Conflicting accounts on the fear of strangers: Muslim and Arab perceptions of Europeans in medieval geographical literature.

IN HIS CLASSICAL JOURNEY THROUGHOUT the ancient world, Ibn Batutah, a fourteenth-century Moroccan traveler, had wished to travel from the middle Volga city of Bulghar to the "Land of Darkness." The distance as he figured was about forty days. But then he changed his mind for several reasons. It was not possible for him to pay for the expensive journey and the benefits he would reap would be minimal. He had heard from other travelers about the inhospitable nature of the inhabitants of those regions. It was reported that once foreign merchants arrived in the Land of Darkness they would leave their merchandise in a specific place and go away to spend the night. On the following day they would come back to check the spot. They may find sable, or squirrel, or ermine fur. If the foreign merchants were satisfied with the deal they would take the fur and leave the country. Otherwise they would not touch anything and would come back at another time to see what was happening. The people from the Land of Darkness would either add more fur to please the foreign merchants, or simply take it away. In short, buying and selling was never done face to face. Ibn Batutah commented briefly that one did not know whether he was dealing with humans or jinn. No one could really see them.

This narrative is based on much earlier conflicting accounts by Medieval Arab and Muslim travelers who had referred to the xenophobia of certain northern people in Europe. Ibn Hawqal, for instance, a tenth-century geographer described a branch of 'Rus' as a group of people, who used to kill every foreigner entering their territory. Yet other travelers, such as Ibn Rustah, a Persian Muslim geographer in the early tenth century spoke of a different 'Rus', who also traded in sable and other hairy animals, as hospitable and kind to foreigners.

This article will explore the treatment of foreigners in old Europe as seen by Arab and Muslim travelers in selected medieval texts. I argue that the notion of either 'the fear', or 'the welcoming' of strangers did not develop into a fixed cliche, or a stereotype. Although the medieval travelers had journeyed from regions usually, but not necessarily, known for their openness to strangers and willingness to befriend them and even integrate them within the multifaceted empire, they had not on the whole created a binary construct of East and West, or South and North. For many of them, Europeans, as well as all other nations, were like the rest of us, i.e., the children of God. Human diversity is, in particular, a manifestation of the greatness of God. There are many reasons that can explain the differences in human nature. The philosophical notion, which asserts that humans have reason and can possibly use it, no matter who they are, is prevalent in most of the Arabic geographical literature that deals with alien cultures.

In Plato's Laws, Book XII, Athenian, the knowledgeable elderly man, talks of Zeus as the stranger's patron and delineates what laws should be followed in the treatment of foreign visitors to his state as well as other countries:

   These, I say, are the laws by which our citizens
   should manage all reception of foreign visitors, male or female,
   and dispatch of their own countrymen to foreign parts. They
   should show their reverence for Zeus, the stranger's patron,
   not make meats and sacrifices a device for repelling the alien,
   as see the "dusky brood of Nilus" doing today, or banish him
   by barbarian edicts. (1)

Athenian categorizes the foreign visitors into four types and suggests different welcome to be given to them. The welcome is very warm and hospitable in the rare case of "a counterpart of our own observers from some other country ... [whose] avowed object must be either to see for himself some excellent features superior to the beauties to be found in other societies, or to reveal something of the sort to another state" (Plato 1498). But the foreign visitor who is described as "a bird of passage" (Plato 1498) on a profitable business errand should not be given the same treatment. Although he must be wellreceived by officials, nevertheless, he should not be admitted to places inside the city walls. In the case of observers who come to see and hear certain spectacles, Athenian suggests lodging "at the temples with a generous hospitality" (Plato 1498). The visit, however, must be of "reasonable length, but when they have seen and heard what they purposed, they must depart without harm done or received" (Plato 1498). The fourth type "are those who come from other countries on business of state" (Plato 1498). Athenian recommends that they be welcomed by the generals and lodged in the house of a specific commander. Although the welcome to be given to a foreign visitor varies in its restrictions, the tone of hospitality is evidently highlighted. After all, Zeus, the god, is the stranger's patron, Athenian concludes his remarks.

