Revision as of 23:22, 21 June 2005 editKuratowski's Ghost (talk | contribs)5,603 edits →Indian numbering system (unrelated to any discussion)← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:26, 21 June 2005 edit undoYuber (talk | contribs)4,476 editsm →Needs lots more infoNext edit → | ||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
#More info on modern groupings/divisions amongst the Arabs, lingusitic, "ethnic", cultural etc. | #More info on modern groupings/divisions amongst the Arabs, lingusitic, "ethnic", cultural etc. | ||
] 23:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ] 23:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
:It is a minority view that the Ishmaelites are not Arabs, one that shouldn't be pushed in this article.]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 23:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:26, 21 June 2005
User:Arab
There is a "user page" with basically the same content but reworded and Ibrahim for the patriarch's name. If a contributory wants to take the user name Arab, I have no problem with that, but let's not confuse a user page with an article page. Ed Poor, Wednesday, April 10, 2002
The following text was moved from user:Arab because it seems more like it applies to the Arab article than to a Misplaced Pages contributor. Ed Poor
Arab (noun) - descibes a person of Arabic descent.
Historically, an Arab is descendant from one of two sons of the Prophet Ibrahim. The other son's linage is claimed by the Jews
Copyvio
Haisam - please don't copy and paste that text from again - that page is copyrighted, and so we can't reproduce it here. See Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. You're free to weave in the info on that page of course, but you have to do it in an original way, rather than simply copying it across. --Camembert
Original Message --------
Camembert:
Here's the authorization to use the definition:
Message-ID: <025c01c2aa9d$43a0e340$7201a8c0@adc.org> From: Marvin Wingfield <marvinw@adc.org> To: <haisam@ido.org> Subject: Definition of Arab Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:03:51 -0500
Mr. Ido:
I am not quite clear as to what you are asking. You are free to used the ADC definition. It is the ordinary agreed on definition. An Arab is someone whose primary language is Arabic, who shares in the common culture and history of the Arab world.
Hm. I see no indication that the person you contacted is aware of the ramifications of placing their text under terms of the GFDL. This is very different than a one time grant to use the text (which is implied in the message). If the it is OK for us to use it then please integrate the text into the current article and don't replace it. --mav 23:29 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)
Berbers, semitic, white?
The Berber peoples of North Africa, for example, though often called Arabs by Westerners, are connected to Arabia only by often speaking Arabic as a second language, since that remains the official language of the country in which they live as a result of the Arab expansion.
- Never have I heard anyone refer to the Berbers as being Arabs. Should this be removed?
Racially, an Arab is a person of Arabic descent, whose original ancestry comes from the Arabian Peninsula. Arabs are a Semitic people, who trace their ancestry from the ancient patriarch Abraham.
- I don't see how this makes sense. The Arabs are racially very mixed, as they're descended from a mixture of conquored/assilimated peoples and millions of slaves from throughout the Old World.
- This applies better to the Islamic faith, which claims its founders were descended from Ishmael. --Tydaj 00:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Arabs are racially classified as White.
Um. Which classification scheme are we using here? Because by language, Arabs are Semitic, as the article makes clear; by "race", they are "white", yes, but we all know how much that means. --Mirv 08:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Definition of Arab
such as the Maronite Christian Arabic-speakers of Lebanon, or the Arabic-speaking Copts of Egypt, or Arabic-speaking Jews, reject this definition, wishing to identify not with a group defined by language but with a narrower one defined by religion or shared communal history.
