever I am- and who I am- though the most part I love- that I’ve hated.  I’ve always wanted to be different, to do different.  Whenever I look at the road that’s paved for me, I step off it and walk on the grass.  It’s softer on my feet. 

I used to be so filled with rage, and I still am, but no longer consumed by it.  I wanted revenge against the society I was born in.  You know what I hated the most?  Humiliation.  I hated the fact that I was in America because my every second there was a reminder that my ancestors had been dominated, ripped from their lands and history, my history, raped and enslaved.  I hated my own- the European trophy on the grave of my African and Native American ancestors.  I looked around and all I saw was people being abused, and taking it.  It was unfathomable.  Talk about my mama, and I woulda beat you up, but you know what the real insult was?  Telling me what to do.  Who did you think you were that I would obey you?  Who did you think I was?  I will not do what you say, even if it’s what I want to do, for the exact reason that you told me to do it.  I will correct you.  Further, I will humiliate you for your arrogance against me.  I will make you wallow, publicly, in the humiliation you dared to believe I would accept.

I remember once, in 2nd grade, there was an assembly.  So the teacher told us to line up and get ready to go.  I can’t tell you why, but I refused.  She made every threat, but I would not get in line with the rest of the class.  Finally, she turned off the lights and led the class out.  I called her bluff and stayed right there, until the assembly finished and they came back.  Her blunder was that I had no bluff.  There was nothing anyone could do to me, no threat that I could even imagine, that was worse than living with humiliation.  I could endure anything except shame.  Living with the memory of oppression was a worse fate than death.

You know what really used to trip me out?  Watching everybody tripping out on me.  I’d be looking at them taking orders and conforming and I couldn’t believe it.  Couldn’t they see they didn’t have to?  How could they ever want to?  I mean I was there setting the example, fighting for all of us, right in front of their faces.  It hurt me to watch them endure what in my eyes could only be suffering, and I was fundamentally, absolutely bewildered that they couldn’t see the point.  I was really popular, these were my friends.  I was the class clown, class rebel and honor roll student, all at the same time.  Everybody liked me and was probably a little leery of me at the same time.

So everything and everyone feels familiar and utterly foreign to me at the same time.  There’s no crowd I don’t feel lonely in, no people I can consider wholly mine, none who consider me wholly theirs.

That’s probably why I travel, why I’m free.  I have nothing to gain or lose.  I feel like I can do anything.  There’s nothing to hold me back.  I’m always on the outside looking in, and the inside looking out.  It’s not so much that I transcend, it’s that everywhere is the same.  There are just the obligatory adjustments of language, currency, time zone, etc.  Hard times ain’t a hurdle for me.

So that’s why I said yes to the marriage.

Sometimes people say, “I wish I could’ve done that.”  Not about this “strange marriage” but other things I’ve done, like transferring to another university, or studying abroad.  I’m like “Why couldn’t you have?  You could’ve applied as easily as me…”  But it wasn’t the practicalities they were talking about.  It is only now, and I mean at this exact moment as I am writing to you, that I realize what it was really all about.

You can’t dream.

In Sociology, I learned that institutionalization means taking the present reality for granted to the extent that you can’t imagine anything else, even if you don’t like it, even if it feels wrong.

You can’t even picture yourself even trying.

This isn’t what you want, you’re not who you want, but at least you know what’s on the next page.  If you start choosing your own way, you won’t know, and that’s why you don’t choose it.  I don’t blame you, because I’m as scared as you.  But what I’m scared of is what’s on this page, and what I know is on the next one.  What I’m scared of is the way we feel right now.  The reason I take the risk isn’t because I’m stronger than you.  I have no idea what’s gonna happen next and I swear to God that I’m afraid.  But I know it’s our only chance, and that’s why I take it.  I’m not brave-  I’m just less afraid of change than the misery of things staying the same.

