The TurcoEgyptian Sudan

The Turco-Egyptian Sudan: A Recent Historiographical Controversy Author(s): Gabriel R.
Warburg Source: Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Bd. 31, Nr. 2 (1991), pp. 193-215 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1570579 . Accessed: 11/05/2013 07:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Die Welt des Islams.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 213.181.237.46 on Sat, 11 May 2013 07:41:52 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Die Weltdes IslamsXXXI (1991)
THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN A RECENT HISTORIOGRAPHICAL

BY
SUDAN: CONTROVERSY*
GABRIEL R. WARBURG Haifa
A historiographical study, which attempts to resolve the controversy over the Egyptian conquest and rule of the Sudan in 18211881, has recently been published in Cairo. Its author, Dr. CAbd al-CAzm Ramadan, is a well known Egyptian historian and a regular contributor to Egyptian weeklies. His book is in fact one of a growing volume of contributions on this sensitive subject which have appeared during the last decade in both Egypt and the Sudan. Ramadan's volume has an advantage over others in that it enables us to study not only the author's own views but those of several Sudanese historians who challenge him.' Why is the study of Egyptian-Sudanese relations of such importance and why does it evoke such controversial reactions? To what extent does contemporary research on this period shed new light on these two regions of the Nile Valley and is it tied up with the present geo-political realities of Egypt and the Sudan? These are the main questions with which I shall attempt to deal in the following pages. It is not my intention to examine European writings on the nineteenth century Sudan. This task has been undertaken among others
* This paper was prepared while I was a Fellow at the Annenbergh Research Institute in Philadelphia in 1989/90; an early abridged version of this paper was presented to the fifth congress on the Social and Economic History of Turkey (Istanbul, August, 1989), and will be published in its proceedings.
Ramadan, Ukdhuibat al-istinmar al-Misri li'l-Suiddn (ru yah ta'r?khiyya),(Cairo: al-hay'a al-Misriyya al-camma li'l-kitab, 1988), p. 8; Ramadan, in this book, has also included the views of several Sudanese historians, who challenged his point of view; I would like to thank Professor Ramadan for drawing my attention to this informative study.
1 CAbd al-Azim
194
GABRIEL R. WARBURG
by R. L. Hill, P. M. Holt, G. N. Sanderson, M. W. Daly and CAbbas Ibrahim Muhammad CAll.2 Our knowledge of TurcoEgyptian rule in the Sudan is to a considerable extent based on the accounts of travellers and, later in the nineteenth century, on memoirs of European officials serving in the Turco-Egyptian Sudan. These accounts, taken together with the Ottoman archives, whether in Cairo or in Istanbul, provide us with a fairly comprehensive view of the Turco-Egyptian Sudan, and some of these will therefore be listed in the following paragraphs. From travellers such as James Bruce, W. G. Browne, J. L. Burckhardt, M. Poncet and others, we receive abundant information about the Fundj Sultanate, on the eve of the Turkish invasion in 1820-21. A number of Europeans, part of whom were employed by Muhammad CAllboth during and after the conquest of Sinnar, also left us with their impressions of the Sudan in the first half of the nineteenth century. Important sources for this period include G. B. English, A Narrativeof the Expeditionto Dongola and Sennar(London, 1822), which supported by F. Cailland's Voyagea Meroe, (Paris, 1823), give us eyewitness accounts of the military conquest (English was the commander of the Egyptian artillery). The newly established Turkish administration was described by another traveller, de Dongola a Cordofanfaitdans l'annee1824 et 1825.3 J. Chiron, Voyage During recent years a number of important manuscripts, written by European travellers and officials were translated into English and edited by Richard Hill, to whom we owe more than to any other European historian, for his pioneering research on the Sudan
CAbbasIbrahim Muhammad CAl, "Contemporary British Views on The Khalifa's Rule", Sudan NotesandRecords 51 (1970): 31-46; idem,"British Attitudes
towards the Mahdist Revolution 1881-1885", al-Madjallah al-ta 'rfkhiyya al-Misriyya, in B. Lewis & P. M. Holt (eds.), Historians of the Middle East (London: Oxford Sudanese Mahdia", St. Antony's Papers: Middle Eastern Affairs, 1, London (1958):
17 (1970): 3-18; Richard L. Hill, "Historical Writings on the Sudan Since 1820",
University Press, 1962): 357-366; P. M. Holt, "The Source-materials of the 107-118; idem, "Three Mahdist Letter Books", BSOAS, 18 (1956): 227-238; M. W. Daly, "The Soldier as historian: F. R. Wingate and the Sudanese Mahdia", "The Modern Sudan, 1820-1956: the present position of Historical Studies",
3
Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 17/1 (1988): 99-106; G. N. Sanderson, Journal of African History, 4/3 (1963): 435-461.
See Sudan NotesandRecords, Vol. 29, (1948): 58-70 for an abridged translation.
THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN
SUDAN
195
under Turco-Egyptian rule.4 For the second half of the century we have an abundance of travellers' accounts, including J. Hamilton and B. Taylor for the early decades or the Journals of Emin Pasha, Samuel Baker, and Charles Gordon for the 1870s.5 However, the journals of J. A. W. Munzinger and of C. C. Giegler, who served in the Sudan in those years, are among the most informative. It is in those latter years of the Turkiyya, on the eve of the Mahdist revolt, that we have an increase in official confidential reports, written by European officers for their respective governments. Of these Colonel D. H. Stewart's Reporton theSudan, C3670, (1883), is probably one of the most comprehensive. It deals, in detail, with important aspects of the Turkiyya such as agricultural policy, taxation, slavery, etc., in order to present to HMG his suggestions for dealing with the Mahdist revolt which, at that point, was already making quick progress especially in the western Sudan among the Baqqara and the awlad al-balad of the dispersion, in Kordofan and Dar Fur. Indeed, Colonel Stewart's report had a lasting impact on British policy-makers and on their attitude towards the Turco-Egyptian rulers of the Sudan. It provided, in their view, a partial justification of the popularity of Mahdism among the Sudanese and later on was quoted (or misquoted) by Kitchener and Wingate when seeking to justify their anti-Egyptian policies in the Sudan after its reconquest in 1896-98.6 As we know from the Mahdi's own letters to Muslim leaders and from his circulars to his supporters in the Sudan, his movement was
