True.
10 Facts That Clear Up Confusion Around What Exactly Is an Arab
- Thread starter Medicate
- Start date
True.
GetInTheTruck
Member
The problem is that when threads like this are made they aren't meant to explore history in a sincere way, they are made to advance revisionist theories that place a low level of importance on accuracy. We are asked to make broad generalizations on entire peoples based on things like a photograph or two, a fleeting observation from someone, anecdotal evidence, etc; basically we are asked to "eyeball" anthropology, which you just can't do and expect to produce rational analysis.
In this case the goal is to imply that present day Arabs are somehow not authentic, and to support this people are taking modern social definitions of the word "black" and haphazardly slapping them onto ancient populations. In this thread it's Arabs, in another it's Indians, in yet another it will be Chinese, olmecs, etc; This kind of ignorance all comes from the same source.
As far as the Arabian peninsula being so close to Africa, this is true, but its not indicative of much because if you look at a place like India, you have Caucasoids, australoids, negritos, tribals, etc; all living in the same general area. We also see people using terms like Eurasia to describe the landmass which comprises both Europe and Asia since they are technically connected...these are semantic arguments and not very satisfying when put through the ringer.
@KidStranglehold I'm gonna be honest, not everybody in those pictures you posted looks like what we would consider to be "black," some do, some don't. That's why I don't like the picture game, it's all rrelative at the end of the day and not reliable.
In this case the goal is to imply that present day Arabs are somehow not authentic, and to support this people are taking modern social definitions of the word "black" and haphazardly slapping them onto ancient populations. In this thread it's Arabs, in another it's Indians, in yet another it will be Chinese, olmecs, etc; This kind of ignorance all comes from the same source.
As far as the Arabian peninsula being so close to Africa, this is true, but its not indicative of much because if you look at a place like India, you have Caucasoids, australoids, negritos, tribals, etc; all living in the same general area. We also see people using terms like Eurasia to describe the landmass which comprises both Europe and Asia since they are technically connected...these are semantic arguments and not very satisfying when put through the ringer.
@KidStranglehold I'm gonna be honest, not everybody in those pictures you posted looks like what we would consider to be "black," some do, some don't. That's why I don't like the picture game, it's all rrelative at the end of the day and not reliable.
^^^Then what is "black" to you then? True Negroid? Because those Arabians I posted pictures of look no different than most Northeast Africans and heck some Sahelian Fulanis. And why focus on the pictures, when there was posted many texts telling how the early Arabians were "indistinguishable" from Africans.
And no one is saying modern Arabs are not authentic. Who said that? They can still be descendant... In Arab culture having the linage is all that matters...
The pictures were just used as an example, the sources I posted were the real meat. You should address that.
And no one is saying modern Arabs are not authentic. Who said that? They can still be descendant... In Arab culture having the linage is all that matters...
The pictures were just used as an example, the sources I posted were the real meat. You should address that.
Dudes don't know when to take the L and bow out gracefully. They gotta cop pleas and back peddle when their views are shown to be wrong. Don't underestimate the power of the ego.
It's also telling in threads like these that it's certain posters first inclination to call any Black population anywhere outside the African continent slaves without examining any evidence to the contrary. And they do this through a Geo-political lens of modern racism as is evidenced in this thread.
Last edited:
GetInTheTruck
Member
Black to me means anybody with direct African ancestry, it's a social concept and nothing more.
I addressed how Arabs viewed their lineage earlier when I brought up how those Arabs who had a black mother and Arab father were never fully accepted into Arab society, why? Because the Arabs always saw themselves as being different from Africans, regardless of skin color.
Here is an example from poet jarir:
"Though I be frizzle-haired, coal-black of skin, My generosity and honor shine yet brighter. Blackness of skin does me no harm When in battle’s heat my sword is flailing. Would you claim glory where there is none? The Ethiopians are more glorious than you..."
Jarir lived in the 7th century. He's addressing those Arabs who look down on people like him for their skin color.
Over time Arab became a pan ethnic identification with the expansion of Islam and Arab culture, but to say that prior to that Arabs were indistinguishable from black Africans is a huge stretch.
When is prior because it isn't the 7th century.
