Talk:Pre-Columbian Islamic contact theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] POV
This article does not represent a scientific viewpoint - but a tendentious attempt at rewriting history. There are no conclusive evidence, or even evidence which makes probable, any precolombian contact between africa or arabia and the americas. The present article presents speculation and myth as historic fact, it doesn't cite any opposing viewpoints even though they are the (vast) majority and it doesn't adress the actual historically documented instances of early moslem presence in the americas (all of which are post-colombian). The article is extremely biased and written so tendentiously as to almost appear a hoax.The articles creator removed the disputed tag stating only that his references are not POV, which they clearly are, since no mainstream scholars at all are referenced.Maunus 19:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've moved this article to a title which is less presumptive that such contacts ever took place, and had a go at rewriting the lead in what is intended to be a more balanced and contextual assessment of these claims.
- I realise that this rewrite is open at the moment to a charge of "hey, no sources!", and I will see if I can track some down which discuss (in the contrary view) these claims are not held in high regard by mainstream historians.
- However, given that the claims in favour of pre-Columbian Islamic contact are few and far between, and more often than not it seems apparently made by rather peripheral characters (eg the Malian playwright Diwala; I guess Menzies would be an exception) it may be a little difficult in tracking down specific sources which have even bothered to counteract these claims.
- Even so, I think my rewrite does not state anything which would not be reasonably accepted as true; I would be happy though to debate and consider the point if anyone has objections to it.--cjllw | TALK 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zheng He
7day: If you want to mention he Zheng He map then do it in a way that makes it obvious why such a mention is relevant to the topic. As you wrote it it mentioned neither zheng he or islam or what the relevance of the map is to thinking that moslems were present in precolumbian america. Right now it is a non-sequitur within this article (which is a non sequitur by itself) but I am not going to rewrite it for you so I'll cut it untill you write it in a manner that proves it to be relevant.Maunus 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
it has been done and you are welcome to correct it.7day 09:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] intresting
Interesting topic... --Striver 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1421
The 1421 section should really be a minor note, with a tag pointing towards the main article. There's no point in having a large section duplicating info from the main 1421 page, though it could definitely be used to expand on the Islam-specific points. WLU 13:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken. I've just moved the tag above to the top of the article. Jagged 85 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well... the tag is now in the appropriate spot, but what I was referring to was the section itself should be (in my opinion) mostly empty. What should be there is a {{main|1421 Hypothesis}} tag, then perhaps info highlighting the points about the pre-columbian islamic contacts, notably those which are most relevant to the page itself. Apologies if I'm not being clearer. WLU 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pseudohistory
The proponents of these theories often DO present them as established fact (see Mroueh, Yucel, et. al. in the Notes and References sections); pseudohistory (i.e. "fake history") is a perfectly accurate description in this context. Furthermore, theories which are frequently repeated or believed by some people but which have no evidence to support them can also be accurately termed pseudohistory (see 1421 hypothesis regarding China). Buster Friendly 22:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you're going to use the term "pseudohistory", then you'll need to provide a citation referring to these specific theories as pseudohistory. If not, then that would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and I'll have to remove that term from the article in that case. Jagged 85 05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Delete this article?
Is there any reason not to delete this article? It doesn't address a coherent topic, and everything covered here is, or should be, addressed in Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories and 1421 hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClovisPt (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Claims for the Mali Empire
There seems to be a major problem with all the articles about Abubakari and Sultan Mansa Musa -- I have tried hard to find a reliable source for the story, and the closest I have come is this Echos of What Lies Behind the 'Ocean of Fogs' in Muslim Historical Narratives which is indeed the source of at least some of the quotes. (The article is a bit odd, last I heard the Amazon wasn't in the midst of the ocean, but fringe writers do tend to cherry pick). The full quote: "its French translation by Gaudefroy-Demombynes says: "In the North of Mali there live white Berbers under their ruler. Their tribes are Antasar, Yantar'aras, Meddusa and Lemtuna ... I asked their ruler Sultan Musa Ibn Amir Hajib (who was in Egypt returning from the pilgrimage): "How had you become ruler?" He replied: "We belong to a family where the son succeeds the father in power. The ruler who preceded me did not believe that it was impossible to reach the extremity of the ocean that encircles the earth (meaning Atlantic), and wanted to reach to that (end) and obstinately persisted in the design. So he equipped two hundred boats full of men, as many others full of gold, water and victuals sufficient enough for several years. He ordered the chief (admiral) not to return until they had reached the extremity of the ocean, or if they had exhausted the provisions and the water. They set out. Their absence extended over a long period, and, at last, only one boat returned. On our questioning, the captain said: 'Prince, we have navigated for a long time, until we saw in the midst of the ocean as if a big river was flowing violently. My boat was the last one; others were ahead of me. As soon as any of them reached this place, it drowned in the whirlpool and never came out. I sailed backwards to escape this current.' But the Sultan would not believe him. He ordered two thousand boats to be equipped for him and for his men, and one thousand more for water and victuals. Then he conferred on me the regency during his absence, and departed with his men on the ocean trip, never to return nor to give a sign of life [5]." No Abubakari mentioned. The article on Abubakari II says "Virtually all that is known of Abubakari II was recorded by the scholar Al-Umari during Kankan Musa I's historic hajj to Mecca. While in Egypt, Musa explained the way that he had inherited the throne after Abubakari II's abdication. He explained that in 1310, the emperor financed the building of 200 vessels of men and another 200 of supplies to explore the limits of the sea that served as empire's western frontier. The vessles were pirogues built from large, hollowed out trees equipped with oars and perhaps sails. The mission was inconclusive, and the only information available on its fate came from a single sailor who refused to follow the other ships once they reached a "river in the sea". According to Musa I, his predecessor was undeterred and launched another fleet with himself at the helm. In 1311, Abubakari II temporarily ceded power to Musa, then serving as his kankoro-sigui or vizier, and departed with a thousand vessels of men and a like number of supplies. After the emperor failed to return, Musa became emperor." Ignoring the difference in the number of boats, can anyone else get that from the first quote? Is Kankan Musa I definitely Sultan Musa Ibn Amir Hajib? "In the North of Mali there live white Berbers under their ruler." doesn't sound like the Emperor of Mali.--Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I have found out thwat is going on. Sultan Musa Ibn Amir Hajib was part of the Mamluk court and met Musa I, who told him the story, which he later passed on. It doesn't mention Abubakari.--Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Al-Masudi's map
I've been discussing this with some map scholars on a mailing list and showed them a copy I found. They don't think there ever was such a map and think someone may have reconstructed it from a description. At least one expert hasn't even heard of such a description. Where "Ard Majhoola" can't be told for sure from the reconstruction if it is one as it is a circular map and we don't really know what the conventions were.
Without a map, what we are left with is a description -- anyone read Arabic? I can get the text, which I am told "It is a mere description of a mythical land while describing the "earliest known populations in the earth". The whole paragraph is put into a mythical context and could never be interpreted as an indication of actual geographic description. So this needs editing but a translation of the Arabic would be very useful first. --Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Spain is not in Africa
Why is there a merger template suggesting this article should be merged into Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories? The Caliphate of Cordoba was in Islamic Spain, not Africa. Since such a merger would be pointless, I am removing the merger template from the article. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