4 Richard Hill, Egypt in the Sudan 1820-1881, (London: Oxford University Press, 1959); idem, On the Frontiers of Islam, (London: Oxford University Press, 1970); idem, The Sudan Memoirs of Carl Christian Giegler Pasha 1873-83, (London: Oxford University Press, 1984). 5 J. Hamilton, Sinai the Hedjaz and the Soudan, (London, 1857); B. Taylor, Life and LandscapesfromEgypt to the Negro Kingdoms of the White Nile, (London, 1854); S. W. Baker, Ismailia, A Narrative of the Expedition to CentralAfricafor the Suppressionof the Slave Trade Organizedby Ismail Khedive of Egypt, (London, 1874, 2 vols.); George Schweitzer, Emin Pascha, eine darstellungseines lebens und wirkens mit benutzungseiner Tagebiicher,Briefe und Wissenschaftlichen Aufzeichnungen,(Berlin: Hermann Walther, 1898); G. Schweinfurth, (ed.), Emin Pasha in CentralAfrica... (Berlin, 1888); G. B. Hill (ed.), Colonel Gordonin CentralAfrica, (London, 1881); A. E. Hake (ed.), The Journals of Major Gen. C. G. Gordon, at Khartoum..., (London: Kegan Paul, 1885). 6 G. Warburg, The Sudan under Wingate ... 1899-1916, (London: Frank Cass, 1971), esp. pp. 1-22.
196
GABRIEL R. WARBURG
basically a religious one and he specifically stated, in his manshurdt "...that his revolutions was against the Turks who changed religion and replaced it by Kufr....". In the Mahdi's and in the Khalifa's letters to the "wal of Egypt", they blatantly denounced the Khedive and his corrupt regime and called upon him to join the Mahdist movement and through it true Islam. Should the wdlf fail to obey, the Mahdi's forces would have no alternative but to undertake the djihdd against the Turks.7 There seems to have been a united antiTurco-Egyptian front, embracing both Sudanese and European contemporary observers, all claiming that it was due to Turkish mismanagement and corruption that the Sudan was ruined and hence was led to the Mahdist revolt as its only possible salvation.8 How do modern European historians view this problem? Richard Hill in his article on historical writings on the Sudan states that the Turco-Egyptian period suffered from a poverty in historical inquiry in European languages as well as in Turkish or Arabic. This was in part due to language difficulties and to the fact that the few remaining primary sources were scattered in various Egyptian and other archives, and not easily accessible. Furthermore, one should bear in mind that a significant part of the Turkish-Egyptian documents on the nineteenth century Sudan was destroyed during the Mahdiyya. "...The final deterrent to historians is the sheer dreariness and lack of relative importance of the subject as it appears to them. The Sudan was only a dependency of the Ottoman province of Egypt, and though the vice-consuls of the powers in Khartoum sometimes wrote intelligent accounts of the state of the country, the consuls-general in their remote offices in Alexandria, hardly knew of the Sudan's existence. "9
CAbbasIbrahim Muhammad ATll, "British Attitudes towards the Mahdist Revolution 1881-1885", al-madjalla al-ta'rkhiyya 17 (1970): 18; see also al-Misriyya, Manshiurdt al-imdm al-Mahdi,vol II (Khartoum: idarat al-mahffizt, 1963), pp. 277284; this is one of several Mahdist "letter books", which were published by the Sudan Archives in the 1960s. 8 For a more balanced view of this so-called first Turkiyya, see especially Richard Hill's book on Egyptin theSudan,mentioned above; see also my article in Belleten LIII/49 (1989): 769-95, titled "Some Social and Economic Aspects of Turko-Egyptian Rule in the Sudan." 9 R. L. Hill, "Historical Writings on the Sudan since 1820", in B. Lewis and P. M. Holt, op. cit., pp. 357-358.
7
THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN
197
For Egyptian historians writing during the nineteenth century on the Sudan, the problem had of course important additional dimensions. First, they described the conquest asfath rather than ghazw, thereby justifying it from an Islamic point of view. To strengthen the religious justification of this conquest even further, some of them claimed that Muhammad CAll only undertook this mission after he had received explicit requests for help from the Muslim rulers of the Sudan. Even more important, since the wall of Egypt was ordered to conquer the Sudan by the Ottoman Sultan, who was also amir al-mu'minin, the legitimacy of this conquest on religious grounds could not be doubted.'1 Second, Egyptian Muslims had entered the Sudan since the Middle Ages and had intermarried with the local population. Therefore, to accuse Egypt of an invasion or conquest was absurd, since there were no separating borders between the two regions. Third, the Sudan was a rich country which had been continuously plundered by its primitive rulers. Some of the sources claim that as a result of over-taxation and anarchy, three quarters of the population of the Sudan had perished. Hence, the survivors welcomed the Egyptian forces as their saviours and the last Hamadj ruler of Sinnar, handed his sword to Ismacl, Muhammad cAll's son. Fourth, there are those who ascribe Muhammad CAll's invasion of the Sudan to his desire to discover the sources of the Nile and protect them from European invaders. Finally, still on the positive side, the Egyptian mission of 1820/21 is described as a civilizing one, since it saved the Sudan from the renewed djdhiliyya. As is known, Muhammad CAll first visited the Sudan in 1838/39, (primarily in search of gold as will be noted below), at the age of seventy. Upon returning to Egypt, he brought with him a group of young Sudanese, sons of tribal and religious notables, in order to teach them the rudiments of science
10 This
summary is based on the following writings: Rifa'a Rafi' al-Tahtawl,
Manahidj al-albdb al-Misriyya, (Cairo, 1286 h. [1869-70]), esp. pp. 166-186; Muhammad Farld, Al-bahdja al-tawftqiyyafi muassis al-ca)ila al-Khadiwiyya (Cairo, 1308 h. [1890/91]), pp. 62-66; Mahmud Fahml, Al-bahr al-zdkhirf ta'rikh al-Cdlam wa-akhbdr al-awadil wa'l-awdkhir (Cairo, 1312 h. [1894-95]), pp. 194, 239-240; Ibrdhim Fawzi, al-Studdnbaynayaday Gordon wa-Kitchener, Vol. I (Cairo 1219 h. [1901/2]).
198
GABRIEL R. WARBURG
in his modern schools, and train them in the field of advanced agriculture. 1 The Egyptian conquest of the Sudan was undertaken for additional reasons which while less positive are still justifiable, according to the same Egyptian historians. First, Muhammad CAll's determination to annihilate the surviving Mamluks who had escaped to Dongola following the 1811 massacre in the Cairo Citadel. According to Muhammad Farid, Muhammad CAll had offered them amnesty, provided they would return to Egypt and lay down their swords. Since they refused his offer the wall had no choice but to pursue them into the Sudan.12 Second, Muhammad CAli was determined to establish a new modern army. To do so he had to get rid of those elements in his present army who opposed modernization. What better way to achieve this than to send them into the Sudan where they would either perish or receive their share of the country's booty and thus cease to oppose him?13 Third, Muhammad cAli was impressed by what he had heard of the quality and courage of black slaves from the Sudan. Hence, one of his prime goals was to seek slaves both for his army and his monopolies, from the newly conquered territories. However, as told by eyewitnesses and related by Egyptian chroniclers and historians, most of these Sudanese slaves perished en-route to Aswan or died of various diseases later on.'4 Last but not least, Muhammad CAll's quest for gold and other precious metals, ostensibly abundant in the Sudan, are mentioned practically by all historians as prompting him to expand his rule over the Sudan. His bitter disappointment and suspicion of his agents, who claimed not to have discovered these riches, led in 1838/9 to his own journey in