That's pretty low of them or some of them as many arabs were intermixing with africans..plus when The Prophet came and changed things around with calling everyone under the banner of Al-Islam as brothers/sisters..plus his last sermon and also marrying his daughter with former a slave and having kids etc.
why are u assuming black people in those places have to descended from slaves? most of the blacks in iraq (for example) are not descended from slaves but rather are descended from arabs native to the arabian peninsula that migrated north. same with the blacks in iran.
stop believing the white propoganda that any black person located outside of africa is descended from a slave.
now thats a lie. some were descended from slaves. but most in Iraq are descended from the original black arabs.
stop believing white lies and propoganda.
have u looked up greek descriptions of WHITE GERMANS from early times? pretty vile and offensive. I guess the greeks weren't white.
this is probably the stupidest thing that has been said so far in this thread. which is saying alot since @GetInTheTruck has been posting full retard all day.
da fukk is "middle eastern." you a muthafukin retard if you gon believe some word crakkkas made up just so they didn't have to admit Israel, Palestine, and Egypt were in AFRICA. so they created the world Middle East to separate it from Africa.
look up a map stupid. the "Middle East" is in AFRICA. its always been part of Africa. all the early arab maps described Egypt and Arabia as BILAL AL SUDAN aka LAND OF THE BLACKS. the original inhabitants from Arabia along with Palestine and Egypt were black.
godkiller
"We are the Fury"
Middle Eastern is a colloquialism for Near Eastern or Eurasians. Arab DNA isn't black or white. Moreover, Israel and Palestine are located above Egypt in the Middle East, not Africa. There is a genetic separation between peoples underneath the Sahara and those above it, so the Middle East and Africa separation does hold weight.
No, the Middle East is not part of Africa. It is intermediate between Africa, Asia and Europe, but neither of the three. Israel is not even that far from Greece. Would you say Greece is also a part of Africa? Once upon a time, perhaps Northern Africa was black but now it is Berber/Arabs that live there.
well here you go. its not that hard to find if you are not blinded by racism.
http://savethetruearabs.proboards.com/thread/250/description-arabs-experts
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta...-arabic-skin-complexions-an-explanatory-note/
Last edited:
^^^Except for the fact that my core argument is in no way dependent or rest on whether or not you feel my use of the term "Afrocentric" is appropriate or not. I don't get how you can claim I'm being intellectually dishonest or misrepresenting someone because of my use of the abstraction "Afrocentrist". I even stated before that one doesn't nessasarily have to self-identify as an Afrocentrist to be making Afrocentrist arguments in the same way most people I would consider racist wouldn't self-identify as racist, in my book(yes that is my subjective point of view). Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around? How is it then that without actually specifying which arguments presented I've twisted or misrepresented thus far can you just sit here to attempt to poison the well, by launching all of these ad homenin attacks on my character such that what I say reeks of cowardice, intellectual laziness etc etc just because my use of the term "Afrocentric" gets you really riled up apparently. Like I said before, my main argument is that the claim that "the original arabs were black" is fallacious in it's very nature- That's an objective observation by me. One that's completely independent and isn't in anyway contingent on whether or not you feel my use of the term "Afrocentrist" is appropriate(which is, like I said before, subjective) So here's a question: What flaws in my argument which is that particular claim in the OP is fallacious do you take issue with?
In short just to make things simple, this is a particular claim made in the OP: "the original arabs were black"
The claim is fallacious in it's very nature: My main argument that I'm presenting from an objective observation
The opinion that the claim is of a typical Afrocentric nature: My subjective point of view. One that doesn't in anyway act as a determiner or modifier of my main argument argument.
^^^^It seems you've found a nice red herring in the latter statement to hone in on in an attempt to shift the issue from my main argument.
Don't be so obtuse. No one sees the Atlantablackstar as a primary source for this topic. It was merely the spark that led to this conversation and the article put forth points and sources for people to consider and discuss. I even ordered one of the books mentioned in the OP. Did you read the article? Or did you just emotionally react like some of the cats in this thread have based off of the thread title? They provided sources and books in the OP for people to look up and you want to ignore that and chase the mythical Afrocentric ghost on youtube? C'mon fam. You're better than this.
I never said anyone was using Atlantablackstar as a primary source. Atlantablackstar as a publication was founded in into the 21 century, so how could it be used as primary source material for anything that transpired in the medieval era? I said that using an Atlantablackstar article as a source to lend credibility to a claim about history is a problem(Though using it as a lead or portal to a credible source would be perfectly fine.). But, don't let that stop from doing what you've been wailing on about thus far, which is strawmanning and proceeding to launch personal attacks based on those strawmans.
