Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T04:21:59.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Saḥir and Muslim Moral Space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Abdullahi Ali Ibrahim
Affiliation:
Institute of African and Asian Studies University of Khartoum

Abstract

Metaphors of the evil eye (sahir) are interpreted as posing a threat to the Muslim Arab Rubāṭāb1 of the Sudan. A common situation in which these metaphors are used is when the speaker (saḥḥār) attempts to cast or “shoot” a sahir metaphor at persons or objects by comparing them to something else. A victim may then try to counteract the shot by uttering protective invocations. The victim's later account of the event in which the evil eye was cast upon him will include subsequent misfortunes and perhaps justifications for personal failure. For example, a sahhār likened someone eating a green onion to somebody speaking into a microphone. The man threw away the onion, cursed the sahhār, and complained thereafter that his hand had never been the same. The audience evaluates the metaphors. Good comparisons evoke much laughter. “He is really evil,” or “He killed him,” are often pronounced by the audience both in appreciation of the theoretical powers of the metaphor shooter and in anticipation of the harm that may come in the shot's wake. The audience later reports the interaction as a joke or legend.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Author's note: An earlier version of this article was presented to the Conference of Sudanese Studies: Past, Present and Future held by the Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, Sudan, in collaboration with the Sudanese Studies Association, U.S.A., in Khartoum, January 1988. The author is grateful to Dr. Muhammad Ahmed Mahmud, Dr. Neil McHugh, and Dr. Ibrahim al-Zein, who took time to read the article and comment on it.

1 For early ethnographic and historical notes on the Rubatab, see Crowfoot, J. W., “Customs of the Rubatab,” Sudan Notes and Records,1, 2 (1918), 117–45Google Scholar; Lorimer, F. S., “The Rubatab,” Sudan Notes and Records 19, 1 (1936), 162.Google Scholar

2 The Jaʿaliyyin is used in Sudanese genealogies in both a general and a restricted sense. The former includes all the riverain dwellers between Dongola and the Sixth Cataract such as Bidayriyya, Shayqiyya, and Rubatab. The latter is restricted to the Jaʿaliyyin proper, who live between the confluence of the Atbara River and the Nile and the Sixth Cataract (see Hasan, Yusuf Fadl, The Arabs and the Sudan [Edinburgh, 1967], p. 146).Google Scholar

3 See MacMichael, Harold M., A History of the Arabs in the Sudan, vol. I (Cambridge, 1922), p. 235.Google Scholar For a rebuttal of the bastardization theory, see Ibrahim, Abdullahi Ali, “Breaking the Pen of Harold MacMichael: The Jaʿaliyyin Identity Reconsidered,” International Journal of African Historical Studies,21, 2 (1988), 217–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 MacMichael, , History, vol. 1, pp. 195, 199, 208, 233, 318, 336.Google Scholar

5 Trimingham, J. S., Islam in the Sudan (Oxford, 1949), p. x.Google Scholar

6 See, for example, MacMichael, , History, vol. 1, p. 196.Google Scholar

7 Ibrahim, Hyder, The “Shaiqiya” (Wiesbaden, 1979), pp. 126, 145–49.Google Scholar

8 Trimingham, , Islam, p. 160Google Scholar; Barclay, Harold, Burri-Lamab (Ithaca, N.Y., 1964), p. 195Google Scholar; Hurreiz, Sayyid, Jaʿaliyyin Folktales (Bloomington, Ind., 1977), p. 7Google Scholar; Adams, William Y., Nubia: Corridor to Africa (London, 1977), p. 577Google Scholar; Abdalsalaam, Sharafaldin, “A Study of Contemporary Sudanese Muslim Saints' Legends,” Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1983, pp. 8689.Google Scholar

9 al-Muttaqī, ʿAli ibn ʿAbd al-Mālik, Kant al-ʿummāl (Aleppo, 1971), vol. 6, pp. 744–46.Google Scholar

10 Alan Dundes defines these statements as the folklore of the folklore. One instance is a proverb commenting on the power and uses of proverbs (see his Metafolklore and Oral Literary Criticism,” The Monist, 50 [1966], 509Google Scholar).

11 Hodgson, Marshall G. S., The Venture of Islam, vol. 1 (Chicago, 1974), p. 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Ibid., pp. 350–51.

13 Hodgson, Marshall G. S., History of Religion, 3 (1963), pp. 220–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Ibid., p. 233.

15 Ibid., p. 228.

16 Ibid., p. 233.

17 Tambiah, S. J., “Form and Meaning of Magical Acts,” in Horton, Robin and Finnegen, Ruth, eds., Modes of Thought (London, 1973), p. 218.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., p. 219.

19 Deeb, Kamal Abu, al-Jurjani's Theory of Poetic Imagery (Warminster, 1979), p. 260.Google Scholar

20 Basso, Keith, Portrait of the “Whiteman” (Cambridge, 1983), p. 41.Google Scholar

21 Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen, “Universals in Language,” in Goody, Easter N., ed., Questions and Politeness (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 6667.Google Scholar

22 Medvedev, P. N. and Bakhtin, M. M., Formal Method in Literary Scholarship (Baltimore, 1978), p. 95.Google Scholar The controversy over the authorship of this book is still going on. Some argue that P. N. Medvedev, a disciple of Bakhtin, is responsible only for minor interpolations in the book. However, Todorov, Tzvetan, an expert on Bakhtin, argues for a more substantial authorship for Medvedev. He suggests “Medvedev/Bakhtin as a typographical convention for the book to solve the authorship problem” (see his Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle [Minneapolis, 1984], pp. 611).Google Scholar

23 Crick, Malcolm, Exploration in Language and Meaning (London, 1976), p. 113.Google Scholar

24 al-Ghazāli, Abū Ḥāmid, Iḥyāʾʿulūm al-dīn (Cairo, 1965), vol. III, pp. 110–15.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., vol. III, p. 104.

26 Ibid., vol. III, p. 120.

27 Ibid., vol. I, p. 35.

28 Ibid., vol. III, p. 113.

29 Ibid., vol. III, pp. 128, 134.

30 Ibid., vol. III, p. 128.

31 Ibid., vol. III, p. 131.

32 Ibid., vol. III, p. 126.

33 Ibid., vol. III, p. 16.

34 Deeb, , al-Jurjani, p. 145.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., p. 151.

38 Ibid., p. 66.

39 Ibid., pp. 227–28.

40 Malinowski, Bronislaw, Coral Gardens and Their Magic, vol. II (Bloomington, Ind., 1965), p. 232.Google Scholar

41 Tambiah, , “Form and Meaning,” p. 199.Google Scholar

42 Rosaldo, M. Z., “It's All Uphill: The Creative Metaphors of Ilongot Speech and Speech Act Theory in Philosophy,” in Sanches, Mary and Blount, Ben, eds., Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Language Use (New York, 1975), p. 178.Google Scholar

43 Brown, and Levinson, , “Universals,” pp. 6667.Google Scholar

44 Ibid., p. 66.

47 Ibid., pp. 74–75.

48 Ibid., p. 252.

49 Medvedev, and Bakhtin, , Formal Method, p. 95.Google Scholar

50 Basso, , Portrait, p. 41.Google Scholar In his theory of play, Bateson's “territory” and “map” approximate Basso's “primary” and “secondary” texts, respectively (see Bateson, Gregory, Steps to an Ecology of Mind [New York, 1972], p. 185Google Scholar). Goffman picks up Bateson's distinction between territory and map to suggest his own “primary understandings” and “transformations” for analyzing play and fantasy. He defines primary understanding as an activity that already has a meaning in its own terms, such as fighting. In play, he states, biting-like behavior occurs but no one is seriously bitten. Because it is so keyed to differentiate it from fighting, play is said by Goffman to indicate the set of conventions by which a primary understanding (a “territory” in Bateson's terms) is transformed into something patterned on this activity but seen by the participants to be something quite else (“map” in Bateson's terms). See Goffman, , Frame Analysis (New York, 1974), pp. 4044.Google Scholar

51 Basso, , Portrait, p. 41.Google Scholar

52 Ibrahim, Abdullahi Ali, “Assaulting with Words: The Socio-Poetics of the Rubatab Evil Eye Metaphors,” Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1987, pp. 88122.Google Scholar

53 The formulas are not exactly prophylactic in the religious sense. They are rather uttered to mark a text as a lie and to comment on its performance. They are not intended to protect its utterer except in a very general sense.

54 Piamenta, M., Islam in Everyday Life (Leiden, 1979), p. 2.Google Scholar

55 Ibid., p. 94.

56 al-Jawziyya, Ibn Qayyim, Badaʾiʿ al-fawāʾid (Cairo, n.d.), vol. II, p. 273.Google Scholar

57 Ibid., p. 233.

58 al-Ṭabarī, Abu Jarīr, Tafsir (Cairo, n.d.), vol. II, p. 436.Google Scholar

59 Al-Qaṣṭalānī, , Irshād al-sārī (Baghdad, 1971), vol. 8, p. 408.Google Scholar

60 Hamori, Andras, On the Art of Medieval Arabic Literature (Princeton, N.J., 1974), p. 82.Google Scholar

61 al-Rāzī, Fakhr al-Din, Mafātih al-ghayb (Cairo, 1982), vol. I, p. 640.Google Scholar

62 Al-Jawziyya, , Badaʾiʿ, p. 273.Google Scholar

63 al-Azraq, Ibrahim, Kitāb tashil al-manāfiʿ (Cairo, 1905), p. 161.Google Scholar

64 For example, al-Muttaqī, , Kanz al-ummal, vol. 6, p. 742.Google Scholar

65 Al-Rāzī, , Mafātīh, p. 672.Google Scholar

66 Brown, and Levinson, , “Universals,” p. 72.Google Scholar

67 Al-Jawziyya, , Badaʾiʿ, p. 273.Google Scholar

68 Al-Qaradāwi, Yusuf, The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam (Indianapolis, n.d.), p. 312.Google Scholar

69 Goffman, , Frame Analysis, p. 48.Google Scholar

70 This is reminiscent of what Bakhtin says about the authoritativeness of authoritative discourse: “Therefore authoritative discourse permits no play with the context framing it, no play with its borders, no gradual creative stylizing variants on it. It enters our verbal consciousness as a compact and indivisible mass; one must either totally affirm it or totally reject it” (see his Dialogic Imagination [Austin, Tex., 1982], p. 23).Google Scholar

71 Bergson, Henri, Laughter (London, 1911), p. 42Google Scholar; Bakhtin, , Dialogic, p. 58.Google Scholar

72 Basso, , Portrait, p. 42Google Scholar; Bakhtin, , Dialogic, p. 343.Google Scholar

73 Basso, , Portrait, p. 43.Google Scholar

74 Lévi-Strauss, Claude, Structural Anthropology (New York, 1963), pp. 167–68.Google Scholar

75 For the varied contexts in which these formulas are used, see Piamenta, , Islam, pp. 94, 155.Google Scholar

76 Ibid., p. 23.

77 Bakhtin, , Dialogic, p. 23.Google Scholar

78 Al-Ghazāli, , Ihyā, vol. 3, p. 128.Google Scholar