1 This is emphasized especially by Tahtawi, p. 174, who then relates his own mission as an educator in the Sudan to where he was exiled by CAbbas in 1852, Tahtawi, pp. 176-186; an official account of this visit written at the time, was recently published in Sudan, see Hasan Ahmad Ibrahim, Rihlat Muhammad CAli Bdsha ild al-Sziudn, (Khartoum: 1980). 12 Farid, pp. 62-3. 13 Fawzi, p. 59; Fawzl fails to explain the legitimacy of taking booty from a Muslim population which had sought Muhammad CAll's help. 14 Farid, p. 65; Fahmi, p. 194, states the new army, trained by Europeans, was instrumental in the conquest of the Sudan. This was true only in the later stages of the conquest.
199
quest of the Sudan's El-Dorado. This journey, as related by Tahtawi and others, ended in disappointment."5 As mentioned above, there are many contemporary European sources, describing their experiences in the nineteenth century Sudan. While they were generally less favorable in their writings on the Turco-Egyptian Sudan, the gap between them and their Egyptian contemporaries, is not really unbridgeable since both seem to agree with regard to the results of the Turkiyya. The differences as mentioned were more concerned with the motives of Muhammad CAll's conquest. All seem to agree with regard to his quest for slaves and gold, while most European writers pay little tribute to his religious or civilizing mission in the Sudan. Finally, of all accounts written at that time on the nineteenth century Sudan, the most comprehensive was that of a Lebanese official in the intelligence department of the Egyptian army, Na'cim Shuqayr, whose three volume book Ta rikhal-Suddnal-qadfmwa 'l-hadithwa-djughrdfiyyatuhu was first published in Cairo in 1903.16 Egypt's political parties were divided during the first half of the twentieth century on practically every issue, except the unity of Egypt and Sudan under the Egyptian Crown. The main reason for this unanimity regarding the Sudan was Britain's occupation of the Nile Valley from 1882 to 1955. England had conquered Egypt in 1882 and forced the Egyptians to evacuate the Sudan in 1885. It seduced Egypt into signing the Condominium Agreement for the administration of the Sudan, in January 1899, and thereby became in reality the Sudan's sole ruler. Even worse, Great Britain forced the Egyptian army out of the Sudan in 1924 and threatened to exploit the Nile waters in the Sudan in order to subjugate Egypt. Every decision of British policy makers in the Sudan was therefore viewed by Egyptian politicians as aimed against Egypt while Sudanese politicians, propagating their country's independence, were denounced in Egypt as traitors and collaborators.'7
Tahtawi, pp. 166-169; see also above fn. 11. A one volume reprint of Shuqayr's book was published under the title Djughrdfiyyatwa-ta'rikh al-Suddn, (Beirut: dar al-thaqafa, 1967); for the Egyptian conquest and its repercussions see especially, pp. 491-511; 631-636. 17 For details see my article: "British Rule in the Nile Valley, 1882-1956, and Robinson's Theory of Collaboration", Asian and African Studies, 15 (1981): 287-322.
16 15
200
GABRIEL R. WARBURG
In these circumstances it seems hardly surprising that even Egyptian historians were by and large united in propagating the "unity of the Nile Valley" as a noble anti-imperialist cause, justified on historical, religious and economic grounds. To admit that Egypt might have erred in conquering the Sudan, or sinned in ruling it, was tantamount to treason. Furthermore, since England was advocating the right of self-determination for the Sudanese, (leading to separatism!), this was clearly viewed in Cairo as an imperialist plot. "Divide and rule" was Britain's aim in the Nile Valley just as it was her aim in other parts of the empire. A brief look at the views of three of Egypt's leading historians of that period will indicate this general historiographical trend. CAbd al-Rahman al-RafiCi who, following a detailed description of the reasons leading to Muhammad CAll's conquest of the Sudan, sums up as follows: ...The Sudan's conquest was therefore endowed with pure nationalism and its goal was of the most exalted and noble endeavors, since its object was the creation of a united Nile Valley... And with the conquest of the Sudan the territory of Egypt expanded and reached three times of what borders. It is no wonder that it had been, and [it] reached most of it natural we regard the conquest of the Sudan as the best of Egypt's wars in the era of Muhammad CAll...18 Hence, according to al-RafiCi, the conquest of the Sudan was in no way an aggression on the Sudanese. Rather, it should be viewed as a war in support of national unity just as the wars of England against Scotland's separationist intentions, or the Civil War in the United States, which sought to overcome the divisive designs of the South. No one, claimed al-Rafici, would today seek to turn the clock back and advocate separatism. This is true of the Nile Valley too since: "There is no security nor independence for the inhabitants of the North or the South of the Nile Valley, except within the unity of this great valley."19
18 'Abd al-Rahman
al-Misriyya, third printing, 1951), p. 170 (italics mine); reasons for the conquest are enumerated on pp. 167-170; see also idem, Misr wa'l-Suddn alft awd'il Cahd ihtildl, (Cairo: maktabat al-nahda al-Misriyya, 1948).
19 Rafici, CAsr, pp. 171-2; compare with Ramadan,
Muhammad CAlf, (Cairo: maktabat al-nahda al-RafiCi, CAsr
pp. 63-67.
201