And the book by Bertram Sidney Thomas that they cited isn't a primary source either, nor is it an uptodate, scholarly, peer-reviewed piece of literature. And in the quote they cited doesn't even lend credence to the idea of the "original arabs being black". The articles quotes the following "the natives of Arabia “were not the familiar Arabs of our time but a very much darker people." So, far only Kidstranglehold has taken the care to preface his arguments by distinguishing the difference between "Arabians" & "Arabs" because the two are not interchangeable- Not all Arabs are Arabian and not all Arabians are Arabs. There are records of people in Arabia before long before recorded genesis of the Arabs came about, such as those of the Old Southern Arabian language speakers which are encompassed by the Southern Semetic lingustic group, who's most direct linguistic descendants, at least linguistically, would be Modern South Arabian speaking people(they are non-arab minorities). Arabic as a language did not arise in Southern Arabian, where the author Bertram Thomas did his research, nor is it a Southern Semitic language, but Central Semitic language, thus it would be wise to not wise to equate Arabs with Arabians, especially southern Arabians considering, linguistically, Arabs are not native to Southern Arabian, but central and northern Arabia. Ill address the rest of this point with @KidStranglehold, seeing as he made MUCH better and well thought out points addressing this.
Yeah okay, you're flustered and frustrated. We get it. So, just make it simple and show me what claim(s) I've made here that I didn't back up with evidence and I'll be happy to correct this flaw.
I don't see how the original arabs would be "tropically adapted" seeing as the genesis of the Arabic speaking people happened geographically above the tropic of cancer in a temperate climate and from there they moved south into the tropical zone of Southern Arabia.. Anyway, These hadiths were a complemation of stories told during the time of the prophet muhammad before the islamic expansion under the first four Rashidun Caliphs outside of Arabia, unless you're counting the Old Southern Arabian speaking people, such as the Sabaeans who weren't Arab and were mentioned in the Qu'ran and were by and large absorbed into Arab identity. But, then again I this would probably contradict your point of lighter skinned people being absorbed, as the native Southern Arabian speaking people tend to be darker than Arabs.
Yeah, I searched all over the net for any legitimate source for these parameters for defining an Arab and I found nothing. So, I'm going to have to ask you to link to the source of this info, or otherwise I'm calling BS on this. "South Arabian Kushytes????????" There aren't even any Cushytic speaking people in Arabia aside from probably Somali refugees.
Right, so you're talking the Pre-Caliphs era. The hadiths I posted are stories from the time of the prophet Muhammad in the Pre-Caliph era. And with that said how much sense does it make to post a bunch of 19th & early 20th century post-victorian era(aka the golden age of racial pseudo science) quotes from Western journalist and academics who are known to have some skewed bizarre views about "race"? If you're not going to quote from primary sources from, as you say from the pre-islamic expansion era, then at least quote from up-to-date, credible, scholarly, peer-reviewed secondary sources. Why do you think you wont be able to find any modern anthropologist in their right mind that would use the kind of terminology to and those kinds of outdated methods of categorizing people into groups as you do with these 19th & early 20th century journalist and scholars you quoted do.
Like this first one for instance , were the author is even not specifically referring to Arabs, but describing the inhabitants of South Arabia(the part of arabia were arabs are not indigenous.) I don't see how quotes like this are suppose to lend credence to your argument at all.
And ALL of these quotes are from long after the era of Islamic expanision of after the death of Muhammad, where other people who weren't traditionally apart of arab identity were absorbed, an era you say we should avoid quoting from. And only three of them were actually quotes from Arabs themselves, and one(Ibn Khaldun) didn't even specify anything about the arabs physical description; I can't find a source for the Ibn Mandour quote, and Al-Jahiz of Basra himself, had a black skinned enslaved African grandfather. Basra was were the Zanj Rebellion took place, and still to this day has a significant Afro-Iraqi population. But, with that said how can you pick out that quote by him and ignore these quotes by him?
- We know that the Zanj (blacks) are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of actions
- Like the crow among mankind are the Zanj for they are the worst of men and the most vicious of creatures in character and temperament.
^^^^He clearly was referring to Africans or Afro-Arabs when he spoke of "the Zanj".
Last edited:
Now, that I got that crap out of the way I can begin to address some valid points brought up here.
And keep in mind there are just about as many even earlier sources that distinguish "black people" from the norm of arab society or even describe themselves as "white" in from primeval arab literature. Thus I think it's a mistake to assert with certainty that the original Arabs were black in the wake of all the opposing evidence while only taking inspiration from that which helps to confirm the already held assumptions. Also, there are many different conventions for differentiating the different continental plates. Some of which would separate the Somalia plate from the African plate.
There's actually a number of proposed places for the Afro-Asiatic Urheimat(origin). One popular theory is of a Levant origin. So, we can't just auto-matically presume that the original Afro-Asiatic tongue came from Africa into Asia, when it could've very well came from Asia into Africa. There's no general consensus on this.
