The Arab Conspiracy?
-
Again, you all tout the ever-familiar "difference of opinion and freedom of speech" deal.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
In a scholarly or academic setting, there certainly are works that are considered trash and would never be placed on a bookshelf. You cannot simply brush over clear violations of the human right to dignity just because he does have a point about other issues. The correct form of action would be to deny his article airtime until he decides to re-evaluate his approach. This is the basics of academia. You don't get a bum off the street to spit out his garbage and keep it all just because he said one sentence that was "a treasure" (in who's eyes?).
I'm sure there are many fine works of art that some might consider trash (in who's eyes i.e. in someone's opinion) and call the author a bum off the street who spat out his garbage. I have come across this scenario many times in many different forms of media. Normally when posting articles 'in a scholarly or acadamic (aren't these synonyms?) setting' we tend to respect the author and not cut and paste without his explicit consent. There is a reason why most authors do not agree and even if they do agree, this reason still stands. A study most of the times can taken out of context or might not be understood fully when just one part is read (i.e. for example the basic underlying motivations of an author or where he got his conclusions from that might be quite important when trying to study the work and understanding the points in their entirety). With that said, as has been mentioned in this thread, prepare a rebuttal and that can be linked.
Once again, a difference of opinion is a beautiful thing but defamation of character is very ugly, immature behavior, and unacceptable by every standard. You cannot possibly expect people to brush over half of the article just because there are a few sentences that sound good or "different". This is ludacris. The better approach, if you really love his tidbits of "good information" would be to verify his work, cite him and create an article free of insults and blatant racism.
There aren't just a 'few sentences that sound good' or 'different' or 'tidbits of good information'. This is an entire study we are talking about. One needs to read the study to get a handle on where he's coming from and where he's going with it. Prepare a rebuttal and that might get linked.
You as moderators have a duty not only in front of us but especially in front of God. Do not abuse the power God bestowed onto you to create mischief and further anamosity between races. It is not acceptable if it were about Jews, it is not acceptable if it were about Blacks, it is not acceptable if it were about Pakistanis. Why should it be ok if it were about Arabs?
Power God bestowed on moderator's? Alright.
Be strong enough to see your mistakes and wise enough to learn from them, instead of continuing to fight a futile battle. Twisting the quran in order to insult a whole race is plain wrong no matter how hard you try to squint your eyes.
Alright.
May I take this opportunity to ask people when suggesting or complaining about something to keep it logical, rational and sensible with workable suggestions and to the point. Temper tantrums and posts chockful of emo ranting will only serve to cloud one's own points and show immaturity of thought. This is not targeted towards any particular posters.
-
See the explanations of the author, http//www.aididsafar.com/Hijacking_Of_Islam.pdf , page 13.
-
why dont people prepare a rebuttal, im sure it can be referenced in the article, or a link to the thread if people feel so strongly about it.
I did, it didn't take long to write one, it wasn't enough to fill a post let alone an entire article, this particular article and I'm sorry I cannot find words to explain it apart from ones such as 'wrong', 'stupid' and 'garbage' and I'm not going to dignify it with a rebuttal without firstly trying to get it down.
Do you know what, I am going to stop pressing this with you people, because one day it's going to haunt you and help to destroy your legitimacy, your entire legitimacy will be destroyed with the addition of more and more of these articles.
Both myself and BOOST have expressed these issues to you and none of you have been able to challenge our claims and astaghfirullah I fear it is someone's arrogance that prevents this going down rather than a lack of understanding as to why it is wrong.
Go ahead, keep it up, but I tell you this; so long as these kind of articles are kept up in such a defiance then Free Minds will be touted as an inflammatory website and that is not a threat, it is a fact, the more conscientious people who view that the more opposition you will have to whatever you're collectively trying to achieve here.
I urge you one last time - take it down...
-
peace all,
Those somehow implying free-minds endorses such views may want to read the following thread in which errors in aidid safar's content were discussed
http//www.free-minds.org/forum1/viewtopic.php?t=840You will probably find more if one did a search on the forum.
Wakas
-
Thankyou for this Wakas...
-
This post will be directed towards savage_carrot.
In response to your idea that some artwork could be considered garbage, you're mixing apples with oranges, dear. Artwork has a much more subjective message which can be interpreted in numerous ways, arguably all being correct (or only the author's perspective being the "right way" of viewing the artwork; depending on what theory you ascribe). Articles on the internet however are totally different. They must meet a totally different standard if they are to be up to par with scholarly work*. Scholarly work is free of childish mockeries and insults. It meets a level of dignity and respect and does not speak in a condescending tone to the reader. It has to have evidence and appropriate citations. A bum off the street spewing his garbage would be equal to a person who disregards such refined forms of writing in order to send his "rough around the edges" "article"... You will certainly never find such work being analyzed and studied in any university that has even a shred of credibility. Why? Because it is offensive, inappropriate and completely unacceptable to have a characterization of a group of people as the evil creatures of the world whose soul purpose in life is to ruin Islam.
It appears also that you misunderstand the use of citations. Citing an article takes more than a cut and paste job. You need to come up with a viable thesis in order to create an article, then you cite other articles as reference. This needs no "author's consent" as you have fully given credit where credit is due. This is taught in elementary school if you need further explanation. When I mentioned citing his article, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that people would understand what citation is and isn't.
As far as your idea of a rebuttal, a rebuttal would be a refutation of his basic premise in his "article". However, (and correct me if I'm wrong Al-Quraishi) the thread is not discussing his main issue, but the utter lack of integrity his main issues is shrouded with. It wreaks of racism plain and simple. Writing that I or Al-Quraishi have a problem with his intentional twisting of the quran in order to lead the reader into understanding the God believes Arabs are the scum of the earth, would not be considered a rebuttal at all.
As far as your understanding of "your power as moderators" yes you're right for the sarcasm because it really isn't much. But what little power you do own as moderators of a website that could be accessed by virtually anyone in the world who has internet services, you have a duty to ensure that you do not spread further anamosity towards races and to promote a tolerant version of Islam, true Islam.
Of course, if you believe that his article in its entirety and not just tidbits of information is remarkable, then you have a deeper problem than just lack of knowledge about what constitutes scholarly work and what doesn't. This would mean that you condone and thereby support the author and his claims against Arabs, which goes right back to Al-Quraishi's point of this whole thread and your hiding behind a silly disclaimer doesn't do much for you.
As for your idea that somehow I'm emotional, you really do read alot into posts, don't you... I have too much going on in my life to be so consumed by a forum that I actually get emotional over it. When or if I start insulting or demonizing others, degrading or defaming them, then you can call my post an emotional rant ... much like that "article".
*And yes scholarly and academic are synonyms ... your point was?
-
Peace all,
This post will be directed towards savage_carrot.
I'm sorry for this intrusion, but couldn't help with this common scenario of 'fruity' singular de facto (nothing personal).
...you're mixing apples with oranges,...
This common trait of differentiating apples with oranges to illustrate two totally distinct scenarios, made me contemplate and digest the very total similarites in which it speaks. How then can one distinguish between the two scenarios and by what measures and authority, remains to be defined? So then, why not talk about both scenarios or perhaps look at it with either black and white or colored filters to see where one ends and stands up to its foundation. What say you?
-
Peace JM,
I read the explanations for his use of the term
Arabthat you have referenced...They are even worse explanations than having no explanations at all...He does not undertsand that there are no such people calledArabsrather it is always referenced in the Quran as a languageArabic toungue...He also does not undertsand some basics of the Arabic language where he makes the wordBadoon Fil Aaraabto becomeArab Nomads!while it is sayingbeginning with the Aaraab.Also, I have pointed this out before, Aaraab is always given in contrast to
city dwellerswhich any laman can work out is refereing to people who arenotcity dwellers (are there no Arabic speaking people amongst the city dwellers?`.Overall I think Adib has shot himself in the foot with his attempt to defence this mistake...
-
Overall I think Adib has shot himself in the foot with his attempt to defence this mistake
Pretty hard not to don't you agree?
-
Peace
Well I read the whole article of whats his name, I did not take the guy seriously because of his interpretation of Salat. Also saying that ablution is used for cleanliness is idiotic at best.
His attack on the Arabs is plainly immature, he seems to dislike them pretty much. Is he an Arab himself?
However this is what I can say about races Allah does talk about communities which happen to be races, and He does say things about them that are not always pleasant (cf. Bani Israeel, 'Ad, Thamud, and others). Will we call Allah racist, or the Al Quran a racist scripture?
For me, the worse communities are those who do not uphold the Deen. And how many at the moment all of them.
I think the Arab community is the worst of them at present, because they/we have the advantage of being able to understand the Book!
This debate about idiotic interpretations is just side-tracking from the real issue...
What is it you really want? -
When I first read Aidid's article sometime ago, I was not surprised, nor were I angry, not because I agreed with him, on the contrary, whenever he mentioned a point I agreed with, I was not comfortable as would normally smeone while reading a good article, but because I expected something like that. Reading Aidid's, one should not forget some political issues. Some were asking whether he was an Arab, others considered him an Arab..Arabism is a political issue nowadays, or it was an obvious political issue when Somalia was granted membership of the Arab league, to the anger of the Somalis and the atonishment of many Arb thinkers. This was a political decision agreed upon between leaders not people. With this background, I saw a political, rather than a racial issue. To be a racist, there should be somewhere an understanding, or rather a misunderstanding, that your race is superior in a way or another, directly or indirectly to the other race. I do not think that this is the case here.
He explained clearly that he was not an Arab by mentioning that he studied Arabic at an old age. The article is full of obvious mistakes of Arabic language origin, but also of respect to God in thinking that He is racist or He looks at people's races and colours. Aidid forgot completely whom the qur'aan is addressing not a race, but people who can read the qur'aan, be them Arabs or Arabic learners. I think that was part of his dielemma, so he wanted to eliminate the Arabs from the addressee and coin them in the verses talking (and not addressing) about the A3raab. He also differentiated between peoples of other prophets, addressed by their tribal affiliation (as mentioned in noble's post) and the a3raab, peoples of the prophet. This is quite illlogical of him, otherwise, why would God send a messenger?
In spite of the above, I did not feel that the article should be removed. On the contrary, it helped me go back to verses he mentioned and made me more comfortable with my own understanding, which is, of course, the opposite of, or contrary to his, though mine might not be the best one. Or it even helped me to a better, or take notice of a better, understanding. We learn from bad examples the same way we learn from good ones.
-
In response to your idea that some artwork could be considered garbage, you're mixing apples with oranges, dear.
Really dear, I wasn't aware that 'works of art' (as I wrote and not artwork) were restricted to people only drawing things and not present in different media. Examples, movies, games, animation, manuscripts on the internet etc.
Scholarly work is free of childish mockeries and insults. It meets a level of dignity and respect and does not speak in a condescending tone to the reader. It has to have evidence and appropriate citations. A bum off the street spewing his garbage would be equal to a person who disregards such refined forms of writing in order to send his "rough around the edges" "article"... You will certainly never find such work being analyzed and studied in any university that has even a shred of credibility. Why? Because it is offensive, inappropriate and completely unacceptable to have a characterization of a group of people as the evil creatures of the world whose soul purpose in life is to ruin Islam.
A scholarly work such as what Prof Walt came up with, which was cited and 'not speaking in a condescending tone' etc etc has been met with such 'righteous fury' as you have mustered in your posts here. It would be shameful to see articles which do not meet with a certain groups 'approval level' to be censored and banned.
It appears also that you misunderstand the use of citations. Citing an article takes more than a cut and paste job. You need to come up with a viable thesis in order to create an article, then you cite other articles as reference. This needs no "author's consent" as you have fully given credit where credit is due. This is taught in elementary school if you need further explanation. When I mentioned citing his article, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that people would understand what citation is and isn't.
It appears also that you misunderstand the situation and what I write. Did you read the reasons given? It's not about giving 'credit'.
rebuttal would be a refutation of his basic premise in his "article". However, (and correct me if I'm wrong Al-Quraishi) the thread is not discussing his main issue, but the utter lack of integrity his main issues is shrouded with. It wreaks of racism plain and simple. Writing that I or Al-Quraishi have a problem with his intentional twisting of the quran in order to lead the reader into understanding the God believes Arabs are the scum of the earth, would not be considered a rebuttal at all.
A rebuttal can be of something in particular in the article which is 'offensive' as well. Afaik, the main issue that has been brought up is that of racism.
As far as your understanding of "your power as moderators" yes you're right for the sarcasm because it really isn't much. But what little power you do own as moderators of a website that could be accessed by virtually anyone in the world who has internet services, you have a duty to ensure that you do not spread further anamosity towards races and to promote a tolerant version of Islam, true Islam.
Awesome.
Of course, if you believe that his article in its entirety and not just tidbits of information is remarkable, then you have a deeper problem than just lack of knowledge about what constitutes scholarly work and what doesn't. This would mean that you condone and thereby support the author and his claims against Arabs, which goes right back to Al-Quraishi's point of this whole thread and your hiding behind a silly disclaimer doesn't do much for you.
For a whole speculative paragraph starting with an if...well done.
As for your idea that somehow I'm emotional, you really do read alot into posts, don't you... I have too much going on in my life to be so consumed by a forum that I actually get emotional over it. When or if I start insulting or demonizing others, degrading or defaming them, then you can call my post an emotional rant ... much like that "article".
I wasn't aware that I called you emo.
*And yes scholarly and academic are synonyms ... your point was?
Wondering if there was a particular reason you chose to use both.
-
He explained clearly that he was not an Arab by mentioning that he studied Arabic at an old age. The article is full of obvious mistakes of Arabic language origin, but also of respect to God in thinking that He is racist or He looks at people's races and colours. Aidid forgot completely whom the qur'aan is addressing not a race, but people who can read the qur'aan, be them Arabs or Arabic learners. I think that was part of his dielemma, so he wanted to eliminate the Arabs from the addressee and coin them in the verses talking (and not addressing) about the A3raab. He also differentiated between peoples of other prophets, addressed by their tribal affiliation (as mentioned in noble's post) and the a3raab, peoples of the prophet. This is quite illlogical of him, otherwise, why would God send a messenger?
In spite of the above, I did not feel that the article should be removed. On the contrary, it helped me go back to verses he mentioned and made me more comfortable with my own understanding, which is, of course, the opposite of, or contrary to his, though mine might not be the best one. Or it even helped me to a better, or take notice of a better, understanding. We learn from bad examples the same way we learn from good ones.
Thank you Samia for your thoughts. I thought the same when I read the article. Along with some other motivations I could gather but that was majorly it.
For me, the worse communities are those who do not uphold the Deen. And how many at the moment all of them.
I agree with you.
-
Peace JM,
I read the explanations for his use of the term
Arabthat you have referenced...They are even worse explanations than having no explanations at all...He does not undertsand that there are no such people calledArabsrather it is always referenced in the Quran as a languageArabic toungue...He also does not undertsand some basics of the Arabic language where he makes the wordBadoon Fil Aaraabto becomeArab Nomads!while it is sayingbeginning with the Aaraab.Also, I have pointed this out before, Aaraab is always given in contrast to
city dwellerswhich any laman can work out is refereing to people who arenotcity dwellers (are there no Arabic speaking people amongst the city dwellers?`.Overall I think Adib has shot himself in the foot with his attempt to defence this mistake...
Thanks for your comment.
But you may know that people who do not master Arabic can be very vulnerable to this kind of stuff.
That?s why I think a rebuttal should be written, by you or any other knowledgeable people of FM.
Boost,
(FM?s translation) The Nomads are the worst in rejection and hypocrisy, and more likely not to know the limits of what God has sent down upon His messenger. God is Knower, Wise.
Does it imply that god promotes ?racism? (or ?xenophobia?) against the nomads ?
(FM?s translation) Because of the wickedness from those who are Jews, We made forbidden to them the good things that were lawful to them; and for their deterring many from the path of God.
Does it imply that god promotes ?racism? against the jews (or ?anti-Semitism?) ?
Peace
-
Peace JM
(FM?s translation) The Nomads are the worst in rejection and hypocrisy, and more likely not to know the limits of what God has sent down upon His messenger. God is Knower, Wise.
Does it imply that god promotes ?racism? (or ?xenophobia?) against the nomads ?
(FM?s translation) Because of the wickedness from those who are Jews, We made forbidden to them the good things that were lawful to them; and for their deterring many from the path of God.
Does it imply that god promotes ?racism? against the jews (or ?anti-Semitism?) ?
In order for myself to be able to accept these verses (even when reading arabs in 9.97) i saw it as the God talking about the majority of those that received the message - but chose to disregard it. Ancient message to jewish people, new message to arab people. IMO as such it does not imply racism.
lk
-
Well this is the thing isn't it, in the whole Arab Messengers thread I said an Arab or aspects of being Arab refer mainly to language and not race, the people making the attacks there and in here were doing what Adid did and treating Arabs as a race and treating them with contempt.
Now if these people are going to treat others who understand or are in the process of understanding the Arabic language as Human Shaytan as Adid so kindly implied then I really find it hard as to how these people wish to mature intellectually and come to a further understanding of the Qur'an.
People like this individual and the simmilar mindsets that are carried by many in these forums are doing a great job to hamper and mock the intellectual claims of the Qur'an-Only movement.
I think every reasonable person in this thread can agree with me on these points, the utter contradiction in such actions and the danger they pose.
-
Well this is the thing isn't it, in the whole Arab Messengers thread I said an Arab or aspects of being Arab refer mainly to language and not race, the people making the attacks there and in here were doing what Adid did and treating Arabs as a race and treating them with contempt.
That's theoretical. Nowadays there are thousands of Arabs who do not speak a word of Arabic and are still considered, and consider themselves, Arabs. It is more of a mentality, a cultural bonage than a language. There are many Greeks, Asians, Italians, Ethiopians, west Africans ..etc who were brought up in my country and speak Arabic as their first language, but neither they nor us, nor anybody else, consider them Arabs. And as I mentioned in my post earlier, when the Somalis were opposed to being a member of the Arab league, and when many Arab thinkers objected to that, there was no mention of any racial understanding of the issue. I believe that Arabs hijacking of Arabism and making it a race is not to be ignored. Their claim that a ruler should be of a Quraishi descent resulted in our kings all being desendants of the Prophet (and thus related to each other, just like in Europe), and that's not limited to the Arabs. Non Arab Muslims invented a higher class of "sayeds, who are descendants of Quraish, and thus of the prophet" to be eligible to the "throne". Even the sufi movement was hit by this epidemy.
So please, do not throw the blame on "non Arabs" and accuse them of "racism". We created this racism, and destorted the meaning of the qur'aanic verse 4144 when we interpreted a3arabi as referring to the prophet. Nowhere in the Qur'aan is Mohammad referred to as "the Arabic prophet", but this is so prevailing in the "islamic" culture that for sometime I thought it was part of the Qur'aan.
As for the "fiqh" and how it deals with "black slaves"... that's another story.
-
That's theoretical. Nowadays there are thousands of Arabs who do not speak a word of Arabic and are still considered, and consider themselves, Arabs.
Pease prove this...
-
That's theoretical. Nowadays there are thousands of Arabs who do not speak a word of Arabic and are still considered, and consider themselves, Arabs.
Pease prove this...
Peace
simply most immigrants, at least the second and third generation...what is there to prove ?
lk