Professor Muhammad FuPad Shukri was rightly regarded as the most eminent Egyptian historian of the Sudan, during the fist half of the twentieth century. His book "Egypt's rule in the Sudan" first published in Cairo in 1945, (al-hukm al-Misrt fJ al-Sudan), became the best researched book on that topic, written by an Egyptian historian. So much so, that he was charged by Nokrashi Pasha, Egypt's prime minister in the post world-war II period, to prepare Egypt's claim on the Sudan for the security council debate in 1947. In Nokrashi's speech, Shukri inserted a lengthy quotation from Winston Churchill's River War written by that young British journalist, following his experiences during Kitchener's military campaign against the Mahdist state in the Sudan in 1896-98. In it he compared the Nile to a palm tree, with its roots in the Sudan and its foliage in the Egyptian Delta, "...the Sudan is thus naturally and geographically an integral part of Egypt." This quotation has found its way into practically every study on the Sudan emanating from Egyptian historians, including Ramadan's recent book mentioned above.20 In his book "Egypt and the Sudan, a history of the political unity of the Nile Valley, 1820-1889", Shukri clearly regards this unity as an internationally recognized fact. Moreover, he states that the Mahdist movement was no more than a revolt against the legitimate sovereign of the Sudan, namely the Khedive of Egypt, and that in reconquering the Sudan in 1896-98, Egypt was only reasserting its legitimate rights.21 Furthermore, according to Shukri, the eternal unity of Egypt and the Sudan was Muhammad
20
cil Official 2nd year, No. 70 (1947): 1745-1767; Ramadan p. 108; Egyptian Records, historians, on the whole do not elaborate Churchill's reasons for writing this passage, namely the power-struggle between England and its European antagonists in the Nile Valley, especially France, culminating in Fashoda in 1898; see Winston Churchill, TheRiverWar,(New York: Award Books, 1964), pp. 3345; Dr. Ahmad Fu'ad, an Egyptian internist and an active member of the nationalist party compared Egypt and the Sudan, to the human body, its "thinking head" in Egypt and its "active body" in the Sudan, with the Nile as its heart; see Anwar al-Djundi, A(ldmwa-ashdb aqldm,(Cairo: dar nahdat Misr, n.d.) p. 41.
21 Muhammad Fu'ad Shukri, Misr wa'l-Sudan, ta'rfkh wahdat wddz al-Nil alsiydsiyyafi al-qarn al-tdsic Cashar,1820-1899, (Cairo: dar al-MaCarif, third printing,
"Nokrasky Pasha's Speech before the Security Council",
U.N. SecurityCoun-
1963) pp. 5-6.
202
GABRIEL R. WARBURG
CAll's main concern ever since the settlement of the Syrian crisis in 1840-1841. In other words, Muhammad Ali justified this unity not only in accordance with the "right of conquest", but stated that it was based on the material, cultural, and security needs of the people of Egypt and the Sudan. Egypt's "civilizing mission" in the Sudan, was spelled out by Muhammad CAllin his "Journal", published in April 1839, following his famous tour of the Sudan. In it he mentions explicitly that the Nile waters were essential for the Egyptians and the Sudanese. Since the free flow of the Nile was constantly threatened by the rulers of Ethiopia and the Nuba[?], who sought to divert its waters in order to harm Egypt and the Sudan, it was clear that the two had to remain united in order to protect their interests.22 Hence, Shukri concludes that the Condominium Agreement of 1899 did not change the status of the Sudan, as being under Egyptian (Ottoman) sovereignty. Britain's role, as a co-domini was a purely temporary administrative one and therefore could not and did not undermine Egypt's sovereign rights.23 The third Egyptian historian, who wrote extensively on the history of the Sudan, both under the Fundj Sultans of Sinnar, and during the Turkiyya, was al-Shatir Busayll CAbd al-Djalil. In his book "An outline History of the Nile Valley Sudan", he examines the end of the Fundj Sultanate, but concentrates on the nineteenth century Sudan. Unlike most other Egyptian historians, al-Shatir Busayll spent some thirty three years in Sudan's civil service, and hence was in a position to study the realities of the twentieth century Sudan alongside its earlier history.24 And yet its author, in line with other Egyptian historians, was convinced that the Egyptian conquest of 1820-1: ...was in no way an expansion of exploitation, as given by a number of writers. It was an organization to promote local conditions by putting an end to the tribal wars and anarchy, and prevent foreign influence from
Ibid., pp. 10-13; see also fn. 11 above. Ibid., 537-8. 24 Al-Shatir Busayll CAbdal-Djalil, Maadlim Szidan wddial-nil, min al-qarn ta'r?kh al-'ashirild al-qarnal-tdsicCashar al-milddi,(Cairo: maktabat al-CArab,1967); the above English title is that used by the publisher.
22 23
203
gaining foothold therein... This was so because Egypt had no beliefs [sic.] and desires in the sister land...25 According to al-Shatir Busayll, fear of Mamluk plots played an important role in Muhammad CAll's decision to conquer the Sudan. First, because the Mamluks who had escaped to Dongola after 1811 had a disturbing impact on local tribal society in so far that they interfered and instigated intertribal warfare. More important was Egypt's fear that the Mamluks were plotting, in alliance with Ethiopia, to create a state of their own in the Horn of Africa, with European backing.26 In fact, al-Shatir regards the 1820-21 conquest as nothing more than a police mission, undertaken in order to restore peace and stability to the southern half of the valley. The fact that some leading Egyptian Culamd) accompanied this misin a similar the author was fashion, namely as sion, interpreted by an attempt to guide the people of the Sudan towards an understanding of Egypt's peaceful intentions, which were guided by its Islamic beliefs.27 Mistakes were made by Egyptian administrators, especially in their treatment of tribal society and leadership. However, these mistakes were the result of ignorance and not of ill will. A complete reform of the Sudan's administration was undertaken by Egypt in mid-century, under Muhammad Sacid. This reform, according to al-Shatir Busayll, granted the local chiefs and the inhabitants the opportunity to manage their own affairs. What then went wrong? ...Unfortunately, these decrees were too late to function as planned, owing to the appearance in an effective weight of the imperialistic beliefs and desires which brought the Nile Valley within its orbit...28 Therefore, according to al-Shatir of the first fifty years of Egyptian shall see that stability and peace was only in the 1870's, that as British, intervention in the Nile
25 26
Busayli, if we look at the record administration in the Sudan, we were prevailing in the Sudan. It a result of European, primarily Valley, this peaceful coexistence
Ibid., p. VIII, quoted from the author's introduction in English. Ibid., pp. 126-7; it was with this in mind that Muhammad CAli sent a mission to Sinnar in 1813. 27 Ibid., pp. 137-9. 28 Ibid., p. IX; quoted from the English introduction.
204
GABRIEL R. WARBURG