Now, if you want to have a conversation about whether or not there are natives of the Arabian peninsula are black skinned and probably descended from black-skinned ancestors, there's a lot more merit in favor of that notion, in my opinion based on the available evidence. Thus, one of the imperative things to do in this discussion would be to make the distinction between "Arabs" & "Arabians", because the two are not interchangeable, as not all Arabs are Arabians and not all Arabians are Arabs. Especially when you're speaking about the natives of Southern Arabia ie the people who speak Modern Southern Arabian languages, which are apart of the Southern Semetic language group, of which Arabic is not apart of. Arabic is apart of the Central Semetic language family, who origins lie in the Northern and Central part of the Arabian peninsula, and later spread south to the Southern part of the peninsula. So, if you're going to talk about the origins of Arabs who are by most definitions denoted by their native tongue being Arabic, then it's best to talk about them in the context of their lingustic origins in Northern & Central Arabia, not Southern Arabia. In the Qu'ran there's even mention of native Southern Arabian groups like the Sabeans.
As, you can see from this lingustic map, the origins of both classical Arabic & Ancient North Arabic(sometimes called Ancient North Arabian) are outside of the tropical zone and geographically above the tropic of cancer, thus in the temperate zone. So no, the genesis of the Arabs would've not happened under "adaptation to a tropical climate". It's also worthy to note that the geographical origins of the Ancient North Arabic(the progenitor to Classical Arabic) is actually further in physical distance from the both the Old & Modern Southern Arabian languages would be, which would include the Mehri or Mahra speaking people, which you've shown in a couple of photos, from the Ethiopian Semitic languages. And not only that but the Southern Arabian languages are more linguistically related to the Ethiopian Semitic languages than they are to Arabic. So, no I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the original Southern Arabian people were probably pretty closely related to people in the Horn of Africa. This doesn't say anything about the original Arabs, though, who's language has much more in common with other Central Semetic languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic. The Arabic writing system is even derived from that of the Aramaized Nabataean script, not the Old Southern Arabian script: But the Ethiopian Ge'ez script is!
So, I have no problem considering the fact that the original Southern Arabians, in particular were probably very dark skinned, similar to people in the Horn of Africa. But, I just don't see how you could say that about the original Arabs who's linguistic origins lie in the Syrian desert in Northern Arabia, and most likely were closely related to other people in the fertile cresent such as early Hebrew and Aramaic speaking people, I mean unless you're going to try and say they were all black, as well.
But, Tippu Tip himself was not an Arab ethnically, but a Swahili, who are bantu speaking people who have historic ties with Arabs, as well as Persians and Somalis. So, it's no surprise that Tippu Tip, a black skinned African swahili, wouldn't appear all that physically different from other black skinned African people. The point is though, he was not an Arab, though probably sold African slaves to Arabs.
Like I said before. Al-Jahiz of Basra himself, had an black skinned enslaved African grandfather. Basra was were the Zanj Rebellion took place, and still to this day has a significant Afro-Iraqi population. But, with that said how can you pick out quotes like by him and ignore these quotes by him?
^^^^He clearly was referring to Africans or Afro-Arabs when he spoke of "the Zanj".
And also what about the earliest tales collected in what are considered the most authentic saheeh hadith collections before the expansion of islam under the first four Rashidun Caliphs giving a physical description of the prophet muhammad himself as a white skinned man? Are we just suppose to pretend these don't exist?
I said to Abu Tufail: Did you see Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)? He said: Yes, he had a white handsome face. Muslim b. Hajjaj said: Abu Tufail who died in 100 Hijra was the last of the Companions of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). - Sahih Muslim
Another Hadith from Ibn Majjah
Sometimes I remember the words of the poet when I was looking at the face of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the pulpit. He did not come down until all the waterspouts in Al-Madinah were filled with rain. And I remember what the poet said: ‘He has a white complexion and rain is sought by virtue of his countenance, He cares for the orphans, and protects the widows, These are the words of Abu Talib. - Ibn Majjah
Thanks anyway, for raising some great points despite the disagreement.
And keep in mind there are just about as many even earlier sources that distinguish "black people" from the norm of arab society or even describe themselves as "white" in from primeval arab literature. Thus I think it's a mistake to assert with certainty that the original Arabs were black in the wake of all the opposing evidence while only taking inspiration from that which helps to confirm the already held assumptions. Also, there are many different conventions for differentiating the different continental plates. Some of which would separate the Somalia plate from the African plate.