And that’s all this story is really about when you think about:  a choice.  One simple choice, and all the choices that were opened or closed to me after it.  Marry the girl or not.  At the same time, so much of that choice was beyond my choosing.  Her father chose Islam over culture and that gave his daughter the choice.  She, in turn, chose yes, which gave me the choice.  There is a verse in the Qur-an which is translated as “and you do not choose except as Allah Chooses”.  Before we choose anything, so much has been chosen before it for us to even be able to.

___

Now I’m gonna ask you a question, the answer to which is a question, that only I can answer.

Ready?

Do you know what my friend just texted me, tonight, right before I started writing this chapter?

“Based on the story i’m reading on the net. have you been back home with your wife yet?”

The answer’s no and yes:  no, I have not taken her to the land of my upbringing;  yes, for we are home wherever we are.  Wherever we arrive, we project an aura, the same aura, from our hearts, and its beams meet itself right at the top of wherever we are, then we bring it down, then it fills the entire space that we are in.  Then we are home, in our love, in our special culture.

Our dream is the only home we have, and by Islam we realize them:  that every person was made to live in peace- wholeness within, unity without.  Every person has the right to inherit that peace, the duty to uphold it, and the responsibility to pass it .  It is only that, truly, that unites my wife and I, across the chasms of culture, background, and personality:  we share the same dream.

Don’t underestimate them:  dreams are the most powerful things in this world. And the most dangerous.  Name anything, and we have more than enough of it.  Maybe they’re being squandered or hoarded, but there’s more than enough water, food, land, oil, everything.  The one thing there isn’t enough of is room for everyone’s dream to come true.  It is for this alone that wars are fought.  This, not money, is the root of all evil, for money is only a means to achieve.  This is the source of every lie- for at all times, every effort is being made to create your dream for you, because your dreams determine your choices.  Everyone wants you to choose as they have chosen, because in life, really, there are only 2 choices:  wake up to your dream one day, or somebody else’s.

Choose wisely.

Black History Month: Bilal ibn Rabah

The Gregorian month February is known (in the United States, at least) as Black History Month.

From the Annals of Black History, we bring you…   Bilal ibn Rabah.

Bilal was an Ethiopian who answered the call to Islam in secret because he was enslaved to a man who opposed the new religion. He never submitted his heart to even the worst torture, until Abu Bakr purchased his freedom, whereupon Umar declared “Abu Bakr, our master, has freed our master.” Bilal would eventually get his revenge against his former oppressor in the battle of Badr.

Bilal was the first Muslim to ever sound the melodious athan, or call to Islamic prayer. When the Muslims conquered Mecca in a bloodless campaign, it was he, who climbed atop the Ka’aba, to which all Muslims pray, with his black feet, and called the world to prayer in Islam’s holiest city.

Edward Blyden, himself a black man, wrote in 1874:
“The eloquent Adzan or Call to Prayer, which to this day summons at the same hours millions of the human race to their devotions, was first uttered by a Negro, Bilal by name, whom Mohammed, in obedience to a dream, appointed the first Muezzin or Crier. And it has been remarked that even Alexander the Great is in Asia an unknown personage by the side of this honoured Negro.” (1)

To this day, you can find Muslims of all races who are proud to name their sons Bilal.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_ibn_Rabah_al-Habashi#References

“EXTERMINATOR!”: the linguistic aesthetics of william s. burroughs ii

The Linguistic Aesthetic of William S. Burroughs II

William S. Burroughs is a writer whose life and work I do not particularly care for.  This is what made it all the more enjoyable to critique his work.  It is easier to be objective about what one does not like sometimes, because the temptation to ‘defend’ or ‘promote’ them is not there.  Burroughs’ “EXTERMINATOR!” came across my desk by accident, and I hope I did justice to it before it left.

One of the outstanding linguistic features of “EXTERMINATOR!” is Burroughs’ attempt to capture the sound, as it were, of language.  He attempts to write dialogue the way it is spoken, as opposed to the way it is supposed to be written.  There is an ongoing interplay of, as psychologist Lev Vygotsky would have divided it, inner and external speech.  It is unknown how aware the author was of Vygotsky, but in many ways “EXTERMINATOR!” is a study in the ideas postulated in his seminal work Thought and Language¹.