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle did not deal specifically with the alien and his treatment. Book IV deals with virtues concerned with money. Liberality "seems to be the mean with regard to wealth," Aristotle observes, "for the liberal man is praised not in respect of military matter, nor of those in respect of which the temperate man is praised, nor of judicial decisions, but with regard to the giving and taking of wealth, and especially in respect of giving." (2) Aristotle criticizes the obsequious, the flatterer, the churlish and contentious. He recommends the middle state "For the man who corresponds to this middle state is very much what, with affection added, we call a good friend. But the state in question differs from friendship ... For he will behave so alike towards those he knows and those he does not know ... for it is not proper to have the same care for intimates and for strangers ..." (Aristotle 997).

The ancient Arabs had not, to my knowledge, written laws like the Greeks concerning the alien and his treatment. But they certainly left us scores of tales, proverbs and poems which glorify hospitality and generosity. Aliens, in particular regardless of their status and purpose, were highly regarded and very well received even beyond the means of their hosts. The ideal generous man for pagan Arabia whose name still reverberates throughout the Arab world to this day is Hatim al-Ta'i who died around 605. (3)

For the ancient Arabs, hospitality, in its general and wider sense, also meant that it was possible for a stranger to become part of the tribe. If one shared a meal with his host, or tasted a few drops of his host's blood he would become part of the family and the group. In the case of a slave who was freed, it was possible for the newly freed man to attach himself to the family of his former master. A total stranger might also become a protege of a certain tribe, or a weaker tribe might prefer to become part of a stronger one. (4) Doors were usually never slammed in the face of an alien even when he was not an Arab.

Islam has also advocated the importance of hospitality and generosity. The virtuous man and woman in the Quran are the ones who spend in the way of God whether in prosperity or in adversity. On several occasions, the Quran refers in particular to the alien and the necessity of helping him and being generous with him. (5)

In the political sphere, Muslim Arabs have made it possible for aliens, provided they are Muslims, to become their leaders throughout history. There are a few cases where non-Muslims have also become powerful in the Islamic Empire. Although restrictions have been imposed on the aliens' full citizenship within Islamic Arab societies, nevertheless aliens have historically managed on the whole to be accepted on all levels: socially, economically and politically.

Xenophobia is defined as "an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange." (6) The xenophobe is "a person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples." (7) Historically speaking, the Arabs cannot be described as xenophobic, in the sense that they were mainly ethnocentric, exclusive and intolerant throughout their civilization. On the whole, and in comparison to other nations, they were often welcoming to aliens. Their societies were rather inclusive and open. Perhaps for this reason when Arab and Muslim travelers journeyed to certain parts of ancient Europe they were struck by the different behavioral patterns vis-a-vis strangers in general. There were also those who did not travel anywhere, yet they repeated what other travelers had said about the treatment of aliens among certain northern Europeans. It is worth mentioning however, that the authors, whether genuine travelers or not, had not compared or contrasted what they encountered in Europe with anything in their own cultures. They simply stated what they saw or heard without any comment leaving the reader to analyze their narrative, judge for himself and reach some limited conclusions.

There are basically two conflicting narratives in Arabic geographical literature concerning certain people called the Rus. In his book Kitab Surat alArd, Ibn Hawqal, the Eastern geographer of the 10th century (fl. 943-77), describes the Rus in general as hamaj, i.e., barbarians. (8) But in his second volume he is careful to categorize them into three sorts. The sort which is called Arthaniyya, whose capital is Irtha, kills foreigners. He writes: "I have not heard any stranger dare enter this city, because its people kill strangers who set foot in their country. They go in boats for trading. They don't tell anything about themselves, or their business. They don't let any stranger accompany them, or enter their country. From Irtha one gets black sable, black foxes, lead and mercury" (Ibn Hawqal 397).

Ibn Hawqal who is reported to have lived for sometime in Cordoba during the reign of 'Abd al-Rahman III (912-29, caliph 929-61) does not give us more information about the identity of these northern people who are traders and seafarers. All we know is that they do not associate with foreigners, and if foreigners wished to enter their territories they would be killed. Ibn Hawqal calls them Arthaniyya and informs us about the exact nature of their trade: black sable, black fox fur, lead and mercury. There is no comment on, or explanation of their behavior vis-a-vis foreigners. The speaker does not show any emotion on his side. He simply relates to us what he has heard from other travelers.

