10 Facts That Clear Up Confusion Around What Exactly Is an Arab

[J-Nice]

my apologies they were.

It's cool. We can't let people fall into the slavery narrative as a one size fits all explanation when it comes to explaining the African presence and influence outside of Africa. I really wanna learn something here if people got info that I don't know about.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

All one has to do to settle this is look up Arab descriptions and opinions of black Africans from early times. They are pretty vile and offensive.

Arab society was patrilineal. They also had a sexual fetish for black African women. The offspring of these unions were technically "Arab" but they were severely ostracized from society because of their racial status. Many of these people became poets and spoke on their situation in their compositions, others fought on the front lines in wars on behalf of Arabs, became merchants, traders, etc; Sound familiar? That's where the bulk of these "black" Arabs come from. So yes, it's true, black people in that part of the world weren't only slaves, but slavery is a huge part of their presence there that can't be ignored.

This Arab dikk-riding by proxy needs to stop. There was nothing noble or admirable about those people.

 

[WaveGang]

All one has to do to settle this is look up Arab descriptions and opinions of black Africans from early times. They are pretty vile and offensive.

Arab society was patrilineal. They also had a sexual fetish for black African women. The offspring of these unions were technically "Arab" but they were severely ostracized from society because of their racial status. Many of these people became poets and spoke on their situation in their compositions, others fought on the front lines in wars on behalf of Arabs, became merchants, traders, etc; Sound familiar? That's where the bulk of these "black" Arabs come from. So yes, it's true, black people in that part of the world weren't only slaves, but slavery is a huge part of their presence there that can't be ignored.

This Arab dikk-riding by proxy needs to stop. There was nothing noble or admirable about those people.

what you talking about fam

Arabs didnt come to them lands until 1,500 yrs ago. Before Arab invasion the place was home to Black Afrikans

I still don't understand what your incentive is to post in the Roots, you non blacks are weird as fukk. obsessed with us but in the negative sense. smh

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

Dude said black Kurds and black Afghans...I mean, what more can be said after that.

* Proceeds to post a picture of some black Afghan*
* Claims Afghans are black*

 

[ℒℴѵℯJay ELECTUA]

* Proceeds to post a picture of some black Afghan*
* Claims Afghans are black*

that's the best one yet..black afghans..hahahaha

 

[Poitier]

The only Arabs that were probably of heavy African descent were Yemenis and Israelis.

 

[Supper]

Look man, I'm a lover of history and I hate to see people fukk up solid discussions over Geo-political bullshyt. It's like it offends people on here to see someone say that the Arabs were black.

Why is that? Now does that take away the atrocities of the Trans-Saharan slave trade? No. Does that take away the ill treatment of Blacks in the Arab world? No.

In fact, these are harsh truths and realities that we have to deal with if we are to gain any modicum of truth or insight from subjects like these. With that aside, I was really looking for someone in this

thread to really get a discussion going about the history of the Arabs past and present. Lurking so far, I feel I haven't gotten that at all. Most of what we've gotten are people's opinions with no frame of

reference. It's a shame because this could have been a really good discussion and I was legitimately looking to learn something new. But it just goes to show how little value people on here put on

scholarship.

Can't speak for anyone else, but to me thread like this show me just how far Afrocentrist can progress deeper and deeper into illogcal delusions & cognitive dissonance in light of opposing(or lack of) evidence, because from the very beginning when you make a statement such as not just that some arabs are black-skinned, with no implications about race, but "the original arabs were black" you're committing at least one of two MAJOR logical fallacies, in the form of a theory of unfalsifiability, where there's actually no way we could possibly confirm or contradict the affirmed skin complexion of long dead people, from a vague unspecified time period in the past at that(None of the Afrocentrist here have even given us a specific time frame from which these "original black arabs" existed and when they disappeared nor a reasonable hypothesis as to why. All we know is that Afrocentrist believe they existed in some vague period long ago). Or it could be that you're asserting that the original arabs were apart of the "black race", as opposed to most of the arabs alive today who are apart of "non-black races", which then you'd still have all of the problems aforementioned, plus existential instantiation, where at the very core of your premise lies the presumption that "race" is a scientifically observable phenomenon, which is about as far away as anything could be from being "fact". In fact, the vast majority of modern day biologist or anthropologist worth their weight in salt don't use "race" as a parameter to describe human diversity, genetic or otherwise. So the conversation we should be having is not on whether or not the original arabs were apart of the "black race", but if the "black(or any) race" even exist outside of being a social construct.