In Thought and Language, inner speech is the mechanism by which a child mediates and regulates his or her activity.  It captures the images an impressions that encounter the mind like a running camera.  This “live” thought is unintelligible to anyone except the thinker as it has not been organized into logical sequences or groupings.  An action may be followed by an expression which may be followed by a random association, and so on.  In this grammar-less monologue, subjects are largely omitted and a word which may take others to explain in outer speech, is left, like an image, as it is in the thinker’s mind.  Inner speech is self-talk, not in the sense that one is talking to oneself, but that one is talking within oneself.

Outer speech, in contrast, is socialized speech.  It is thought turned into coherent, comprehensible expression through the medium of words.  In addition to an at least acceptable level of grammar, it omits the private musings that are either inappropriate or irrelevant.

Burroughs seems all too aware of this Vygotskian dichotomy in “EXTERMINATOR!”.  The interplay and merging of inner and external speech is the aesthetic effect of this piece.  “EXTERMINATOR!” is divided into the narrator’s inner thoughts, the narrator’s and other characters’ external speech, and the narrator’s external speech with the other characters’ words implied but omitted.

“You make a nice cup of tea Mrs Murphy . . . Sure I’ll be taking care of your roaches . . . Oh don’t be telling me where they are . . . You see I know Mrs Murphy . . . experienced along these lines . . . And I don’t mind telling you Mrs Murphy I like my work and take pride in it.”

“Well the city exterminating people were around and left some white powder draws roaches the way whiskey will draw a priest.”

“Well the city exterminating people are a cheap outfit Mrs Murphy.  What they left was fluoride.  The roaches build up a tolerance and become addicted. They can be dangerous if the fluoride is suddenly withdrawn . . . Ah just here it is . . .”

I have spotted a brown crack by the kitchen sink put my bellows in and blow a load of the precious yellow powder.  As if they had heard the last trumpet the roaches stream out and flop in convulsions on the floor.

(Burroughs 5)

This excerpt begins with a conversation between the narrator and “Mrs Murphy”, whose words and responses are present only as implicature.  For example, after the first sentence of the first paragraph, we do not ‘hear’ her ask if he will exterminate her roaches, but the question is strongly implied by his “Sure I’ll be taking care of your roaches . . .”.  Again, we do not ‘hear’ her attempt to tell him where they are, but his “Oh don’t be telling me where they are . . . You see I know Mrs Murphy . . .” implies such an attempt.  The last two phrases in this paragraph are a use of weaker implicature, as we are not sure what “Mrs Murphy” may have said, or if she said anything between pauses in the narrator’s words to her.

The next two paragraphs display a more standard type of dialogue wherein one speaker’s expression is related followed by another’s response.  It is as if the narrator’s attention and memory- or attention to his memory- has shifted beyond merely his words to include those of his co-converser.  Perhaps, in his flow of thought and recollection, and in contrast with the previous paragraph, his words can not be remembered without her.  Her words are not only as easily implied as the previous simple and obvious.  Either the narrator, as a thinker and recollector, or Burroughs, as a writer, has taken note of this, and perhaps both, as Burroughs himself once worked as an exterminator.

In the final paragraph of the excerpt, the reader is entirely inside the narrator’s mind.  We read what he thinks and sees in the order and manner that he thinks and sees it.  It is a “stream-of-consciousness”, often used by spoken word artists including most likely Burroughs himself.  The first sentence can be called such only by its use of a period at the end of it.  Otherwise it is a stream of events, neither connected by grammatical tense nor separated by punctuation.  It is as if, in the immediacy of noticing or describing actions, in this case the narrator’s own, there is neither time nor need for the superfluous conventions, superfluous because they are either implied, like the subject pronoun that should come before “put” or unnecessary for meaning and memory, like the period, comma or preposition that should come after “sink”.