was brought to and end. Indeed, the author picks Samuel Baker's mission to the Equatorial regions in 1869 as a turning point leading ultimately to the Mahdist revolt. This was so since under the Khedive IsmaCil the number of European Christians appointed to leading administrative positions grew considerably. Moreover, under Gordon's governor-generalship, the policy adopted in the Sudan ignored completely local customs, traditions and sensitivities. This was especially true with regards to the suppression of the slave trade, which failed to take into account the prominent position of slaves in Sudanese society.29 Hence, the Mahdist uprising was no more than an Islamic revolt against European mismanagement. The Mahdi and his followers exploited the popular resentment of these Europeans by the people of the Sudan, especially those whose economic and social well-being had been destroyed by Gordon's anti-slavery measures. Hence, those who interpret the Mahdi's revolt as aimed against Egypt are mistaken. The Mahdi's mission was to liberate dar al-Isldm and to rid it of European domination.30 In 1953 the new revolutionary Egyptian government published a comprehensive account of Egyptian-Sudanese relations in order to provide final proof for what it regarded as an historical fact. The unity of religion, language and culture was, according to this socalled "Green Book", the natural and undisputable outcome of the Nile which enabled the free flow of Islam into the heart of Africa. The unity of Egypt and the Sudan was therefore the result both of the Ottomanfirmans of 1841 and 1866 and of the common civilization binding the two regions.31 Nonetheless, Egypt's Revolutionary Command Council granted the Sudanese the right of selfdetermination. While this right had already been half-heartedly recognized by some of Egypt's post-war governments, notably the Wafd in November 1951, they always emphasized that selfdetermination was only within the united Nile Valley and under the common Crown of the King of Egypt and the Sudan. After the deposal of King Faruq in 1952, this obstacle was no longer there.
29 30 31
Ibid., pp. 190-2; see also pp. 150-165.
Ibid., pp. 193-4.
dn 13 fibrayir sanat 1841 ild 12 Fibrayir 1953 (Cairo: Ri'asat madjlis Al-Siudn al-wuzara', 1953), pp. 193-4.
THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN
SUDAN
205
Furthermore, President Muhammad Nadjib and his fellow officers truly believed that the Sudanese would opt for unity with Egypt. Like all Egyptians of that generation, they too had been brought up with the belief in "unity of the Nile Valley" as the only possible solution of the "Sudan question."32 It is therefore not surprising that Egyptian historians of the post1952 period have continued on the whole to relate the history of the Sudan in a similar fashion. Indeed, their studies on EgyptianSudanese relations read as if this long-cherished unity was the only "natural" situation, disrupted by the imperialist invasion of the Nile Valley. "The Sudan is the natural extension of Egypt", writes al-Sayyid Nasr,33 while CAbd al-Azm Ramadan describes the Sudan as "Egypt's strategic depth", and claims that Egypt provided the Sudan with similar strategic advantages. Historically, states Ramadan, there were no borders between Egypt and the Sudan, rulers of one region ruled the other and territories frequently changed hands. Since nationalism was unknown in both Egypt and the Sudan it was only natural that Egyptian Culama' from Al-Azhar asked Muhammad CAl, a foreigner, to rule over them. Similarly, there was nothing wrong in Sudanese Muslim leaders asking the Egyptian wdll to conquer their region. They were predominantly motivated by Islam and hence the ethnic origin of the ruler was of no consequence.34 Ramadan therefore totally rejects the statement of Egyptian and Sudanese historians who claim that Turco-Egyptian rule in the Sudan had imperialistcolonial motives. Egypt's control of the Sudan, claims Ramadan, was on the whole benevolent. It introduced orderly government, reduced taxation, when they seemed too high, and appointed Sudanese notables to important administrative positions. It therefore was a "legitimate extension" of the borders of Egypt just as
32 On this see the balanced account of Hussein Zulfikar Sabry, Sovereignty for the Sudan, (London, 1982); Sabry was at the time a relatively junior officer stationed in Khartoum. He was ordered, by Egypt's new rulers, to reach an agreement with the Sudanese political parties which he achieved successfully; compare with Ramadan, pp. 132-57. 33 Dr. Al-Sayyid Nasr, Al-wudjud al-Misrtfi- Ifriqydfif al-fatra min 1820 ild 1899, (Cairo: dar al-macarif, 1981), p. 13. 34 Ramadan, pp. 24-6.
206
GABRIEL
R. WARBURG
the United States had extended its dominions in the nineteenth century to the South and the West of the American Continent.35 We thus arrive at another important aspect of Egyptian rule in the Sudan namely that of the slave trade. This, Ramadan rightly states, was not an Egyptian invention and had been widely practiced in the Sudan under the Fundj Sultanate by European traders as well as by others. Al-Sayyid Nasr elaborates this point by quoting from Muhammad CAll's letter to his son Ismacll in which he ordered him to send to Egypt an immediate supply of 6000 slaves, since that was "the main reason for your coming to that country". The fact that many of these slaves were in fact Muslims, and thus according to Muslim law should not have been enslaved, did not concern the Egyptian wal?. Furthermore, the brutal attack by Turkish-Egyptian units on Muslim tribes in the Sudan in order to enslave them, caused socio-economic disruption and harmed the community. Hence the wdli was forced to modify his previous order and instead the Sudanese were ordered to sell their slaves or hand them over in lieu of taxes.36 The balance sheet of Egypt's venture into the Sudan is, according to al-Sayyid Nasr, positive as summarized under the following headings: a. The unification of the various provinces into one political entity b. The imposing of law and order. c. The expansion of internal and external trade. d. The termination of the slave trade. e. The extension of railways and communications. f. The building of modern towns and fortresses in strategic places. g. The discovery of the sources of the Nile. h. The introduction of civilization through education and social development. Without Egypt's pioneering civilizing mission, concludes alSayyid, "not a single European could have put his foot in the midst of that continent".37 Ramadan agrees on the whole but adds that there was no Egyptian exploitation of the Sudan. Egypt covered the
Ibid., pp. 59-66; compare with al-RafiCi, CAsr,pp. 171-2. Ramadan, pp. 27-8; al-Sayyid Nasr, pp. 31-40; Muhammad CAli's letter to his son was sent on 9 Rabic al-awwal 1237(h) [1827] and is in the CAbdin archives. 37 Ibid., pp. 389-390.
36
35
THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN
SUDAN
207