Plus, I find it so ironic that you mention "scholarship", because I would like nothing more than for Afrocentrist to add some integrity in their statements by providing some proof in the form of credible, objective, scholarly, peer reviewed, citations instead of using the same old of fringe cult, self-published articles & blogs as well as yellow journalist publications such as "atlantablackstar". Or something even more ridiculous as using a depiction of Saladin(one that wasn't even contemporaneous to his life), a kurd, as evidence of "black arabs". smh It's quite clear Afrocentrist should be the LAST people to question other's scholarly integrity.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Can't speak for anyone else, but to me thread like this show me just how far Afrocentrist can progress deeper and deeper into illogcal delusions & cognitive dissonance in light of opposing(or lack of) evidence, because from the very beginning when you make a statement such as not just that some arabs are black-skinned, with no implications about race, but "the original arabs were black" you're committing at least one of two MAJOR logical fallacies, in the form of a theory of unfalsifiability, where there's actually no way we could possibly confirm or contradict the affirmed skin complexion of long dead people, from a vague unspecified time period in the past at that(None of the Afrocentrist here have even given us a specific time frame from which these "original black arabs" existed and when they disappeared nor a reasonable hypothesis as to why. All we know is that Afrocentrist believed they existed in some vague period long ago). Or it could be that you're asserting that the original arabs were apart of the "black race", as opposed to most of the arabs alive today who are apart of "non-black races", which then you'd still have all of the problems aforementioned, plus existential instantiation, where at the very core of your premise lies the presumption that "race" is a scientifically observable phenomenon, which is about as far away as anything could be from being "fact". In fact, the vast majority of modern day biologist or anthropologist worth their weight in salt don't use "race" as a parameter to describe human diversity, genetic or otherwise. So the conversation we should be having is not on whether or not the original arabs were apart of the "black race", but if the "black(or any) race" even exist outside of being a social construct.

Plus, I find it so ironic that you mention "scholarship", because I would like nothing more than for Afrocentrist to add some integrity in their statements by providing some proof in the form of credible, objective, scholarly, peer reviewed, citations instead of using the same old of fringe cult, self-published articles & blogs as well as yellow journalist publications such as "atlantablackstar". Or something even more ridiculous as using a depiction of Saladin(one that wasn't even contemporaneous to his life), a kurd, as evidence of "black arabs". smh It's quite clear Afrocentrist should be the LAST people to question other's scholarly integrity.

Wrap it up fellas.

 

[Poitier]

Wrap it up fellas.

Wrap up what?

Not everyone is making the argument that all Arabs were originally Black.

You seem to have your feelings hurt from getting owned when you made the incredibly dumb statement that there was no proof of an African presence in the Levant and Arabia when Yemen and Israel are a stones throw away.... not to mention archeologist finding African artifacts dating back to neolithic plus the spread of Afro Asiatic languages or the fact that Ethiopia annexed Arabia

A large portion of Yemenis could pass as Somali and if Israel never became a settler colony for Europeans, the same would hold true

Now as for the claims of places like Syria, Turkey and Iraq being Black....I can't vouch for that nor do I think Africans controlled those areas for any prolong period of time but either way, you're assertions are as dumb as the Hoteps

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Wrap up what?

Not everyone is making the argument that all Arabs were originally Black.

What? That's exactly what people are arguing.

 

[J-Nice]

Can't speak for anyone else, but to me thread like this show me just how far Afrocentrist can progress deeper and deeper into illogcal delusions & cognitive dissonance in light of opposing(or lack of) evidence, because from the very beginning when you make a statement such as not just that some arabs are black-skinned, with no implications about race, but "the original arabs were black" you're committing at least one of two MAJOR logical fallacies, in the form of a theory of unfalsifiability, where there's actually no way we could possibly confirm or contradict the affirmed skin complexion of long dead people, from a vague unspecified time period in the past at that(None of the Afrocentrist here have even given us a specific time frame from which these "original black arabs" existed and when they disappeared nor a reasonable hypothesis as to why. All we know is that Afrocentrist believe they existed in some vague period long ago). Or it could be that you're asserting that the original arabs were apart of the "black race", as opposed to most of the arabs alive today who are apart of "non-black races", which then you'd still have all of the problems aforementioned, plus existential instantiation, where at the very core of your premise lies the presumption that "race" is a scientifically observable phenomenon, which is about as far away as anything could be from being "fact". In fact, the vast majority of modern day biologist or anthropologist worth their weight in salt don't use "race" as a parameter to describe human diversity, genetic or otherwise. So the conversation we should be having is not on whether or not the original arabs were apart of the "black race", but if the "black(or any) race" even exist outside of being a social construct.

