Trending Topics

What people are saying

20 thoughts on “Black Excellence: This African Man Is Considered By Many Historians To Be The Greatest Scholar Of All Time

  1. America owes the So-called Negro for institutional rape. Think about this for a second: "They ripped the Black pages from his-story, so the American Blacks would not know about his great Sanghi People". They were our Ancestors or Fathers. Christianity you got some explaining to do!

  2. Jo Seph says:

    It's amazing to learn about what has been hidden from mainstream history. My ancestors were Irish and English. How do I reconcile world history when it seems so many people are angry at what I represent?

  3. Lola Short says:

    I wasnt hoping i wouldnt come here and find Ahmad Baba… 🙁 so sad to see descendants of victims of slavery glorifying the perpetrators. The North Africans enslave(d) west, central and east africans en mass for centuries. Ahmad baba has a book laying down the instructions on how blacks (non arabs) can be enslaved. African aericans can tell the difference between japanese, korean, chinese, indian, etc etc but think ALL AFRICANS ARE THE SAME AND therefore ancestors. Your ancestors are turning in their graves at the way you adore Arabs and Moors

  4. Lola Short says:

    But what do i know, i am just a yoruba girl. How many african americans have had DNA tests and come up with "Moor" or "Arab" ethnic origin? But so many are Yoruba, igbo, ghana etc that should tell you something even if you dont believe those of us that are screaming at you that you are barking up the wrong tree

  5. Abu Mansur says:

    I am going to be patient with you because I understand that you are neitger a historian, anthropologist, or scholar of any variety. Your construction of race and anachronistic application to premodern African societies is, well, patently false. I knew when coming here that I would encounter a pseudo-afrocentrist trolling and you did not disappoint. Ahmed Baba was neither Arab, Moor, or Arab apologist. He was a black African Muslim who's devotion to Islam has drawn the appelation Arab by ignorant white who saught to reconcile his intelligence with their racist assumptions or Afrocentrists who's critique of Arabs and Muslims is based on thise same racist assumption. The words Moor and Arab are used differently according to the people and their motive but what is clear in the sources is a few things for you and your ilk to consider:

    1. There were no definitive racial lines dividing Arab from African. This is because Arab is defined by the Arabs as someone who's first language is Arabic or who's father was Arab. This may not seem significant but it is because the overlap genetically and culturally between Arab and black African was so great that the Arab never or could they create anything resembling racial aparthied because the racial boundaries would have been impossible to police. Look at the problems with this in the Dominican Republic and yet the Arabs with all their racism have not gone down the road they have.

    2. This has to do with how Africans saw themselves which is something that you Afrocentrists refuse to deal with so we'll deal with it here. Africans past the 8th degree North Latitude, what you call black Africa, did not speak of black or African as either their primary frame of reference or in homogeneous terms. Africans identified in terms of tribe (which they still do but this has been complicated by nationality). This is hard for you to accept. Africans who were committed to indigenous African religions and culture , those who meet your narrow and fictitious standard of approval,sold other Africans into slavery either to other Africans or to Arabs and later on Europeans. What you can not confront is the fact that these traditional Africans saw nothing objectionable about what they were doing. They did not see themselves as selling fellow Africans who were their kith and kin but strangers from another tribe who worshipped "strange" gods and customs. Their being black like them didn't enter the picture because everybody was black. Thus, the notion of a unified pan-Africanist Africa before the arrival of the Arabs is a myth with modern motives as its inspiration. In fact the ones who initiated the selling of black Africans to Arabs in the North were black Africans (Take this time to research the Baqt Treaty).

    3) Islam did not enter into Africa as foreign religion introduced by hordes of invading Arabs. Chiekh Anta Diop in his Precolonial Black Africa remarked how what accounted for the success of Islam in black Africa was that its penetration and propagation were initially peaceful. And the chronicles of Ibn Battuta stateed that how the people of Senegambia were practicing Islam was so different that some of what he saw was off putting. This points to the fact that far from the trope of foreigners imposing a new and alien religion and then staying around to micromanage its converts through force Islam in black Africa after its peaceful entry was indigenized. It is for this reason that Islam is not seen as foreign. Many things in Islamic practice are compatible with indigenous Africa polygny to name one. I always thought interesting that Afrocentrists are adamant about how the Moors going into Spain were black but magically they become something else when they invade Songhai.

    and lastly

    4) While Africans were disproportionately enslaved in some regions of the Arab Islamic world they were not the only slaves and Arabs were not the only owners. The Turks are the descendants of slaves and blackamoors ow ed Europeans during the high middle ages.

    Black Orientalism is not the answer. We must learn to not substitute one virulent falsehood for another. The anti-Muslim arguments and rhetoric that have become so dear to Afrocentrists are a double-edged sword that cut just as deep the one wielding it as it does the intended target.

  6. Eron Liddie says:

    My man, represent your culture proudly. But do understand its foundations and thereby be understanding and supportive of the global African agenda–both continental and diasporic.

  7. Lola Short says:

    Abu Mansur, you can say what you like, we know what we know. There was no Arab that was the same as my people, therefore there were differences and racial lines. The Arabs and their minions islamists brought slave raiding to my peoples villages, created chaos and suspicion and hostility throughtoit the region. Look up Bishop Ajayi Crowther story. His village was raided by Islamists. We called all those lighter skinned jihadists Fulani, they were all the same to usHe was taken from his village as a young boy, he wrote his story as a grown man. His story is the same for many Yorubas, and as i understand it so many other black African non islamic people had the same experience at the hands of 'arab' lighter skinned jihadists eg Tuaregs and communities still remember and hostiilities remain till this day. The islamists joined hands with the europeans to enslave animist black africans enmasse, upturn their peace and social order for many centuries, then turn around to say africans sold each other due to war and the idol worshipping religions. Say what you like,mwe know the truth , and we are quiet no longer.

  8. Abu Mansur Well said.I hope these Afrocentrics would read this.

  9. Abba Lord says:

    First and foremost, your assertion about the Moors is completely false. Moor is the OLDEST known name for the people whom are called African today. 99.9% of our people do not even know where the name AFRICA comes from and yet, are quick to call Moors by this name African which is completely misplaced. The information in this video is historically INACCURATE. The original Arabs were in fact Moors or what you would falsely call "black people" or "Africans". It is so sad that in the information age, people choose ignorance. Now, if I am not right, bring your sources and I will show you how bias they are and how they distorted history. Peace.

  10. Abba Lord says:

    It is CLEARLY OBVIOUS that you do NOT know that Moor is the oldest ETHNIC term for ALL of our people. Please study up.

  11. Abba Lord says:

    The information in this video is so completely bogus and historically inaccurate that I am surprised that the Atlantic Black Star ran it. I used to like this website although NO ONE IS ACTUALLY BLACK (Black is a European sociopolitica construct). The so-called Moroccan invasion of one MOSLEM nation to another, is completely bogus. I challenge the Atlanta Black Star to produce any facts backing up the claims in this video. I will no longer support this website if it cannot and I, and my organization, have a very large following. Atlanta Black Star should allow a counter to this historically inaccurate tract. Peace.

  12. McCants Vs says:

    This shit got intense quick I see lol

  13. Abba Lord please show me documentation this is not true

  14. Abu Mansur Arabs invaded Egypt and their "knowledge" blossomed.. Black people were never Muslims at all. Islam was and is a book religion… book religions are not the original religion.. If you study hieroglyphics you will see that Black People in the ancient world used pictographs to express philosophical observable ideas… Mooors are not the original Black people…… ideas…..

  15. Mike Askme says:

    So many people are so quick to dismiss the information in this clip that it amazes me, I am not going to call them out or insult them, but I will point out a few things. One being the topic of race, in antiquty there was no racial construct, there was Roman, Barbarian (everyone in Europe and beyond who were not Romans) Ethiopian (those who were darkr than Persians, everyone) and then there were Persians,(yes even those of India), it was not until European slavery did we get the notion of race. Second Islam in Africa, Islam was introduced to Africa (sub-shrahan Africa) around the 700Ad, and then it was only the ruling the class, who practiced it and then mainly for trade. Just like in Europe after the Dark Ages if you wanted to trade you better had be Christain , so it was in West and East Africa, why is this because trade was centered in the Islamic world. In fact trade between West Africa , East Africa and Asia had been going on long before Islam and because Islam was inbetween the two continents it became important. In fact no one was thinking of Europe at the time, Europe was the Isolated component in the world at the time. West Africa because of the distance from the major economic trading centers, the rulers of these Kingdoms allowed traditional religions to be practiced. It was not until the Colonial era did Islam become backwards thinking when it came to education and knowledge, and women in West Africa. As for being spread at the end of the sword, all religions have been spread at the end of the sword or by the crack of the whip.

  16. We Muslims of black descent love and appreciate of Kemetic heritage. But it was ISLAM that took us to spiritual and literary heights unmatched in Black history even surpassing that of ancient Kemet. Mansa Musa was the richest human being in world civilization as well! These two great men both Ahmed Baba and Mansa Musa WERE MUSLIMS! The Yoruba were not as affluent in scholarship as the Hausa and Fulani of West Africa.

  17. JL Abdullah says:

    Excellent akhi, I could not have said it better myself. As a recovering pan-Africanist I am thrilled to see a brother enlighten many of the Sherpas of pan Africanism not be fair, our people have suffered many atrocities and omissions from the human family leading to over sensitivity to our flawed perspective on Al Islam.

  18. Kaan Eraslan says:

    Abu Mansur An interesting remark indeed. Given the fact that Assiout was a slave market for Ethiopians and Egyptians from second millenium on, it is very probable that tribes were as you have said at the basis of the legitimacy of the transactions. As you have said, there was probably not a racial line dividing an arab from african. I fully agree on with your opposition to black orientalism.
    I do disagree on the overall vision that this tribe division imposes on the continent in general. First of all, at least for North Africa, until the fall of Roman Empire there was a power structure that could reconcile the tribal differences, Egypt. On the practical side, that almost changes nothing, because it is still the case of an african who is selling another african to some other african/hebrew or anyone really. However, one should also not forget that the State (if we can really assume its existence in some form of institution) of Egypt, rose above the tribal relations, by issuing tax laws and imposing its own administration in general. This was not bounded by land by the way, at least there is no indication of the real "fronts" of Egypt for the pharaonic period. So there was something more than tribal relations, and some sort of unity at least. This doesn't contradict at all to what you are saying on the tribal relations. It indicates that a unity is possible WITHIN the hostile tribal relations. Anciet Greeks were organised almost the same way, not that there was any political influence between those two, but still all this phyle bussiness in the administrative organisation of Attica, was practically an embodiment of how tribes can get along with each other even when in reality everybody was fending for himself. I am neither a pan-africanist, nor have any political stance with regard to these questions in general, except that I think there is something awfuly wrong about the present situation.

Leave a Reply

Back to top