Many people remain ignorant of the deeply rooted connections that Muslims and Islam has had with America. While many continue to believe that Islam is a recent immigration to the United States, the vast evidences points to the existence of Muslims in the fabric of American society back to the founding of America. One such example is the Fiqh Manuscript written in the Sapelo Island in the State of Georgia by a Muslim slave known as “Ben Ali”.
Where is it now?
Early Western researchers were baffled by the contents of this manuscript, writing that it has been largely undecipherable (Martin, 1994; Syed, 2004). This manuscript currently resides among the Francis R. Goulding collection in the Hargrett Manuscripts repository at the University of Georgia (Accession # ms2807). The manuscript was obtained by Francis R. Goulding who had befriended Bilali near the time of his death and then brought to the Georgia State Library (Greenberg, 1940). It was at this point that the idea that this manuscript was an account of Bilali Muhammad’s life came about from B.L. Goulding, Francis Goulding’s son.
Who was Bilali Muhammad or Ben Ali?
The manuscript was written by Bilali Muhammad (d. 1857 or 1859), also known as Ben ‘Ali, who was born around 1760 to 1779 (Martin, 1994) in Timbo, Futa Jallon (in what is now the Guinea Republic). He was taken as a slave, either sold or kidnapped, and brought to South America with some accounts noting he was in the Bahamas and others in the West Indies (Martin, 1994). In 1802, a plantation slave owner named Thomas Spalding purchased him and brought him from Charleston to Sapelo Island (Martin, 1994). Bilali Muhammad, due to his knowledge, was given more duties than the other slaves on the plantation and even trained the other slaves to resist the British in the war of 1812.
The Bilali Manuscript- Description & Contents
Several Western researchers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries attempted to “decipher” the work, with some such as Joseph Greenberg (1940) traveling to Nigeria to ask the local religious scholars about the contents. Greenberg writes that they disputed the notion that it was a diary as it contained chapters, yet indicated that it may have been written by Jinn calling their credibility to question. It makes one wonder who Greenberg had gone to ask when the answer he received was “it’s written by jinn”.
Martin (1994) provides a more detailed description of the manuscript. It is 13 pages written on Italian laid paper with Trelune watermarks, measuring 6.25 X 3.5 inches with 14 lines per page. This type of paper was popularly used in Africa in the 19th century pointing to a possible origin of the manuscript. This does not conclusively state that the manuscript was written before he was taken to the Americas, it’s possible that he had the paper with him and wrote the manuscript after arriving in the West. Greenberg (1940) claimed that the text, whose authors name is mentioned, is a copy of the Risalah of Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani. Martin (1994) argued that the text states Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah bin Yusuf bin ‘Ubayd Al-Kiwawandhi. Progler (2014) renders the name as “Muhammad Abdullah Ibn Yusuf Ibn Abd al-Qarawanidu”.
Amir Syed (2009) corroborated this notion in his Master’s Thesis on the manuscript’s interpretation, arguing that the variations from Risalah are too many to consider the Bilali document a rendering of Ibn Abi Zayd’s Risalah. Yusuf Progler (2014) noted that the author’s spelling may have been based on the sounds of the words rather than literal accuracy. Progler preferred to consider these misspellings as “substitutions” or “innovations” rather than “mistakes” or “corruption”. He believes that rather than a “correct” usage of the language, it is a utilitarian application for the audience of the text. This strange view seems apologetic for the inaccuracies that call to question the scholarly nature of Bilali. These types of Alhaan (ألحان) were not common in Arabic manuscripts of West Africa.
Muhiddin (2017) noted that the more recent view is that the Bilali manuscript is an original work depicting the knowledge of Bilali. This claim brings up doubt as Martin (1994) cited another name written on the title page, which would indicate that this is not an original work of Bilali Muhammad. Syed (2009) and Muhiddin (2017) noted that Bilali’s clerical training in the West African intellectual hub would give credence to this claim. However, Martin (1994) argued that the scribe knew little Arabic, often making mistakes in spelling of words. This contradicts the highly educated nature of Bilali in Islamic sciences. Muhiddin (2017), citing Al-Ahari (2012), mentioned that it is likely that Bilali authored this manuscript as a guide for the Muslim slaves on Islamic Fiqh- as the phrase: “And remind, for indeed reminders benefit the believer”.