Plus, I find it so ironic that you mention "scholarship", because I would like nothing more than for Afrocentrist to add some integrity in their statements by providing some proof in the form of credible, objective, scholarly, peer reviewed, citations instead of using the same old of fringe cult, self-published articles & blogs as well as yellow journalist publications such as "atlantablackstar". Or something even more ridiculous as using a depiction of Saladin(one that wasn't even contemporaneous to his life), a kurd, as evidence of "black arabs". smh It's quite clear Afrocentrist should be the LAST people to question other's scholarly integrity.

Don't talk to me about fallacies when this response is littered with nothing but strawmen. Who are the people who call themselves "Afrocentric" in this thread? I would love for you to point to me to their post(s). Invoking the big bad "Afrocentric" boogeyman in this discussion is nothing but a cop out at best. Even if you meant the term as in insult, it really isn't per it's definition. But that's neither here nor there in regards to the discussion.

Sure the Atlanta Black star isn't the ideal place to spark such a discussion, but it served it's purpose and here we are. I don't see you or anyone else starting a thread like this. If you have anything of merit to teach us, then by all means start your own thread and drop some knowledge on us .And it's might funny how you talk about credible sources, time periods, peer reviewd citations etc in regards to the claim of the Original Arabs having being black, but no mention of the opposing side doing the same. Why is that? To me that reeks of clear bias and an obvious agenda at work. So it's fine to require sources when a point you disagree with is made, but require none when a point mentioned is something you agree with? If that wasn't your intention then you have my apologies. But hardly anyone in here has provided anything of merit besides the usual geo-political bias and slave rhetoric in regards to this topic. I posted a scholarly review here to get things moving, but it seems that you and others have conveniently passed over that in favor of arguing points I don't think anyone has made.

As far as race goes, everything you said I definitely agree with. But I don't think that applies in this case, but I'm merely making a description of how the Arabs saw themselves and how others of the time period saw them as well.

Now as far as the claims of Kurds, Iraqi's, Syrians etc being black and all that, I'm staying away from that

 

[godkiller]

Article is trash.

Arabs were never black. They're Middle Easterners.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

There is nothing illogical about arguing if the early Arabs had dark skin or would look like what we call "black". And to be clear it is no way an "Afrocentric" invention, but has long been argued.

 

[Supper]

Don't talk to me about fallacies when this response is littered with nothing but strawmen. Who are the people who call themselves "Afrocentric" in this thread? I would love for you to point to me to their post(s). Invoking the big bad "Afrocentric" boogeyman in this discussion is nothing but a cop out at best. Even if you meant the term as in insult, it really isn't per it's definition. But that's neither here nor there in regards to the discussion.

I do and will continue to use Afrocentrist to as an simple way to categorize those arguments which are made about the world & it's history through skewed blackwashed lenses, instead of an objective lens and the people who make them. I don't use the term to label people with the intentions of just dismissing their arguments all together, because I disagree with them- As you can see all I've been doing in this thread thus far is taking the time to pick apart Afrocentic arguments. So, how is that a cop-out? If you feel that simply using this terminology is a misrepresentation just because most of these people don't self-identify as Afrocentrist, thus a strawman, then I'm sorry, but for me it's makes for convenience. Now, if you see issues in my criticism of the points raised, particularly that concerning whether or not the original arabs were "black", then feel free to "critique my criticism" and provide counter points. But the "Afrocentric" label stays. But, even with all of your issues with the label of "Afrocentric" considered, the difference here is these supposed "strawmen" don't effect the main pillars of my argument which is that the claim the "original arabs were black" is fallacious, whereas the the aformentioned logical fallacies in my last post are what the core of those who claim that the original arabs were black rest on.

Sure the Atlanta Black star isn't the ideal place to spark such a discussion, but it served it's purpose and here we are. I don't see you or anyone else starting a thread like this. If you have anything of merit to teach us, then by all means start your own thread and drop some knowledge on us.