Huh? First of all, the classification of "Arab" is not based on language (at least, not anymore...there was a period when this kind of Arab Nationalism was popular during the Ottomon period, but not anymore). Second, only an extreme fringe of Civil War-period Maronites reject the label of "Arab". I myself am a "Maronite Christian Arabic-speaker of Lebanon" and I take offence at such a claim. The only real, modern definition of an Arab is someone who is a citizen of an Arab League nation. --Jad 13:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Hi Jad. Though I wrote most of that paragraph, I sympathise with some of your objections to it... I mentioned that some Maronites reject the label "Arab" because I've actually talked to several such people; but I agree, we should make it much clearer that this is an extremist minority. As for the "Arab = speaker of Arabic", though, I think that makes a lot more sense than "Arab = citizen of Arab League nation"; if you call a Berber or a Dinka or a Kurd "Arab", the substantial majority of them (though not all) would strongly disagree, and conversely, the Arab minority in southern Iran or southeastern Turkey or Chad is no less Arab for having happened to fall outside the borders of the Arab League. - Mustafaa 19:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- True, but I think we need to add both definitions: the sociopolitical as well as the ethnoliguistic, because, as you just pointed out, neither is enough as a definition. Maybe we should distinguish between Arab peoples and Arabic peoples, the first refering to the political definition, and the second referring to the linguistic definition. In this way, the minorities in Iran, Turkey and Chad would be Arabic minorities, and not Arab. I know that this may seem like a frustrating play in semantics, but I think that its the only way to deal with the two point of views while mantaining NPOV. Is that alright with you?
So, why don't you expand the part on the minorities within Arab nations, and add that part on Arabic minorities within non-Arab nations?
- Hmmm... How about something like this:
- There are three factors which play varying degrees in determining whether someone is considered Arab or not:
- Political: whether they live in a country which is a member of the Arab League.
- Linguistic: whether their mother tongue is Arabic.
- Genealogical: whether they can trace their ancestry back to the original inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula.
The relative importance of these factors is estimated differently by different groups. The third factor was the original definition used in medieval times, but is usually no longer considered to be particularly significant. - Mustafaa 20:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Great work Mustafaa...I think we have achieved NPOV! Total wikiness in action! --Jad 05:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ok:
According to Habib Hassan Touma (1996, p.xviii), "The essence of Arabian culture is wrapped up in:
* the Arabic language... * Islam... * Tradition..."
Maronites do not practice Islam. Not Arab. Simple.
On its formation in 1946, the Arab League defined an "Arab" as follows:
"An Arab is 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."
Maronites speak Arabic, but their liturgy is in Aramaic, and they often speak French and English fluently, and often primarily. And their sympathies typically lie with the nation of Lebanon first, and secondly with the WEST. Therefore, not Arab. These are westernized people who worship Christ and who happen to have adopted Arabic due to proximity and previous invasions. How does this make them arab?
Most of the scholars were AJAM (every body who was not Arab)
Strange is that the scholars generally were no Arabs and this applies both to the scientists in Islam and in science. And if there is an Arab under them, then he is Arabised. Nevertheless the owner of CHARIA (Islamic legislation) came from their middle. And this comes because the Arabs are ignorant and have had never knowledge. Even those whom Arab grammar products has made expatriate. First Sibawayh were from the Persian realm and then Al-Zajaaj, these two were AJAM (everyone who is no Arab). The expatriate have made grammar for the Arabs and learned them the Arab language, art, laws and educate science. The most which Al-Hadith after to products have told of origin no Arabs. Then the Islamic scholars were not almost all Arabs. The Arabs could not write, note and not to express. And all those scientists who and have explained products have noted Islamic leathers and Arab grammar and have kept no Arabs of origin. Science was conducted by the Persian scientists, whereas the Arabs for competing with were concerning the power. The Arabs have ternauwernood interfered with science. The industry was carried out by the Arabised. When the Arabs devastate Egypt and the power there got, the Egyptians have kept themselves busy with science and Egypt was the country of science and industry. To these Arabised which kept themselves busy with science were: SAAD ADDIEN ATAFTAZI, IBN ALKHTIEB, NASR ADDIEN ATTUSIE. The work of other Arabiseds has been destroyed. (the original text)
hai, mustafaa, why you delite this frenquenly ? he is an arab according to you. and i didn't brought it from my books, it was in the almuqaddimah of the great arab historian. who can he be an great arab historian if we cannot use his works? ,i'll translate other works and are you saying that i attempt to revange ? are you feeling dat did anything wrong against me ? .Aziri 12:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To put something in a Misplaced Pages article, it has to be relevant. I could simply paste vast translations from al-Idrisi (or is he Berber?) into this article, and he talks about "Arabs", but that wouldn't make them relevant or interesting. Moreover, I'm tired of correcting your English; from now on, if you add a lengthy section which reads like a Japlish VCR manual, I'll just delete it until you fix it yourself. - Mustafaa 02:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
if you are tired ,late it to an other who can that.Aziri 14:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It would be Nice of the Iranians to agree to a common mispelling of english for all of us to agree on. TheLibyan
Page protection
Folks, I protected this page so we can have a rest from this reversion war to a while. You can list objections here, but note that protection is completely within the guidelines in these circumstances. --Zero 23:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
i'm disagree sir : 'Zero , i think that you protected mustafaa not the page. Aziri 12:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) --- ibn khaldun used the name arab as bedouin ? who say that ? is that not a claim ? is that not couinterfeiting ? and further are the moor not Mauri's but mix of arab and berber? this wikipedia is beeing to became a theatre not ensyclopidia .Aziri 12:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK: does anybody watching this article think it's improved by adding a long, random Ibn Khaldun quote translated from Dutch? I don't... - Mustafaa 18:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
not me...i don't even understand it...--Jad 07:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
...and who write with ease concerning his beautiful historie ?Aziri 11:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- There needs to be a good article on ibn Khaldun. Hopefully someone will write one. But the text doesn't belong on this article. Thank you for making us aware of the quote though. Quadell (talk) 17:39, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
But it does bring up a point...