Notably, the entire piece is written in 1^st person, so that even when the words of other characters are related, they still only appear as an omitted part of the narrator’s mental activity.  In sum, “EXTERMINATOR!” is as much an internal recollection of the narrator, to or within himself, of his stint as an exterminator, as it is the telling of a story to an audience, and perhaps even more so.  It is unabashedly personal and subjective- presenting what the writer understood, rather than what all readers can understand- a departure from the objective, “reader-friendly” aesthetic of much literature.  Quite simply, Burroughs writes without an awareness of audience, or at least to show how such a lack should appear and feel.

Burroughs employs tense idiosyncratically to capture the capricious connectedness of the flow of thoughts and images.  The title itself is an exclamation that abruptly and immediately places the reader on the job with the narrator.  The first line of the piece is a continuation seems, in this context, to truly be the second line of the story, a request about the service which has been previously announced.  This pair of sentences is repeated two more times, almost identically, in the short story².  After the first pair, i.e. the title and opening line, the narrative immediately plunges into the past tense.

“EXTERMINATOR!”

“You need the service?

During the war I worked for A.J. Cohen Extermi- nators ground floor office dead-end street by the river.

(Burroughs 3 [author’s italics])

Then it repeats again, followed again by a plunge back in time to a description of the chemicals he used.

“Exterminator!  You need the service?”

A fat smiling Chinese rationed out the pyrethrum powder–it was hard to get during the war–and cau- tioned us to use fluoride whenever possible.

(Burroughs 4 [author’s italics])

Finally, the phrase repeats again, and only then does the story, or process of soliciting customers continue forward.

“Exterminator lady.  You need the service?”

“Well come in young man and have a cup of tea.  That wind has a bite to it.”

(Burroughs 4)

Interestingly, though, while his entire career or stint as an exterminator is presumably over- “During the war I worked as an exterminator (Burroughs 3)- all of his experiences exterminating are told in the present.  So he talks about the past with the present, again as a stream of consciousness that is thought out loud rather than ‘translated’ or ‘socialized’ into external speech for the audience.

From beginning to end, Burroughs stylistic mimics, whether intentionally or not, Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s in his poem ‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’ (1798).  The poem does not start with a description of setting or scenery.

It is an ancient Mariner

And he stoppeth one of the three.

Readers only discover the situation that they- and the Mariner- are abruptly thrown into after being thrown in it, just as with “EXTERMINATOR!” when we meet the narrator in the middle of doing his job, and then learn more of its context.

The shift from past to present tense is also present in ‘Mariner’.

He holds him with his skinny hand,

‘There was a ship,’ quoth he.

‘Hold off!  Unhand me, grey-beard loon!’

Eftsoons his hands dropt he.

In this stanza, the Mariner holds the guest’s hand and speaks to him in the present tense.  After that, however, he drops his hand in the past tense.  Coleridge’s purpose for these idiosyncrasies is unclear.  Perhaps it is to arouse the same sense of caprice in the reader that the wedding guests interrupted by the Mariner feel.  Burroughs’ similar use of grammatical tenses is applied more methodically, along patterns already mentioned.  His effort to present natural, realistic thought and speech encapsulates the Beat Generations obsession with reality.  It also comments on the stringent and confined literary norms of the day by showing them to be unnatural and lacking of realism.  His use of tense, so subtly and adamantly incorrect, articulates the counter-culture stance Burroughs remains famous for to this day.

Burroughs vocabulary is striking in its inappropriateness.  Blatant racism abounds throughout “EXTERMINATOR!”.  Jews are the first target.  When watching arguments between the Jewish brothers he works for he makes a reference to “my goyish eyes” (Burroughs 3).  This is a reference to the Yiddish term goyim, for non-Jew, by which the narrator juxtaposes himself from Jews.  Overall, the narrator seems unable to not notice the Jewishness of any person who happens to have it.  There is “an old Jew” (Burroughs 3), a “college trained Jew” (Burroughs 6), a “young Jewish matron” (Burroughs 7).  “Mrs Murphy” even gets in on the act by blaming “those Jews downstairs (Burroughs 5) for her roaches.  The fact that they are always referred to by their ethnicity illustrates the alienation and mild contempt the characters feel for Jewish people.