The second account on the Rus is narrated by Ibn Rustah in his book Kitab al-'Alaq al--Nafisah which is believed to be compiled about 903. Ibn Rustah observes that the Rusiyya "live in an island surrounded by a lake. They have a king called Khaqan Rus. They invade al-Saqalibah by boats, take women as captives and sell them in Khazran and Bulkar. They have no cultivated fields. They eat what they plunder from al-Saqalibah. They are traders in sable, squirrel and other hairy animals. They are clean in their clothing. The well to do man will wear a golden bracelet. They are kind to their slaves. The Rusiyya have many cities. They are hospitable to their guests and treat foreigners quite well when asked for help. They would defend those who were wronged and assist them. They have corrosive swords. If a group of them was attacked they would stand united in the face of the enemy till they defeat him.

But al-Rusiyya also have tyrannical traits. If some people do not accept the rule of the king then the sword would be the final judge. They resort to tricks and magic. In order to please their God and be close to him they tend to kill people as sacrifices. A brother would covet the fortune of his own brother. A woman would be buried with her dead husband while she is still alive. The grave would be sealed so that she would die. They do not burn their dead." (9)

Ibn Rustah, the tenth-century Muslim geographer of Persian origin, does not divide the Rus into categories. He speaks about them as one group. His version differs markedly from what another tenth century official traveler, Ibn Fadlan, had said about them in his report to the Caliph al-Muqtadir in Baghdad. (10) But what concerns us here is the treatment of foreigners. The story of Ibn Rustah is in sharp contrast to that of Ibn Hawqal. Here we do not hear about killing foreigners, or avoiding any social contact with them. At the contrary, we have very hospitable people who are even willing to defend their guest, the foreigner. There is no mention of the city of Irtha, or the cruelty of the Rus towards aliens. Ibn Rustah's depiction of the Rus is not ideal altogether, but at least in this regard, i.e, the treatment of strangers, is not only humane, but also admirable. The narrator, however, does not comment on the good or bad traits of the Rus and leaves the judgment to his readers.

How are we to explain these two conflicting accounts about the Rus? One assures us that a specific type of them is xenophobic and even resorts to killing strangers, and the other tells us that they are all very hospitable to aliens. Also how can we explain the fact that some Arab and Muslim geographers have adopted one account and dropped the other, or ignored both of them? In Muruj al-Dhahab wa Ma'adin al-Jawhar, Al-Mas'udi, a geographer/historian of the tenth century, refers to the Rus as "many nations and different sorts". (11) He also speaks of them as traders. But he does not mention the story of their treatment of foreigners.

Abu al-Qasim Sa'id al-Andalusi, an 11th century geographer, historian, mathematician and a judge of Toledo (1029-70) does not specifically refer to alRus as inhospitable. He is more concerned with nations that are interested in science. The Rus are not among these nations according to him. But in his general discussion of the Rus, al-Saqalibah and al-Bulghar, particularly those who live in the extreme north, Sa'id argues that their manners are rather rough. (12)

Ibn Rustah's account that the Rus are hospitable is not to be found in later geographical narratives. It is likely that Ibn Rustah is not aware of the diversity of the Rus, or he neglects to mention in his account that some of them are hospitable to strangers, but not all. Abu 'Ubayd al-Bakri who died in Cordoba in 1094, for instance, and is reported not to have traveled, repeats what other travelers have said, or perhaps what he has read and heard during his time. He revives Ibn Hawqal's account about certain Rus called al-Awthaniyya who kill foreigners. He observes in his book Al-Masalik wa al-Mamalik that "The Rus are three types. One type, whose king resides in the city of Kudaniya, are the closest Rus to Balqan. Their city is close to Balqana. The second type is Silawa. And the third type are called Awthaniyya. Their king resides in Awthan. Merchants who want to trade with them do not go beyond Kubana. The city Awthan itself is off limit to foreigners. No one is to be found who can tell anything about it, because these people kill strangers who attempt to enter their territory. But God knows the truth better". (13) Abu 'Ubayd al-Bakri is very careful in his account. He neither confirms nor denies the inhospitable nature of this specific type of Rus.