There's actually a number of proposed places for the Afro-Asiatic Urheimat(origin). One popular theory is of a Levant origin. So, we can't just auto-matically presume that the original Afro-Asiatic tongue came from Africa into Asia, when it could've very well came from Asia into Africa. There's no general consensus on this.
Also like most of Africa, almost all of southern Arabia is in the tropical zone:
Now IF the early Arabs were "black", would they be genetically related to Africans? That I am not sure of. They could have just been indigenous black Asians. But anyways...
Now, if you want to have a conversation about whether or not there are natives of the Arabian peninsula are black skinned and probably descended from black-skinned ancestors, there's a lot more merit in favor of that notion, in my opinion based on the available evidence. Thus, one of the imperative things to do in this discussion would be to make the distinction between "Arabs" & "Arabians", because the two are not interchangeable, as not all Arabs are Arabians and not all Arabians are Arabs. Especially when you're speaking about the natives of Southern Arabia ie the people who speak Modern Southern Arabian languages, which are apart of the Southern Semetic language group, of which Arabic is not apart of. Arabic is apart of the Central Semetic language family, who origins lie in the Northern and Central part of the Arabian peninsula, and later spread south to the Southern part of the peninsula. So, if you're going to talk about the origins of Arabs who are by most definitions denoted by their native tongue being Arabic, then it's best to talk about them in the context of their lingustic origins in Northern & Central Arabia, not Southern Arabia. In the Qu'ran there's even mention of native Southern Arabian groups like the Sabeans.
As, you can see from this lingustic map, the origins of both classical Arabic & Ancient North Arabic(sometimes called Ancient North Arabian) are outside of the tropical zone and geographically above the tropic of cancer, thus in the temperate zone. So no, the genesis of the Arabs would've not happened under "adaptation to a tropical climate". It's also worthy to note that the geographical origins of the Ancient North Arabic(the progenitor to Classical Arabic) is actually further in physical distance from the both the Old & Modern Southern Arabian languages would be, which would include the Mehri or Mahra speaking people, which you've shown in a couple of photos, from the Ethiopian Semitic languages. And not only that but the Southern Arabian languages are more linguistically related to the Ethiopian Semitic languages than they are to Arabic. So, no I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the original Southern Arabian people were probably pretty closely related to people in the Horn of Africa. This doesn't say anything about the original Arabs, though, who's language has much more in common with other Central Semetic languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic. The Arabic writing system is even derived from that of the Aramaized Nabataean script, not the Old Southern Arabian script: But the Ethiopian Ge'ez script is!
So, I have no problem considering the fact that the original Southern Arabians, in particular were probably very dark skinned, similar to people in the Horn of Africa. But, I just don't see how you could say that about the original Arabs who's linguistic origins lie in the Syrian desert in Northern Arabia, and most likely were closely related to other people in the fertile cresent such as early Hebrew and Aramaic speaking people, I mean unless you're going to try and say they were all black, as well.
But, Tippu Tip himself was not an Arab ethnically, but a Swahili, who are bantu speaking people who have historic ties with Arabs, as well as Persians and Somalis. So, it's no surprise that Tippu Tip, a black skinned African swahili, wouldn't appear all that physically different from other black skinned African people. The point is though, he was not an Arab, though probably sold African slaves to Arabs.
Like I said before. Al-Jahiz of Basra himself, had an black skinned enslaved African grandfather. Basra was were the Zanj Rebellion took place, and still to this day has a significant Afro-Iraqi population. But, with that said how can you pick out quotes like by him and ignore these quotes by him?
- We know that the Zanj (blacks) are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of actions
- Like the crow among mankind are the Zanj for they are the worst of men and the most vicious of creatures in character and temperament.
^^^^He clearly was referring to Africans or Afro-Arabs when he spoke of "the Zanj".
And also what about the earliest tales collected in what are considered the most authentic saheeh hadith collections before the expansion of islam under the first four Rashidun Caliphs giving a physical description of the prophet muhammad himself as a white skinned man? Are we just suppose to pretend these don't exist?
I said to Abu Tufail: Did you see Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)? He said: Yes, he had a white handsome face. Muslim b. Hajjaj said: Abu Tufail who died in 100 Hijra was the last of the Companions of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). - Sahih Muslim
Another Hadith from Ibn Majjah
Sometimes I remember the words of the poet when I was looking at the face of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the pulpit. He did not come down until all the waterspouts in Al-Madinah were filled with rain. And I remember what the poet said: ‘He has a white complexion and rain is sought by virtue of his countenance, He cares for the orphans, and protects the widows, These are the words of Abu Talib. - Ibn Majjah
Thanks anyway, for raising some great points despite the disagreement.
Last edited: