Author: messere (Page 2 of 2)

After crossing a mountain, Ibn Fadlan comes to the territory settled by the Ghuzz Turks. Here, he is almost entirely concerned with the cultural traditions, customs and practices of the Ghuzz Turks but also touches briefly upon their democratic form of government.

We don’t learn much about Ibn Fadlan’s physical journey at this point or the terrain, except for the first mention of crossing a mountain and the mention of the desert as a place to cast a poor man or slave who has fallen ill and leave him to the elements.

One of the most prevalent themes in this section of text is Ibn Fadlan’s focus on the cultural and societal place of Turkish women. His first anecdote after introducing the reader to the Turks and their government is that of a woman who “bared her private parts and scratched” in the presence of the travellers, but, as her husband is pleased to comment, “protects them and allows no one near” (12). Ibn Fadlan and his companions respond to this incident by “cover[ing] our faces with our hands” and seeking God’s forgiveness in a reaction of evident horror and shock. This moment of disgust with the Turks’ cultural understanding of modesty and the female body immediately follows a commentary on the Turks’ bathing habits, the lack of which is clearly frowned upon by the Muslim traveller who himself ritually washes frequently and considers this to be good practice. By using a description of filthiness and “pollution” as a transition into discussing the female body and what parts of it should be covered, Ibn Fadlan demonstrates an understanding of modesty that requires women to “hide” certain parts of their bodies from the male viewer. Not only does he impose his own cultural understanding onto his interaction with the Turkish woman and her husband, he relates her husband’s response to his reaction, stripping the woman of any voice she may or may not have had.

Ibn Fadlan also writes of Turkish marriage customs, emphasizing that once a man has “paid his debt” to the man who “posseses” the woman he wishes to marry, he “comes without the slightest shame, walks into the house where the woman is and takes possession of her in front of her father, her mother and her brothers, and they do not stop him” (13-4). Ibn Fadlan’s use of the work “shame” indicates his disapproval of this custom, but his disapproval stems not from the ritual of purchasing a wife, or the moment of “possession” (which is understood to be intercourse and possibly, if not likely, rape) but rather the fact that intercourse takes place before the woman’s family and that “they do not stop him” (14). The individual listing of the bride’s “father, her mother and her brothers” emphasizes the disapproval and focuses the reader’s attention to the audience of the marital “tak[ing of] possession” and collaborates with the final comment that “they do not stop him” to display that this is the source of Ibn Fadlan’s discomfort, not the purchasing of a wife, like a slave, nor the possibility of rape. In fact, Ibn Fadlan’s failture to mention the reception of the bride to her husband only highlights his disinterest in women’s well-being, never mind their rights, agency, voice or representation.

In Bukhārā, Ibn Fadlan focuses his writing almost entirely on his interactions with Nasr ibn Ahmad, whom ibn Fadlan describes as “a beardless youth.” After Nasr ibn Ahmad inquires after “the Commander of the Faithful,” the letter commanding him to transfer funds from al-Fadl ibn Musa to Ahmad ibn Musa al-Khwarazmi via Ibn al-Furat is read to him, but Ahmad ibn Musa cannot be found. Here, Ibn Fadlan makes clear that the Christian, Fadl ibn Musa has played a trick by having the agent, Ahmad ibn Musa arrested in Merv and inhibiting the transfer of money. Ibn Fadlan waits in Bukhara for twenty-eight days before concluding that to wait any longer would be to risk the cold of winter and prevent further travel, and so they leave for Khwarazm. However, before continuing the narrative in Khwarazm, Ibn Fadlan dedicates a short passage to describe trade methods in the city. He relates how copper, brass and bronze dirhams are used to settle dowrys, buy and sell property, and the trade of slaves.

What appears to surprise Ibn Fadlan most is that those in Bukhara “don’t use any other type of dirhams for [the purposes of property and slave trading].” This implies that dowries are handled differently in Baghdad, which is surprising considering the manner in which Nasr in Ahmad inquires after the caliph Muqtadir, indicating that the city is under the same rule as Baghdad. Ibn Fadlan’s reaction almost seems to indicate he thinks it inappropriate or incorrect to treat marriage, essentially the trading of a “free” woman between a father and a husband, as the same or a similar transaction of property and slaves. This gives insight into the position of women in Baghdad as very hierarchal, depending on their status as slave or free.

Ibn Fadlan also makes his prejudices against non-Muslims clear in his representation of the agent who sabotaged his mission to transfer funds. He writes the name of Ibn al-Furat’s agent twice, and both times, the name is accompanied by the appositive “the Christian.” Not only is this the only mention of religion in the entire passage dedicated to Ibn Fadlan’s time in Bukhara, but it also serves to isolate Fadl ibn Musa from the other participants, making it easier to land the blame on him. The use of this appositive also indicates that Ibn Fadlan anticipates that his audience or readership will find this tidbit of information important and, perhaps, clarifying; with parchment as such a precious commodity in this time, Ibn Fadlan would not have wasted a word. This not only reveals Ibn Fadlan’s own prejudices against non-Muslims, but also confirms the stereotypes and prejudices of his audience and those for whom he was writing. This covert attack on Fadl ibn Musa on the basis of his Christianity is further cemented with the use of the word “trick” to describe his tactics in handling his employer’s affairs, a word which not only derogates his actions but also clears Ibn Fadlan of blame. He was tricked, and so he is therefore not responsible for the failure of the expedition, nor can he be written off as an irresponsible delegate.