In the 12th century Al-Idrisi (1100-1166), who worked for Roger II, the Norman King of Sicily and was reported to have traveled widely in Europe and elsewhere, repeats Ibn Hawqal's account about a specific type of Rus who kill foreigners and adds a little bit of information. In Nuzhat al-Mushtaq fi Ikhtiraq al-Afaq, al-Idrisi refers to Ibn Hawqal as al-shaykh al-Hawqali and quotes that "The Rus are three types. One tribe is called Braus. Their king lives in the city of Kubaya. Another tribe are called al-Silawiya. Their king lives in the city of Silawa which is on the top of a mountain. A third tribe is called al-Arthaniyya. Their king resides in Artha". (14) The same story, then is told about the latter group of Rus with one small additional information. "From their region the skins of black tigers, black foxes and lead are taken out by the merchants of Kuyaba" (Al-Idrisi 917). In part seven, clime seven, Al-Idrisi, however, specifies two small towns on a river that flows into Itil, or the Volga, and tells us that "merchants rarely enter these towns, because the inhabitants there kill foreigners who enter their territories" (Al-Idrisi 960). When talking about the Rus and Bulghariyya in general, Al-Idrisi speaks about the shortness of their "days in winter as not exceeding three hours and a halt" (Al-Idrisi 918). Elsewhere he talks about a type of Rus who are neighbors with countries such as Ankariyya and Maqdoniya and who conquered during his time Burtas, Bulghar and Khazar. Also he speaks about their hunting of whales.

There is no comment on the behavior of foreign people in al-Idrisi. Like many other Arab and Muslim geographers he ends his discussion about the Other by emphasizing the issue of diversity in this world and man's inability to explain everything in the universe. "Praise be to God, the Creator of this world" (Al-Idrisi 960), he concludes his observations.

Al-Dimashqi, who died in the first half of the fourteenth century calls the Rus the white and blond people. He observed that because of the extreme cold in their region and the distance of the sun from their country "their behavior had degenerated and their hearts had become very harsh.... Those who are further north where cold is even worse.... they are like animals. Indeed they care for nothing but war, fighting and hunting. They don't feel any gratitude" (15) Then he quotes Al-Idrisi's Nuzhat al- Mushtaqfi lkhtiraq al-Afaq and changes the narrative concerning the treatment of strangers in a very marked way. Al- Idrisi's Rus become here 'certain Slavs' and al-Idrisi's killing of foreigners become here "eating of foreigners." The text reads as follows: "Some Slavs eat whatever foreigner falls into their hands, because they live like beasts in jungles and forests near the ocean" (Al-Dimashqi 262).

A fourteenth-century geographer, Muhammad Ibn 'Abd al-Mun'im al-Himyari retells the story of Ibn Hawqal and al-Idrisi about the city of Arthan and the killing of foreigners there in his book Al-Rawd al-Mi'tarfi Khabar al-Aqtar. But he adds a small piece of information. According to him the Kubayah are some type of Turks, but they are called Rus. (16)

Another fourteenth-century Moroccan traveler, Ibn Batutah (1304-1377), offers a new account about certain Nordic people in what he calls the Land of Darkness. Ibn Batutah's narrative differs widely from that of Ibn Hawqal and Ibn Rustah. Here there is no mention of the name Rus, or the city of Artha, or Arthan, or of the killing of foreigners. The emphasis in Ibn Batutah's narrative is on the inhospitable and unfriendly nature of certain people in the Land of Darkness towards foreigners and strangers. According to this account, these people seem to lack any desire to socialize with the Other even in essential matters such as trade. The Land of Darkness is defined as a vast treeless plain of arctic regions. It is distant from Bulghar forty days.

Here is what Ibn Batutah in his book Tuhfat al-Nuzzarfi Ghara'ib al-Amsar wa 'Aja'ib al-Asfar says:

   I have heard about the city of Bulghar and wished to
   visit it to see for myself what is mentioned about the shortness
   of its nights and days. I have asked the Sultan to send someone
   with me on my journey. The distance was about ten days from
   his city. He did. I had someone to take me there and bring me
   back to him. We arrived there during Ramadan. Just as we had
   the sunset prayer we ate our meal. Then the Mu'azzin called
   for the evening prayer. We prayed and soon afterwards it was
   dawn! Days also become short in another season. I stayed in
   that city for three days.