Sudan's annual deficits which, according to Ramadan, amounted to some three million Egyptian pounds. This was done since Egypt and the Sudan were regarded as one united country in which there were neither exploiters nor exploited. Egypt civilized the Sudan by building mosques, schools and educating its teachers. Indeed, if proof was needed of this good will it was provided through the sending of Egypt's most learned teacher, Rifaca Rafic al-Tahtawi, to the Sudan.38 In a recent study by Dr. Hamdana Hasan, on the economic and social aspects of Egyptian rule in the Sudan, many of the achievements mentioned by al-Sayyid Nasr, are further elaborated. Moreover, the author quotes Muhammad CAll's statements that the Sudan is a primitive country and its inhabitants uneducated and lazy. Hence the civilizing mission of Muhammad CAll and his officers was of prime importance. ...Muhammad CAli'sattempts to execute his agricultural programme [in Sudan], were not a reform of something which was originally there as was the case in Egypt, but his attempts were to create something new which was not to be found previously.39 In another study, published in Egypt in the 1970s, its author emphasized that the Sudanese had always viewed the nineteenth century rule in the Sudan as Turkish, rather than Egyptian. This was so since throughout the "Turkiyya" there were hardly any Egyptian officials in the Sudan. Secondly, he claimed that there was remoteness between rulers and ruled, leading to outright hostility. The suppression of slavery is again singled out as the most important factor leading to discontent.40 When analyzing the reasons leading to the Mahdist revolt, Dr. CAll Muhammad Barakat maintains that the decline of the administration in both Egypt and the Sudan occurred in the 1870s as a result of European penetration. The corruption of this
38 Pasha, see also Ramadan, pp. 67-68; he was exiled to the Sudan by CAbbas above fn. 11. 39 Dr. Hamdana Allah Mustafa Hasan, Al-tatawwur wa 'l-idjtimdfi alal-iqtisddf Suddn,1841-1881,(Cairo: dar al-macarif, 1985), pp. 14-25. 40 Ibrahim Shahata Hasan, Misr wa'l-Suddn, (Alexandria: mu'assasat al-thaqafa al-djamiciyya, 1971), pp. 102-117.
208
GABRIEL R. WARBURG
administration, was brought about by foreigners, and it was Muslim reaction against European penetration which led to the Mahdist revolt and paved the way for imperialism.41 Therefore, the accusations levelled against Turco-Egyptian corruption and are since real culprits unwarranted the clearly mismanagement were the European officials who were imported into the Sudan by the Khedive Ismacil. These assertions do not fully conform with the information we find in most other sources. First, it is generally agreed that the Sudan, under Turkish rule, suffered from over-taxation, at least in comparison with what was customary under the Fundj. Second the raison d'etre of the conquest of the Sudan was to "activate" its resources for the benefit of the Egyptian treasury. Whether Muhammad 'Ali and his successors succeeded to realize this aim, or had to cover the Sudan's deficits, is really immaterial. Third, the new Ottoman administrators categorized most of the Sudanese as "superstitious sufis, pagans or just black slaves". Accordingly only a thin layer of "proper Muslims, reinforced from Egypt, were to be treated as fully civilized human beings". Last but not least, it is certainly true that European penetration into the administration of the Sudan, since the 1870s, has to be taken into account when analyzing the reasons leading to the Mahdist revolt. However, any objective reading of the Mahdi's or the Khalifa's letter books, clearly indicates that the djihddwas primarily against the "Turks" and that the chronology of their wrong-doings started long before the European penetration under Khedive IsmaCil.42 Why do Sudanese historians, on the whole, reject the interpretations of their history as offered by many Egyptian historians? Firstly, one should bear in mind that scholarly research by Sudanese on their own history, written prior to the 1950s, was rather scarce. European writers were, as noted above, largely effected by what had become common knowledge about the "barCAll Muhammad Barakat, Al-siydsa al-Bar.tdniyya wa-stirddd al-Siddn 18891899, (Cairo, 1977), pp. 8-11. 42 One of the most comprehensive recent studies on these aspects is, Anders Bjorkelo, Preludeto the Mahdiyya, Peasants and Tradersin the Shendi Region, 1821-1885 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), see for instance pp. 35, 52; indeed the very title of the book is suggestive.
41
209
barous, corrupt and ineffective" Turkish administration of the Sudan. Egyptian historians, on the other hand, viewed the history of the Sudan as part of their own and hence defended the record of their Turco-Egyptian ancestors. It was, in their view, part of an ongoing battle between the British Empire, occupying the two parts of the Nile Valley, and between the people of Egypt and the Sudan striving for independence and unity. Secondly, Sudanese historians, whether trained in the Middle East or in Europe, were on the whole less effected by the "unity of the Nile Valley." For them the issue was decided in 1955 when the Sudan opted for independence and hence their treatment of Turco-Egyptian rule became a study in colonialism. The history of the Sudan, prior to independence was accordingly divided into three periods: the first "Turkiyya", that of Turco-Egyptian colonialism from 1821-1881, followed by the Mahdiyya, pioneering proto-nationalist independence and lasting until 1898, and finally the second "Turkiyya", as it was popularly called, that of Anglo-Egyptian colonialism in the years 1899-1955. It is understandablewhy Egyptian historians of the post-colonial period, find it offensive to have Muhammad CAll'srule of the Sudan compared with that of Kitchener and Wingate. They therefore criticize their Sudanese colleagues of having been "brainwashed" by imperialist propaganda and regard any study, attributing colonialist motives to Egyptian rule in the nineteenth century Sudan, as unwarranted. It makes little difference whether these Egyptian historians belong to the prerevolutionary bourgeois school of thought, or are progressive or even Marxist in their interpretation of history. In their view there cannot be an "objective" interpretation of the Nile Valley's history, which does not accept its unity as axiomatic and as stemming from natural geographic, cultural and historic roots. When summarizing Muhammad CAll'srule in the Sudan, Professor Mekki Shibeika, the doyen of Sudanese historians, wrote as follows: administration ...MuhammadCAll's of the Sudanwas a typicalTurkish it so was constituted as to squeezethe maximum one; highlycentralized, amountof money out ot the inhabitants,and requiringthem to submit completelyto the ordersand measuresof the government...
210
GABRIEL R. WARBURG