Do you think we need to add a section on what "Arabized" means? For example, I know that the Christian Spaniards during the Arab conquest of Spain were considered to be Arabized, and now there is a word in English to describe them (Mozarabs)which comes from the Arabic word for Arabized (Musta'arab). Just a thought... --Jad 08:03, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
no and no... i liked just show some body how ibn khadlun is the historian of the arab. Aziri 11:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
...i don't mean to be rude, but i think you should stop posting on the english wikipedia. why don't you write for the dutch version? then you won't have to deal with pesky people like mustafaa ;-) ok? you might be making a great point with your contribution...the only problem is we can't understand it (or at least, I can't). --Jad 06:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Indian numbering system (unrelated to any discussion)
This is unrelated to the current discussion. In India, an ancient numbering system is still in place. See Indian numbering system. We use terms such as crores, lakhs and arabs. 1 arab is equivalent to 1 billion, (9 zeros). Once the current dispute is resolved, please put up a {{otheruses}} template on top of the arab page, and update the newly created link. ] 19:50, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, mission accomplished. ] 20:23, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
It would be better to comment on the Arabized Arabs such as the Adanite branch (rather than the qahtani Arab pure branch) the Vast majority of the Arabs are Adanite (from Adnan)TheLibyan
Needs lots more info
This article strikes me as needing a lot of improvement. Some things I immediately notice:
- It mentions two traditional groups, the "original Arabs" and the "Arabacized Arabs" but what about the well known third group, the "extinct/lost Arabs"? More detail about the ancient clans in all these groups would be useful.
- Jewish tradition does not say that Ishmael is the ancestor of the Arabs, it says he is the ancestor of the Ishmaelites a people who had disappeared from history by the time of Solomon. Josephus says that he was the "founder" of the Arabians but does not use the word for ancestor and calls the Ishmaelites _an Arabian people_ indicating that he was aware of other Arabians. Arab historians had various opinions regarding Ishmael, several producing mutually contradictory attempts at linking Adnan to him while others rejected such genealogies. All this should be mentioned for both completeness and neutrality. Similarly the highly conjectural nature of the equation of Joktan with Qahtan needs to be mentioned for the sake of neutrality (Hebrew form of Qahtan is Kachtan unrelated to Joktan.)
- Regarding early references to Arabs and Gindibu it should be pointed out for the sake of completeness and neutrality that there were several different words in ancient inscriptions and in the Bible commonly translated as "Arab" or "Arabian" but that they are not necessarily all the same group (in the Bible we have `arvi, `arviyi, `arvi'i, `aravi, `araavi) and moreover the meaning of the words translated "Arab" or "Arabian" were not always the same (desert dwellers, mixed people, eloquant/pure, person from Arabaya in Assyria, person from the Syrian desert, person from the Arabian peninsula) - its complicated so one is tempted to ignore these subtleties but we need to rise above that.
- More info on modern groupings/divisions amongst the Arabs, lingusitic, "ethnic", cultural etc.
Kuratowski's Ghost 23:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It is a minority view that the Ishmaelites are not Arabs, one that shouldn't be pushed in this article.Yuber 23:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)