   I had wished to enter the Land of Darkness. One can
   go there from Bulghar. The distance is forty days. Then I
   changed my mind. I had to take lots of provisions and the
   journey was not really worth it. One had to travel in small
   carriages pulled by husky dogs. This tundra is covered with
   ice. No foot of any human or animal can stand there. The dogs
   have nails which manage to clutch to the ice. Only strong
   merchants who own one hundred or so carriages are the ones
   who travel there. They had to take along food, drink and wood,
   for there is no tree, or stone, or anything in these regions. The
   guide is the dog who had crossed this land several times. It is
   valued about one thousand dinars. The carriage is tied to its
   neck. There are other three dogs as well. Other carriages
   pulled by dogs follow. If the main dog stopped they would all
   stop. No one would mistreat this dog or beat it. Food is given
   first to the dogs, not to humans. Otherwise dogs get angry and
   leave people to die in this tundra. (17)

In short, there are three basic accounts concerning the treatment of foreigners in Medieval Arabic geographical literature: Ibn Hawqal's account of killing foreigners in a specific northern European town; Ibn Rustah's account of generosity to foreigners among certain northern Europeans and Ibn Batutah's account of fear, or perhaps lack of desire to socialize with the Other. Thus, xenophobia was reported among a specific group of people but no one tried to explain this phenomenon beyond the climactic and geographic factors which seemed at the time to be the determinant of human behavior. People who were living in the sixth, or seventh clime and particularly under extreme cold, or heat, suffered accordingly. But this is no fault of their own. Not only phobia, or aversion to strangers, or their elimination in specific places in northern Europe appears in medieval Arabic travel literature. Indeed there are several texts that speak of positive encounters between Europeans and Arab travelers. The texts, many of them written by officials who are not necessarily professional geographers, highlight the hospitality, generosity and friendliness of certain Europeans. Al-Ghazal, for instance, a distinguished Andalusian poet and a man who spoke different languages, was sent by 'Abd al-Rahman II, the Umayyad Prince of Cordoba (822-52) on a diplomatic mission to Jutland. (18) The Majus, or the Vikings, had attacked Seville in 844 and plundered the city. (19) Wishing to be on good terms with the rich and powerful state in Spain after their crushing defeat, the Vikings sent a mission to Cordoba and asked for an Arab delegation to accompany them to their country. The Umayyad prince chose Yahya ibn Hakam al-Ghazal as his ambassador. The fascinating encounter between the handsome poet, who was nick-named al-Ghazal for his beauty, and the queen of Jutland was reported by the Andalusian historian, Ibn Dihya who died in the year 1235. The Arab poet might have received a warm welcome for his beauty and intelligence, but above all for representing a highly civilized and sophisticated foreign state. It is worth mentioning that most of the Majus, the fire worshippers, at that time had converted to Christianity. Ibn Dihya reported that only some inhabitants of a few islands in the ocean were still fire worshippers, and they had sexual relationships with their mothers and sisters (Ibn Dihya 140-141). No connection, however, was made in the text between the new Christian Vikings and the welcoming of a foreign delegation.

Similarly, Ibn Fadlan's reception by the Slavs during his visit to the king of Bulghar in 922 as the head of an official delegation from Baghdad was very warm. Even the Rus who met the Arab traveler near the Volga River were hospitable and friendly enough to allow a foreigner to watch their funeral rites and observe their customs. (20)

But the account which stands out in terms of the generosity of Europeans to ordinary Arab and Muslim travelers is that of Ibn Jubayr in the 12th century. In his fascinating book Rihlat Ibn Jubayr, the Andahisian traveler spoke highly of the Norman King William II of Sicily and praised the humane treatment meted on the ship-wrecked pilgrims on the shore of Messina. Ibn Jubayr had traveled on 18 October 1184 from the city of Acre in Palestine on board a Genoese ship heading to Messina, Sicily. The ship carried Muslim and Christian pilgrims. It is worth mentioning that Acre was at that time under the Crusaders, and that Ibn Jubayr, like many Arabs and Muslims was very hostile to their presence in the Holy Land.

Normally a sea-journey between Acre and Messina would not need more than ten to fifteen days. The travelers, who never thought that they would be on the ship for two months, took along with them some provision which proved to be inadequate. Ibn Jubayr describes in detail the horror of the journey. Many people died, others drowned. Their bodies were thrown into the sea, and the captain of the ship confiscated their money and belongings. But finally about half a mile from the city of Messina, the ship tilted to its side and halted, exposing the travelers to drowning. That took place on 9 December 1184. King William himself came to the shores to inspect the condition of the travelers and to supervise the rescue operation.