Shibeika praised the Turkish administration for its civilizing efforts and for its attempts to modernize agricultural methods. However, he concludes: and the cruel methods used for their collection... Although Muhammad CAli,in the end, stopped the raiding expeditions for slaves..., officials in the Sudan were busy enriching themselves as quickly as they possibly could, and in this way the foundation of corrupt administration was laid by them...43 Shibeika was even more outspoken in what was probably his last contribution on this topic. In his book "Modern Sudan's resistance to conquest and domination", he condemned - amongst others the Turco-Egyptian conquest of the nineteenth century as an unwarranted act of aggression against a Muslim state. He singled out the Jacaliyyin revolt - led by Makk [malik] Nimr in 1822, as a symbol of Sudanese resistance and denounced the mass assassination of thousands of JaCalis by the Turks, as the biggest blood-bath in the Sudan's history.44 Shibeika therefore fully justified the Mahdist revolt as a religious uprising - namely djihdd - against the Turkish corrupters of Islam. Whereas Shibeika mentioned the role played by Europeans and especially Englishmen, in the final stages of Turco-Egyptian rule, it is the latter which prompted the Mahdist uprising and not European penetration.45 Shibeika's book deals with three conquests, first the Abyssinian invasion of 1744, then that of the Turks in 1820-21, and finally the Anglo-Egyptian conquest of 1896-99. In Sudanese modern history all three are condemned as acts of aggression regardless of whether they were executed by Christian or Muslim rulers. "No patronizing of our history", writes another Sudanese historian, Dr. Hasan Ahmad IbrahTm, in response to Ramadan's views. Egyptian historians have a paternalistic attitude towards the Sudan. They describe its history as an appendix to that of Egypt
43 Mekki Shibeika, TheIndependent Sudan,(New York: Robert Speller & Sons, 1959) p. 16; for his views on the Turkiyya see also al-Suddn fial-qarn: 1819-1919, (Cairo, 1947). 44 Maki al-Suddn al-hadith Shibaykah, Muqdwamdt li'l-ghazwwa'l-tasallut (Cairo: al-munazzama al-carabiyyali'l-tarbiya wa'l-thaqafa wa'l-Culim, 1972), pp. 38-9.
45
... the curse of his [Muhammad CAll's] administration was heavy taxes
Ibid. pp. 76, 84, 110-111.
211
and justify whatever Egypt did in the Sudan as serving the "welfare" of the Sudanese. Ibrahim quotes various letters written and to his sons Ismacl and by Muhammad CAll to the defterddr Ibrahim, in which he explained in detail what Egypt really wanted in the Sudan namely slaves, gold, and other metals. There is no mention of the welfare of the Sudanese nor of their education and health. Furthermore, according to Ibrahim, the Sudan was Muslim and did not require Egyptian interference to enhance or purify its Islam. He quotes a letter written by the governor of Kordofan to the defterddr, rejecting the Egyptian conquest on Islamic grounds.46 Dr. Ibrahim al-Hardalu writes in a similar vain in his book on the cultural ties between Egypt and the Sudan. The true motives of the conquest of the Sudan were, in his view, the exploitation of its people. Whether you call it colonialism or not does not really matter. They misruled and exploited the people of both Egypt and the Sudan and thus brought upon themselves the Mahdist revolution. The Mahdi sought to liberate Egypt as well as Turkey, from their corrupt and exploiting rulers. However, they turned against him and therefore the cultural links between the two parts of the Nile Valley were discontinued thereafter.47 Muhammad CUmar Bashir, an Oxford educated Sudanese historian, also described the Turkish (and not the Egyptian!) conquest of the Sudan in 1820-21, as leading to alien rule. There was no "civilizing mission" but rather the exploitation of the Sudan too, as part of the ruler's monopolies. The Mahdist revolt, just like that of CUrabi in Egypt, was aimed against this foreign dominated Turkish elite. Therefore, states Bashir, it is no wonder that many true Egyptian nationalists supported the Mahdi's revolt although it was aimed against their own ruling elite.48
46 Hasan Ahmad Ibrahim, "La wisaya fTal-ta'rikh... ya Doctor", Dr. Ibrahim is one of the Sudanese historians who have challenged Ramadan's views but were included by him in his book, see Ramadan, pp.29-36. 47 Dr. Ibrahim al-Hardalu, Al-Ribdt al-thaqdfi bayna Misr wa'l-Suddn, (Khartoum: dar al-djamica, 1977), especially pp. 8-9, pp. 18-19. 48 Muhammad CUmar Bashir's article was published in al-Siydsa al-dawliyya, 51 (1978): 17-23, titled, "al-djudhur al-ta'rikhiyya wa'l-waqic al-muCasir li-tadjribat al-takamul"; this historical survey in the context of contemporary politics dealing with the integration of Egypt and the Sudan is indeed part of the difficulty faced by both politicians and historians.
212
GABRIEL
R. WARBURG
The fear and suspicion of Egypt's ulterior motives have survived into the twentieth century Sudan and have become part of the historical and political heritage of the neo-Mahdist Ansar. Sayyid CAbd al-Rahman al-Mahdi and his followers did not need British prompting nor "brain washing" in order to express their hostility against Turkish rule in the nineteenth century Sudan. Moreover, they regarded the Egyptian partnership in the twentieth century Condominium as a direct continuation of Turkish imperialism in the previous century.49 On 5 October 1950, the New York Times published a speech made by Professor H. K. Selim, a member of the Egyptian delegation to the United Nations Assembly. In it Selim claimed that "...the unity of Egypt and the Sudan was established since the dawn of history, it is nonsense to talk of Egyptian Imperialism in the Sudan...". The response of the Sudan's Umma party was both prompt and outspoken. Its assistant secretary for foreign affairs responded in a letter to the New York Times, (16 November 1950), in which he stated that "the Sudan is a separate entity since the dawn of history" and that Muhammad CAll's conquest of the Sudan was nothing more than an imperialist invasion, in quest of money and manpower. To this one may add CAbd alRahman CAliTaha's speech in Khartoum in which he thanked the Egyptians for declaring their intention to "colonize the Sudan". Luckily, concluded Taha, Egypt is openly challenging the U.N. Charter, "which does not allow her to enslave others".50 In his book "The Sudan for the Sudanese", mentioned above, Taha accused the Egyptians of regarding the Sudan as an appendix to Egypt. Egypt is obsessed by its population problem and therefore
See for instance 'Abd al-Rahman 'AlI Taha, Al-Suddn li'l-Suddniyyin, (Omdurman: sharikat al-nashr, 1955) especially pp. 11-14; see also Djihddjfisabfl al-istiqldl (Khartoum: al-matbaCa al-hukfmiyya 1965) which tells the history of the Sudan, as viewed by Sayyid CAbdal-Rahman al-Mahdi and related by his grandson al-Sadiq al-Mahdi; on the evolvement of the Ansar's hostility against Egypt see G. Warburg, "From Ansar to Umma: Sectarian Politics in the Sudan, 19141945", Asian andAfricanStudies9/2 (1973): 101-153. 50 All the above are quoted from the Public Record Office, FO/371/80388; Taih's speech was reported in al-Ntl, 18 Nov. 1950; it is of course significant that British representatives in Khartoum and New York quoted these disagreements with some relish, since they coincided with what they believed to be the true interests of the Sudanese and of their own government.