The Chinese man who rations pyrethrum powder is only referred to as an adjective.  He starts off as “a fat smiling Chinese” (Burroughs 4), then he is “the fat Chinese” again twice (Burroughs 5,8).  The fact that he is a “Chinese” rather than a ‘Chinese man’, or just a ‘man’ dehumanizes him because of his ethnicity.  Slavs, referred to as “hunkys” (Burroughs 5) in reference to their possible Austro-Hungarian roots, don’t fare much better in the narrator’s eyes.  This vocabulary expresses American mid-19^th century racism, and as such is not as severe as it could be and often was.

Nearly every sentence of “EXTERMINATOR!” is afoul of the rules of grammar.  Considering Burroughs’ Ivy League and prep school background, this can only be intentional.  The usual syntactical technique is to connect sentences or phrases by deleting the punctuation, subjects, and articles that usually separate them.

An old Jew with cold grey fish eyes and a cigar was the oldest of four brothers Marv was the youngest wore windbreakers had three kids.

(Burroughs 3)

This excerpt would be expected to be written as:

An old Jew with cold grey fish eyes and a cigar was the oldest of four brothers. Marv was the youngest. He wore windbreakers and had three kids.

In keeping with the Beat Generation’s obsession with reality, this syntactical tactic lays emphasis on speaking vocabulary, which, as it is spontaneous, misuses words and grammar.  By attempting to put speaking vocabulary on paper, Burroughs captures these slight, often unintentional mistakes which are made up for by intonation, facial expression and gesturing in live conversation.  The noticeable lack of punctuation points out the fact that when talking or thinking, we don’t pause for effect, breath or least of all grammar where we ‘think’ we will when writing.

This stringing of phrases together without connectors while talking is common amongst across languages and is known by linguists as parataxis³.  It is used by Burroughs as a tool to criticize and subvert academia and societal norms.  When it is known that he and his Beatniks were obsessed with the “reality” that of underclass life that they felt their privileged backgrounds lacked, it is easy to conclude that Burroughs is attempting to capture, present and enshrine it, just as he did in his own life.  In so doing, he comments on class by being a privileged person who unabashedly admires the criminal underclass, praising it as more ‘real’ than the sheltered lifestyle he was raised in.  The usual expectation, of course, is that it would be the underclass that admires the privileged.    The effect is further accentuated by the narrator’s crude racism and lack of refined speech, referring to a potential customer as “lady” (Burroughs 4) and habitually drinking while on the job.  Interestingly, it is this affinity which most likely led the wealth heir Burroughs to take an exterminator position, which in turn fed him the material for this short story⁴.

In sum, “EXTERMINATOR!” is an attempt by Burroughs to both capture and subvert reality.  He flouts its norms to show it as it really appears and sounds to the minds of a thinker.  In light of the background of Burroughs’ lifelong project of subverting the moral, political and academic norms of modern American society, it is rich in cynicism and criticism.  The brilliance of Burroughs is perhaps that he does so here without direct reference to what he is commenting upon.  His writings were often thought obscene, but he rejected that designation on the basis of coming from the very source that he considered invalid, namely mainstream culture.  His brave insistence on his project, coupled with a high creative and literary aptitude, ultimately proved that it was literary value, not conformity to norms, which would define literature in the modern age.

______________________________________________________________________________

¹ Vygotsky, Lev.  Thought and Language (revised).  MIT Press. 1986.

² This is reminiscent of a feature of the Qur-an, in which the phrase bismillah is the first verse of a chapter, a prelude

to a chapter, or a verse within a chapter.  Though Burroughs spent time in Morocco and his Beat Generation was

characterized by spiritual yearnings, it is not known whether he was aware of this feature of the Qur-an.

³ For more on parataxis, see McWhorter, John. “What does Palinspeak mean?”. The New Republic.  6 April 2010.

⁴ Incidentally, this adoration of the underprivileged life and assumption of it as a truer reality continued through the

decades that following the Beatniks. Most famously, guitarist Eric Clapton is rumored to have purposefully

addicted himself to heroin so he could ‘feel the blues’ and therefore play like the African-American guitarists he

idolized.