Ibn Jubayr praised King William, in particular, for helping the poor Muslims who were not able to pay money to the small boat owners who rescued them and demanded quite a fortune from each one of them. Ibn Jubayr even speculated that if the Norman King was not present in Messina, the ship would have been plundered, and the Muslims would have been perhaps taken as slaves, because this was the custom of the people on this shore. (21)

It is important to remember that the Normans who originally came from northern Europe had often adopted the customs of the regions they inhabited and ruled. (22) King William II pursued a policy of tolerance vis-a-vis his subjects and visitors regardless of their race or religion. This policy was inherited from his father and grandfather. The Normans had replaced the Arabs in Sicily at the end of the eleventh century and adopted not only their language Arabic as one of the official languages of the country but also many of their customs and ethical codes. Hospitality to strangers and people in need is one of the most important traits in Arab Muslim civilization. Thus the behavior of William II towards the aliens in Ibn Jubayr's text can be understood not only within a humane framework, but also as a cherished Arab value which survived in Norman Sicily.

Although most of the Arab and Muslim geographers have adopted Ibn Hawqal's 10th century negative account of the treatment of foreigners by some Northern Europeans, no stereotypical notion, or fixed cliche of Europeans had developed as a result of that in Arabic medieval geographical literature. For many geographers/travelers, Europeans as well as other nations, were like the rest of us, i.e., the children of God. Human diversity is, in particular, a manifestation of the greatness of God.

It is a great error to claim as Bernard Lewis does in his introduction to his book, A Middle East Mosaic that " the basic attitudes [of Arabs and Muslims towards Europeans is that] of contempt and certitude." (23) Lewis presents two quotes to his readers about the attitude of a 10th-century Arab geographer and an 18th-century Ottoman minister towards Europeans and concludes that "during the nine and a half centuries that intervened between these two reports the level of information about Europe among Middle Eastern visitors and observers had improved considerably. The basic attitudes of contempt and certitude, however, remained substantially unchanged" (Lewis ix). Later on Lewis assures his readers that "For most Middle Easterners, as one can see very clearly from the references in historical and geographical writings, western Europe was an outer darkness of barbarism and unbelief, inhabited by primitive peoples with nasty and dirty habits, who they saw much as Victorian Englishmen might have seen the inhabitants of the central African jungles or the tribes beyond the north west frontier of India" (Lewis 24).

The comparison between "Middle Easterners" and "Victorian Englishmen" in the text is not only erroneous but also a projection of Lewis's fantasies and misunderstanding of Arabic texts. Arab geographers and travelers, no matter how much they differed in their piety, always reminded their readers that God knows better, and that they themselves are only human beings. The mystic Damascene traveler, al-Dimashqi, who quoted other geographers about cannibalism among certain people in northern Europe, for instance, referred to the various theories concerned with human conduct but always concluded by saying that God knows best. According to him "Every nation has its virtues and vices" (al-Dimashqi 282). And whenever he described a certain group of people he made sure that we understand the danger of generalization "The ancient Arabs," he said, "were known for their eloquence, oratory, courage, loyalty, and generosity. But not everyone had these virtues" (al-Dimashqi 271). He was not exceptional in his confirmation of God's superiority to man. To be contemptuous of other men would be foreign to the very fabric of his beliefs. Another geographer, al-Idrisi, had stressed the notion of 'diversity' among people, animals and plants as a key issue in understanding the complexity of the world. Differences among nations could be used as possible ways to discover God.

It is true that some medievalist Arabs and Muslims have described certain Europeans as 'beasts', or 'baha'im', a description that not only Bernard Lewis likes to quote whenever he talks about the attitude of Middle Easterners to Europeans. There are other Arabs who see in this description a vindication of their wretched present status vis-a-vis Europeans and often tend to misinterpret medieval texts. (24) The truth lies somewhere else. One has to understand the context in which this word, 'baha'im' has been used. The tone is not that of contempt, but rather of pity. The Arab geographers who used the term were faithful to their rationalist belief. Man has reason and is expected to use it, but not everyone does. The implicit distinction between 'us' and 'them', or the 'self' and the 'other' in a variety of medieval Arabic texts expresses some bewilderment at God's work and the inability of man to explain everything in this universe.

No matter how much the medievalist Arab or Muslim travelers differed in their theories regarding human nature, one can deduce a general line of thought. The philosophical notion, which asserts that man has reason and can possibly use it, is prevalent in most of the Arabic literature that deals with alien cultures. The over-all power is attributed to God. Man can choose if he wishes. His choices are limited. His environment plays a big role in shaping him. His birth, political and social systems, and the intellectual climate in his country may reduce his choices, or even annul them. The Arab, or Muslim traveler is not obliged to feel that he has a civilizing mission in the lands of the barbarians. This type of reasoning is very much in contrast with Western medievalist thinking, but particularly so with that of the 19th century imperialist theorists who dismissed the notion of 'diversity' as a positive concept and espoused the racial theory in explaining the differences among human beings.