With this idea, it’s likely that Bilali could have been taken at a young age before progressing in his Islamic studies and likely worked off of memory of his Maliki studies. This would explain his poor rendering of the Arabic language and the similarities to the Risalah of Ibn Abi Zayd al Qayrawani. As I mentioned earlier, these types of mistakes were not common for scholars and students of knowledge in Africa- as is evidenced in the thousands of Manuscripts found in West Africa. The numerous Arabic errors in the Bilali manuscript support the idea that Bilali was a young when he was taken and worked off his memory of his early studies. As Progler (2014) identified, the mistakes are related to the Makharij and Sifat of the Huroof. For instance, ص is replaced with س. While Progler (2014) excuses these errors as substitutions based on difficulty of oral transmission for non-native speakers, it is not excusable for students of knowledge- especially those emerging from West Africa where Arabic scholarship is known through history. Progler (2014) also identified a mistake in the text where Bilali writes “‘Uthmaan was struck and replaced by ‘Umar”. This error highlights weakness in memory or knowledge. Much of these issues can be seen in Progler’s work (review the link in the references).
Conclusion
There are several assumptions and conclusions that have been derived by many researchers and writers related to the Bilali manuscript as seen by Syed’s (2009) doctoral study and Muhiddin’s (2017) Master’s. This is my own conclusion:
After researching the secondary sources and pictures of the manuscript, it’s apparent to me that Bilali Muhammad was not the scholar that many have made him seem. The mistakes are too numerous for a well-versed Maliki scholar- no matter the excuses supplied by Western and Muslim researchers and writers. Contemporary works of other West African scholars highlight the deficiencies in the Bilali Manuscript.
What makes the most sense based on the studies and theses that I’ve read as well as the few black and white pictures I’ve seen indicate that Bilali Muhammad attempted to write a reference for the Muslim slaves who were not as educated to practice their religion, or so that they do not forget- especially when forced by the viscous slave masters who so often tried to destroy the cultures and religions of their slaves. Bilali Muhammad clearly had a significant education in Islamic sciences and Maliki Fiqh. However, the manuscript is evidence that he used his memory to author the work. Therefore, it’s likely that he tried to construct a guide based on the Maliki Fiqh using his memory of Ibn Abi Zayd’s Risalah and his own knowledge and memory.
This would explain the similarities of Ibn Abi Zayd’s Risalah and perhaps the rendering of the name. I believe, based on this evidence, that the manuscript was authored in America and not in Africa, where it would have easily been cross-checked with other works. It’s also likely that it was written later in Bilali Muhammad’s life when he started to see the religion weaken among the Muslim slaves or for himself as his memory may have weakened.
It is safe to say that Bilali Muhammad sought to preserve the Islamic practices and knowledge by authoring this work in America based on his studies and rearing in West Africa. This is truly an Islamic manuscript that originated in early America and solidifies the notion that Islam is not a recent migration to the West, but one that has been a part of American history.
References:
Al-Ahari, M. A., & Muhammad, B. (2012). Bilali Muhammad: Muslim Jurisprudist in Antebellum Georgia. Magribine Press.
Al-Ahari, M. A. Meditations from Bilali Muhammad.
Greenberg, J. (1940). The decipherment of the ‘Ben Ali Diary’: A preliminary statement. Journal of Negro History, 25(3).
Martin, B. G. (1994). Sapelo Island’s Arabic Document: The” Bilali Diary” in Context. The Georgia Historical Quarterly, 78(3), 589-601.
Muhiddin, R. S. (2017). Islam as a Liberating Force for Muslim Slaves on the Georgia Sea Islands.
Progler, J. Y. (2014). Ben Ali and His Diary. Accessd from: http://progler.blogspot.com/2014/05/ben-ali-and-arabic-diary-part-one.html
Syed, A. (2009). Rethinking the Ben Ali diary: multiple contexts and Muslim slaves (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).