The Arab Conspiracy?
-
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
-
Peace
Also Jews who lived in Moore Spain and North Africa spoke Arabic...
It is fine, if you feel stigmatised or hurt be the author's writings, then take it up with him directly and sue him or whatever.
You are just wasting time debating this, it is like debating with those who consider the Prophets as metaphors, a bleeming waste of energy...
I mean I watched some of the videos that guy put up on a web site, it is pathetic... But so is responding to his idiotic interpretations, because what you are doing is giving him exposure, especially if you show anger and give him more value than he deserves... -
The what do you estimate is an Arab? Please look at all definitions and then you'll see what constitutes and Arab.
The Arabs (Arabic arab) are predominantly speakers of the Arabic language, rather than a pure ethnic group, mainly found throughout the Middle East and North Africa. (wiki)
There is a similar definition in the Arab League.
Indeed brother Noble, I am tired of this argument...
-
Indeed brother Noble, I am tired of this argument...
AMEN to that.
This is getting lame real fast
If people think posting racist articles is cool on a website that tries to portray a tolerant peace-loving way of life, then good luck proving you're not two-faced.
And savage_carrot, why did you use the word awesome? That was a rhetorical question to show how silly it is to splice people's words they wrote on a POST. sheesh if people put that much effort into reading their fine internet "articles" maybe we wouldn't need this thread!
My point about the artwork was that forms of ENTERTAINMENT hold different standards than SCHOLARLY WORK.some people need to step away from the computer and read more than just internet "articles" for their knowledge
PEACE
-
Indeed brother Noble, I am tired of this argument...
AMEN to that.
This is getting lame real fast
If people think posting racist articles is cool on a website that tries to portray a tolerant peace-loving way of life, then good luck proving you're not two-faced.
And savage_carrot, why did you use the word awesome? That was a rhetorical question to show how silly it is to splice people's words they wrote on a POST. sheesh if people put that much effort into reading their fine internet "articles" maybe we wouldn't need this thread!
My point about the artwork was that forms of ENTERTAINMENT hold different standards than SCHOLARLY WORK.some people need to step away from the computer and read more than just internet "articles" for their knowledge
PEACE
Thanks for the advice. I take it this 'argument' is done.
Al Quraishi, Samia, Elke, Joe,
This is an interesting discussion about what constitutes an arab. I would like to apologise in advance for not really having read the 'messengers' thread al quraishi (started?) is talking about. The way I see it, e.g. as in Kuwait, there are plenty of people from different countries, like Iran who settled here and call themselves arabs. Could it be that it works both ways? I mean if you really think about it, what is an arab? People whose ancestors spoke the language? Or is it a person from a particular country (If so, are these in a list somewhere)? What are the defining characteristics? I think the most fitting meaning would be one who speaks arabic or whose ancestors spoke arabic? It's an interesting discussion nonetheless. I would like to hear more of Samia's thoughts on this, though. How would one define an arab?
edited to correct typos
-
Peace
Since when is arab a race? THis discussion is ludicris, but the most horrible thing i have read so far is this.
In a scholarly or academic setting, there certainly are works that are considered trash and would never be placed on a bookshelf.
Intellectual picking by the intellectuals themself works. Ask nazi Germany. What you are proposing here and afterwards, are an outrage, and directly against the very nature of research. If aidid is hurting your feelings, confront him, rebut his work. But to try and suppress it because you dislike it because of some moral standards you set up yourself, is totally wrong in any way you can look at it.
You know, some of the work that i do, would and will have me killed in some circles of believers. Believers that believe that truth is defined by their pet ideas and interpretations. It isnt. Aidid raisis some really interresting points, and if he chose to blame arab speaking semites who got the message and perverted it back into heathonism...i dont blame him at all, because obviously they have no intention of stopping this behaviour. However as with all other cases where a group is targeted (not for their skin color, but their views and this is legit all the way home) not all in the groups is affected, as they do not fall in under the behaviour critisized. So when when aidid chose to use a provocative statement like that. It is perfectly ok.
Mel Gibson did the same thing when he did his latest snuff movie about Jesus. Jews are bad, live with it! THe last damn thing we need is more cencoring anywhere.
And boost you have misunderstood the right you have as a listener. YOu have the right not to listen or look if you are offended. that is the right you have in a public space. or in the words of a brilliant thinker.
If A wants to impose his moral views on B through politics (lawmaking), chances are that A is a crook! So, why do you want to impose your moral values on me? where is my rights here? i like the work in question, alltho i disagree with a fair deal of it. amd it served as an eyeopener not a tool of racism to me. Why deny other readers this right? Or perhaps rights are somthing we only like when its OUR own rights in question`?
and finally
sheesh if people put that much effort into reading their fine internet "articles" maybe we wouldn't need this thread!
Yes because words printed in books are by default far more trustworthy than anything ever readable on a screen we all know that. To try and discredit the internet as an information source like that is moot. As with ANY research you conduct, always pay attention to sources, nomatter if its in a book, on a screen or you hear someone blatter away in the train, and you will realise that the whole world is a vault of knowledge. And if you adhoc discredit the internet in that manner, you might aswell ditch books while you are at it, God knows how many illinformed books are written and if those are the alternative to internet you have come nowhere. People critisising internet as a source of info, have a tendency to put books on a pedistal where they dont belong, because in the equation is the publisher and his team. Information is just that, information.
-
Whoa Magi...you're on a roll here! Took your sweet time huh
-
There's a pretty political explanation in the League of Micronations
a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples.
But to be honest, personally, I believe we should be supporting an ideology that an Arab is simply one who speaks Arabic, something that all Muslims, guided by God can aspire to, the language that unifies Islam.
-
Al-Lughah Al-Arabiya Al-Fus'ha