>Arabs dominate only of the plains, because they are, by their savage nature, people of pillage and corruption. They pillage everything that they can take without fighting or taking risks, then flee to their refuge in the wilderness, and do not stand and do battle unless in self-defense. So when they encounter any difficulty or obstacle, they leave it alone and look for easier prey. And tribes well-fortified against them on the slopes of the hills escape their corruption and destruction, because they prefer not to climb hills, nor expend effort, nor take risks. Whereas plains, when they can reach them due to lack of protection and weakness of the state, are spoils for them and morsels for them to eat, which they will keep despoiling and raiding and conquering with ease until their people are defeated, then imitate them with mutual conflict and political decline, until their civilization is destroyed. And Allah is capable of their creation, and He is the One, the Victorious, and there is no other lord than Him.
Arabs BTFO
Alhazen was an Arab though, I'm pretty sure that's referring to nomadic Bedouin raiders.
Or just a self-hating Arab. Think of how many self-hating whites are in the West. Must be the same in the ancient Arab empire.
probably, since Bedouins are notorious for their bad deeds.
why would a self-hating Arab exist in the Islamic golden age
>why would a self-hating Arab exist in the Islamic golden age
Because during Islamic Golden Age he probably had lots of Arab privilege and he was an intelligent scholar enough to check that privilege? Same reason for self-hating whites in the Euro golden age?
were there any in the Renaissance?
Some Arabs are pretty self aware in my experience, especially upper class ones. They know their people can be pretty shit and often have a shitty mentality.
This text is from Ibn Khaldun about the banu hilali tribes you niggers. He was serving a berber king (hafsid/zianid dynasties) during those wars against the nomadic savages.
in the currant times, sure. But I just don't see it in the Golden age. I doubt a smart guy would generalize all Arabs with these bad names when he could be referring to Bedouins.
Wasn't ibn khaldun a Berber? Or Iberian?
Najd.............Yeah i'm not surprised. They are the worst of the worst
OP here I got the picture wrong, it was ibn khaldun who said this not alhazen
>But I just don't see it in the Golden age.
I do. There are always people who are critical of their own culture. Especially in times of prosperity when all kinds of different people with different cultures move to the region so that one can compare between them.
He family was from Sevilla iirc, he claimed to have some ancestors related to Muhamad in Yemen.
Then again, he wrote a whole book about people (berbers mostly) making up false genealogy for political reasons, wich is quit ironic.
You had to be related to Muhamad to be a ruler in the islamic world at this time.
Ibn Khaldun was enlighted enough to understand he was just an evolved ape, as he was a pre-Darwinian.
Probably. I wasn't alive back then so I wouldn't know.
It just makes sense that probably a lot of academics back then would be self-hating Arab just like so many are self-hating whites today.
Arab savages though, aka he's talking about his own people with the berber king and putting them down. Its like a modern white academic talking about how stupid those "white people" are while referring to rednecks. Even worse too since this guy is doing it to a Berber. Shame on him to be honest if he thinks that Berber king is going to treat him any differently.
seeLike I said, he wasn't referring to all Arabs
Alright. I was just saying that the possibility that he wasnt wouldn't be out of question
*was
I'm not denying it.
Ibn Khaldun views are very complexed and can't be summed up in some words. Himself he's an iberian genetically but with some claimed arabic background, and lived in the maghreb.
He wrote hundrends of pages about different kind of people, he travalled a lot and met a lot of people.
And like I said, he was a pre-Darwinian evolutionnist, he had some proto-scientific racism in his views, even if his religious views make him quit egalitarian.
And Ibn Khaldun knew how to talk to the kings and emperor of his time, he advised so many differents kings from differents kingdoms, was minister, vizir, chamberlain etc. in many differents places around the world.
He also sided with some tribes against the others, take part in some razzias against some tribes to spoil them, collected taxes etc.
He even managed to discuss rationnaly with Tamerlan, who is probably the most savage ruler in history. His texts were very politized and knew how to gain favors from the strongest leaders.