49
213
wants to dominate the Sudan. It requires its waters and its vast territories for free immigration of settlers from Egypt. All Egypt's beautiful words about "independence through unity" are aimed at one thing only: to secure Egyptian interests in the Sudan.51 Over one hundred years have passed since the Mahdi's revolt against the first Turkiyya and one hundred and seventy years since the Turco-Egyptian army conquered the Sudan. Yet Egyptian and Sudanese historians remain as divided as ever about the true motives of this conquest and fail to agree with regard to its achievements or failures. This is in part the result of social and economic circumstances which continue to dominate the Nile Valley and therefore undermine objectivity. It is also the result of over half a century of British domination of the Nile Valley. England did not create the so-called "Sudan question" nor was it responsible for the real shortcomings of Turco-Egyptian rule. However, its policy in the Nile Valley, during the "Scramble for Africa", as well as its anti-Egyptian propaganda thereafter, found its way into many so-called historical accounts, which lack both in accuracy and in objectivity. This made the task of Egyptian and Sudanese historians even more difficult, since it was quite clear that British policy makers, who aimed at an independant Sudan, relied on these so-called objective studies. There can however be no doubt as to the deep-felt hostility against the Turks which prevailed in the Sudan on the eve of the Mahdist revolt. This hostility was not a British invention nor were the British fully responsible for its impact on twentieth century Sudanese. Mekki Shibeika was probably the first historian to analyze this in a more objective manner. Shortly thereafter Richard Hill published his balanced study on Egypt in theSudan, which was followed by other contributions on that period. In conclusion, Muhammad CAli's conquest of the Sudan was certainly motivated by his pursuit of imperial expansion, his need for cheap and easily accessible manpower for his army and industries, and his quest for the Sudan's natural resources. It is also true that Muhammad cAli and his successors failed to realize most of these aims and that the Sudan remained a burden on the Egyptian
51
CAbd al-Rahman
CAll Taha, op. cit., p. 14.
214
GABRIEL R. WARBURG
treasury during the sixty years of Turco-Egyptian rule. Furthermore, the "Turkiyya" can certainly be credited with bringing the Sudan under centralized government and with opening it to the world market for the first time in its history. Whether Egypt should also be credited with bringing civilization to the Sudan is rather more questionable, since Egypt's efforts in this sphere were on the whole rather half-hearthed and hence largely ineffective. Similar motives were probably behind other colonial conquests undertaken in Africa or elsewhere in the nineteenth century. And yet there is a difference. First, because the Islamic umma did not really recognize national entities or boundaries. The concept of a nation-state was imported into the Muslim world from Christian Europe and did not motivate Muhammad CAll's conquest nor Sudanese resistance. Second, it would be wrong to ignore geographical or historical considerations, when discussing nineteenth century Egyptian expansion into the southern Nile Valley. Of the four military campaigns, undertaken during Muhammad CAli's reign, the conquest of the Sudan was undoubtedly the most logical and justifiable. United by religion, culture and language, the peoples of the Nile Valley were dependent on the Nile for their very survival. But the Turkiyya ended in the Mahdist revolt and the record of Turco-Egyptian rule, as viewed from the Sudan, is at best partly corrupt and at worst totally negative. This dubious record can be blamed in part on European, mainly British, intervention and propaganda. The forceful suppression of slavery, undertaken primarily by European officials appointed by the Khedive Ismacil but acting in accordance with British interests, was the single most important reason leading to the Mahdi's success. This was so as a result of the utter dependency of Sudanese society and its agriculture, on slave-labor, which had evolved during the nineteenth century. However, responsibility rests predominantly on Egyptian (Turkish) shoulders and should not be whitewashed by politicians nor justified by historians. The main shortcoming of Egyptian historical writings on the Sudan was that it evolved as part of a sincere belief in the unity of the Nile Valley, from which it failed to disengage itself.
THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN
SUDAN
215
As we approach the end of the twentieth century we may expect the study of the Sudan's history to become 'gradually less emotional. The new generation of Egyptian and Sudanese historians is not as burdened by the heritage of their past as their predecessors were. Furthermore, the sheer volume of new scholarly historical research on the Sudan in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, based on Turkish, Egyptian and European primary sources, will gradually diminish the impact made by early historians. The contributions made by these historians to our knowledge of the TurcoEgyptian Sudan, should not be underestimated. However, whether Egyptian, Sudanese, or European, their research, understandably, lacked the necessary perspective and was in part confused by nonacademic considerations.

The TurcoEgyptian Sudan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The TurcoEgyptian Sudan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Turco-Egyptian Sudan: A Recent Historiographical Controversy Author(s): Gabriel R.

Die Weltdes IslamsXXXI (1991)

THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN A RECENT HISTORIOGRAPHICAL

GABRIEL R. WARBURG Haifa

THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN

summary is based on the following writings: Rifa'a Rafi' al-Tahtawl,

THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN

Muhammad CAlf, (Cairo: maktabat al-nahda al-RafiCi, CAsr

THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN

"Nokrasky Pasha's Speech before the Security Council",

1963) pp. 5-6.

THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN

Ibid., pp. 190-2; see also pp. 150-165.

Ibid., pp. 193-4.

THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN

Ibid. pp. 76, 84, 110-111.

THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN

THE TURCO-EGYPTIAN SUDAN

CAll Taha, op. cit., p. 14.

You might also like