Erik Erikson once observed that "as we learn to 'care for,' we also learn to exclude; and as we learn to 'take care of 'our kind, we are apt to become more rejective of other kinds which we perceive to be a major danger to all that we feel obligated to protect. In fact, this trend adds up significantly to world images in which the grown-ups of our kind are a superior category while all others are inferior, that is, lower ... we are inclined to view our own kind as the select and elect human species, and all others, as more or less undesirable ones". (25) Taken to extreme, this argument is quite dangerous. If we learn to like our kind; i.e., people who belong to our race, religion, history and language and exclude all others who happen to be different from us in looks, clothing, customs and many things, we will be on a very perilous journey. Conformity is not an ideal state. People are different although they belong to the same species. This is what the medieval Arab and Muslim geographers are ultimately telling us in their texts.

ENDNOTES

(1.) Plato, "Laws", Book XII, in The Collected Dialogues including the Letters, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (New York: Bollingen Foundation, Pantheon Books, 1961), p. 1498. All subsequent references are from this edition. Page numbers will be cited in the text in parenthesis.

(2.) Aristotle, "Ethica Nicomachea," trans. W.D.Ross in The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941 twentieth printing, 1966), p. 984. All subsequent references are from this edition. Page numbers will be cited in the text in parenthesis.

(3.) Ibn Qutaybah, al-Shi'r wa -al-Shu'ara', ed. de Goeje (Leiden, 1904), p.124.

(4.) Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs. 10th ed. (London: MacMillan & St. Martin's Press, 1970), p. 27.

(5.) The description of the righteous man in the Quran, III: 17; 92; 133135; II: 177; IV: 36-39.

(6.) The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Second edition. Unabridged. 1987.

(7.) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th edition. (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifllin Company, 2000).

(8.) Abu al-Qasim Ibn Hawqal al-Nusaybi, Kitab Surat al-Ard, vol. I, 2nd ed., ed. M.J. De Goeje (Leiden: Brill, 1967), p.15. All subsequent references are from this edition. Page numbers will be cited in the text in parenthesis. The translation from Arabic into English is mine.

(9.) Ibn Rustah, Kitab al-A'laq al-Nafisah, vol. 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), pp. 145-146. The translation from Arabic into English is mine.

(10.) Unlike Ibn Rustah who praises the Rus for their cleanliness in their clothing, Ibn Fadlan speaks about their filth and describes to us in detail their daily ritual of washing and spitting in the same bowl of water. See Rihlat Ibn Fadlan, ed. Sami al-Dahhan (Damascus, al-Majma' al-'Ilmi al-'Arabi, 1959), p. 152. Cf. The chapter on Ibn Fadlan in Samar Attar, Modern Arabic: The ArabEuropean Encounter: An Advanced Course for Foreign Students (Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1998), p. 244.

(11.) Volume 2 of A1-Mas'udi's, Muruj al-Dhahab, ed. Yusuf As'ad Dagher, pp. 205-207. Cf. A1-Mas'udi, Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. 1 (Beirut: alJami'ah al-'Arabiyyah, 1965), p. 218.

(12.) Abu al-Qasim Sa'id al-Andalusi, Tabaqat al-Umam, ed. Husayn Mu'nis (Cairo, 1998), pp. 16-17. For brief information on Sa'id see Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs 10th ed., p. 566; pp. 526-527.

(13.) Abu 'Ubayd al-Bakri, Kitab al-Masalik wa al-Mamalik, ed. 'Abd al-Rahman 'Ali al- Hajji (Beirut: Dar al-Irshad, 1968), p. 153. The translation from Arabic is mine.

(14.) Al-Idrisi, Nuzhat al-Mushtaq fi Ikhtiraq al-Afaq, volume 2 (Cairo, n.d.) p. 917. The translation from Arabic is mine. All subsequent references are from this edition. Page numbers are given in parenthesis in the text.

(15.) Shams al-Din al-Dimashqi, known as shaykh al-Rabwah (1256, or 57-1327), Nukhbat al-Dahr fi 'Aja'ib al-Barr wa al-Bahr, ed. M.A.F. Mehren (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1923), p. 275. The translation from Arabic is mine. Further references to this edition will be cited in the text in parenthesis.