Using an Atlantablackstar article as a catalyst for discussion, is not a problem, and I never claimed it to be(careful with those strawmen lol). Using atlantablackstar as a source of evidence to provide credibility to a claim about history is a problem. The reasonable thing to do would be to leave the issue of whether or not the original arabs being black as an open ending question- Not running with claim made in this Atlantablackstar article claiming that the original arabs were black, point blank period because atlantablackstar and some Afrocentrist on youtube said so.. And why would I need to make my own thread just to discuss the one of the points made in the original post. Maybe I'm mistaken, but last time I checked this was a discussion forum, not a blog site.

And it's might funny how you talk about credible sources, time periods, peer reviewed citations etc in regards to the claim of the Original Arabs having being black, but no mention of the opposing side doing the same. Why is that? To me that reeks of clear bias and an obvious agenda at work. So it's fine to require sources when a point you disagree with is made, but require none when a point mentioned is something you agree with? If that wasn't your intention then you have my apologies. But hardly anyone in here has provided anything of merit besides the usual geo-political bias and slave rhetoric in regards to this topic. I posted a scholarly review here to get things moving, but it seems that you and others have conveniently passed over that in favor of arguing points I don't think anyone has made.

Why on earth would the burden of proof be on us to properly specify(such as providing a time frame to reference) & to provide credible sources for a claim that we didn't make, but in fact are highly skeptical about due to it's fallacious nature? And as far as the article you posted here goes- Just from a quick scan I don't see how anything in it lends credence to the idea of the original arabs being black, but if I'm wrong feel free to post a relevant excerpt from it that does. The burden of proof would only be on us skeptics if we decided to provide our own counter point that contradicts the idea that the original arabs being black, which I think I'll get into in the next paragraph.

As far as race goes, everything you said I definitely agree with. But I don't think that applies in this case, but I'm merely making a description of how the Arabs saw themselves and how others of the time period saw them as well.

Yes, I've seen you and a couple of other people claim that there's some early sources in which the arabs were described as "black" or described themselves as such, I'd love to see for myself, because so far I have seen anything of the sort. And yeah, I'd be nice if could specify what time period we're talking about here.

Anyway, here's the point where I provide my own counter argument & opinion about whether or not the original arabs were black. And it is that I do NOT agree, with the notion of the original arabs being black, nor do I think most of them saw themselves as such based on the writings which are considered by the vast majority of muslim scholars which are considered as the two most authentic collections of hadiths on the saying and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.

• Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin." - Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:256

• Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man) - Sahih Muslim, 10:3901

• The most hateful among the creation of Allah us one black man among them (Khwarij). One of his hand is like the teat of a goat or the nipple of the breast. - Sahih Muslim, 5:2334

• There came he and his wife in the presence of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and they invoked curses (in order to testify their claim). The man swore four times in the name of Allah that he was one of the truthful and then invoked curse for the fifth time saying: Let there be curse of Allah upon him if he were among the liars. Then she began to invoke curse. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said to her: just wait (and curse after considering over it), but she refused and invoked curse and when she turned away, he (Allah's Apostle) said: It seems that this woman shall give birth to a curly-haired black child, And so she did gave birth to a curly-haired black child. - Sahih Muslim, 9:3564

It's quite obvious from these primary sources that black skinned Africans or very dark skinned people were clearly distinguished from the norm and from the prophet muhammad, as well as other arabs in general, at least at the time when these hadiths were collected. At the same time there are hadiths that point out "very light white" skin as something out of ordinary, as well- So, I think we can gather that they probably saw themselves as being brown skinned on average, similar in skin complexion to semi-nomadic Bedouin people you can see living in the Arabian peninsula today. Then again, I suppose someone could just swoop in and claim that this was after the "the original black arabs" disappeared, and we have to go back even further to find "da original black man", thus exemplifying the fallacious unfalsifiability of this claim that the original arabs in some vague period of time in the past, that we probably have no records of, were black skinned. It's impossible to confirm or refute, thus it just remains in the realm of possibility in the same sense that they could've originally been giant cambodian cavemen.

 

[Supper]

There is nothing illogical about arguing if the early Arabs had dark skin or would look like what we call "black". And to be clear it is no way an "Afrocentric" invention, but has long been argued.

A sound argument built on solid evidence is certainly not illogical. But, just claiming that the "original arabs were black" without 1. a benchmark for determining "blackness" 2. a time frame of reference 3. any solid evidence is about as illogical as you can get. Can I argue that the original arabs were "white european" or "central asian" looking, because there's about an equal amount of grounds for those claims as are those for the original arabs being "black"?