(16.) Al-Himyari, Al-Rawd al-Mi'tar, ed. Ihsan 'Abbas (Beirut: Maktabat Lubnan, 1975). Also see the edition by E. Levi-Provencal (Leiden, 1939).

(17.) Ibn Batutah, Rihlat Ibn Batutah, vol. 1, 3rd ed., ed. 'Ali al-Muntasir al-Kittani (Beirut: Mu'ssasat al-Risalh, 1981), pp. 374-375. The translation from Arabic into English is mine.

(18.) The 9th century-mission of Yahya ibn Hakam al-Ghazal to the Vikings is mentioned in al-Mutrib min Ash'ar Ahl al-Maghrib by the historian Ibn Dihya, who died in 1235. See al-Mutrib, ed. Ibrahim al-Abyari et al, reviewed by Taha Husayn (Cairo: al-Matba'ah al-Amiriyyah, 1954), pp. 133146. Further references to this edition will be cited in the text in parenthesis. Cf. Allen, W.E.D. The Poet and the Spae-Wife: An Attempt to Reconstruct alGhazal's Embassy to the Vikings (Dublin: Allen Figgis; London: Viking Society for Northem Research, 1960).

(19.) Note that Philip Hitti mentions this incident in a footnote in his book History of the Arabs, 10 ed., p. 521, note 2. Quoting Ibn al-Qutiyah, ibn al-'Idhari, Mas'udi and ibn al-Athir, Hitti states that "The Spanish Muslim fleet had several encounters with the Scandinavian pirates known in England as Northman (Norsemen), with the Normans of France and with the Danes, to all of whom the Arabs applied the generic term Majus (fire worshippers). The first occasion on which the Majus attempted a landing was in 844, in the reign of 'Abd-al-Rahman II, when with their eighty ships they anchored before Lisbon and then occupied Seville. ..."

(20.) Risalat Ibn Fadlan, ed. Sami al-Dahhan (Damascus: al-Majma' al'Ilmi al-'Arabi, 1959).

(21.) The description of the horrific journey between Acre and Messina in Rihlat Ibn Jubayr (Beirut: Dar Sadir), pp. 283-296. Cf. The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, trans, from Arabic R.J.C. Broadhurst (London: Jonathan Cape, 1952).

(22.) The flattering account of H.A.L. Fisher of the Normans, the descendants of the Vikings in Chapter XV entitled "The Norsemen" in his book A History of Europe, vol. 1 (Great Britain: Eyre & Spottiswoode 1935), 15th impression, Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co LtD, 1975, pp. 190-205. Fisher's thesis, in spite of its racist overtone, can be accepted only in parts. It is true that the Normans have exercised a great influence wherever they lived, whether in France, England, or Sicily, mainly because they understood the significance of the Other and tried to include rather than exclude aliens.

(23.) Bernard Lewis, A Middle East Mosaic: Fragments of life, Letters and History (New York: Random House, 2000), ix. Further references to this book will be cited in the text in parenthesis.

(24.) Sami al-Dahhan's introduction to Risalat ibn Fadlan. "Ibn Fadlan belittles what he sees, particularly in northern Europe. He depicts Europeans in a strange way as if he looks at them just like western ambassadors today look at the people of countries they call underdeveloped," p. 22. Cf. 'Aziz al-'Azmah, al-'Arab wa al-Barabirah (London, Cyprus: Riad al-Rayyes, 1991). When referring to Ibn Fadlan's attitude towards the people he meets on his journey, Azmah argues: "Ibn Fadlan did not hesitate, of course, to impose his values on others. He expresses his disgust (rightly so most of the time) of their customs," p. 37. Unfortunately, both critics wrote about their own fantasies and failed to examine carefully the traveler's language. No where did Ibn Fadlan impose his values on others. He tried to show them alternative ways. But when they refused, or declined to follow him, he did not pursue his attempt. No where did Ibn Fadlan look down on foreigners he met during his journey, or felt disgust. It is, we the readers, who may feel disgusted. Examine Ibn Fadlan's chapter in my book Modern Arabic: The Arab-European Encounter (Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1998), pp. 223-259.

(25.) Erik H. Erikson "Report To Vikram: F the Perspectives on the Life Cycle," in Identity and Adulthood, ed. Sudhir Kakav (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 28.

Samar Attar is an independent scholar living in Cambridge, MA.