Black Iraqis Hoping For Obama Win
Posted on August 20th, 2008 by Tariq Nelson
Racism in Iraq??? Against blacks? Is the Middle East ready for the type of social introspection that has happened here in the West?
(via Stereohyped)
Abdul Hussein Abdul Razzaq laughs wearily when asked if racism is a problem in Iraq. As a black Iraqi, Razzaq says, he faces job and social discrimination and has little chance of getting a political appointment or being elected if he ran for public office.
That’s why Razzaq, a longtime journalist from the southern city of Basra, is hoping that Barack Obama becomes the United States’ next president. Not only will it be better for Americans, he says, it will help
Filed under: Bad Culture, Politics, Practical Solutions, Race
Tariq -
You have once again out did yourself. Thanks for giving AA muslims some insight into the reality that Black muslims face in the middle east. I know every country is different but there does seem to exist some clear commonalities among these “middle eastern” countries.
I will read the whole article and comment later.
Salaam
As-Salaamu `Alaykum,
We have some “Black Iraqis” from Basrah that live in Detroit. I’ve met quite a few of them and have been confused for one a number of occasions.
Iraq is a very complex nation with multiple layers of factionalism. Although I’m not dissmissing that there are racial issues in Iraq, my personal experience has informed me that Southern Iraqi is in no way as racially charged as the Gulf States or even the good ole’ USA.
Remember two things about Southern Iraq:
1) The “Zanji” Muslims ruled that area of Iraq for a period of time.
2) Southern Iraq is a Shi’i Muslim stronghold. Some of the mothers of the Shi’i “12 Imams” were ex-slaves, and that one of their “Imams” had very black skin. I have heard Iraqis mention this numerous times in their lectures here in their mentioning the merits of the Shi’i school of thought taking up for rights of the oppressed. I don’t think that they discussed this just for my sake. They revere those “12 Imams” beyond my comprehension.
I’m saying this so that we don’t transpose how race is viewed here or even how race is viewed in Gulf countries in the same light as Southern Iraq. There is a different dimension at play there. Of course, I am aware that skin color is an issue there just as it is all over the Muslim world.
Wassalaam
Walaikum salaam,
You mean the Zanj revolt Dawood? I’d be a careful to not try to depict that as a dynastic rule or that Iraqis saw Blacks as capable after the mass slave revolt. In fact, that move may have polarized medieval Iraqi’s racial views. Iraq was one of the few societies that used slaves to such a large scale capacity for production. That is until the 19th century when Muslims owned clove plantations in Zanzibar and Coastal Kenya. Similarly, after Moulay Isma’il over in Morocco turned every brown person who couldn’t prove his free status into a slave soldier, things changed. Moulay Isma’il, himself, is said to have been born of a Black slave concubine, but nobody constructed him as Black because he was the ruler and his bloodline was noble. This is how race operated differently in the Mediterranean Muslim societies. During the following generations, as subsequent generations when his slave soldiers interfered in politics and they were resented by the broader public. This is where you start to read racist discourse pick up in Moroccan literature.
But I do agree, we have to be careful in drawing direct parallels between race and slavery in the Middle East and Islamic Africa with the history of race in America. Tt the same time, it can serve as a useful comparison. We should be careful. I’m not sure about the Gulf, Black Kuwaitis enjoy some major positions. And they are number two on the hierarchy of Kuwaiti, then Black Kuwaiti then American, then bidoon (those Kuwaitis without a nationality or citizenship), then Arabs from other countries, then Asians, then South Asians. Anyways, just my thoughts.
Salaams,
Margari aka Aziza
Black Iraqis are strong people, all blacks in Middle East are strong people! Allah bless them
Allaah’s Messneger (salallaahu alayhi wa salam) said,
“Undoubtedly Allah has removed from you the pride of arrogance from the days of Jahilliyah (ignorance) and the glorification of ancestors. People are of two types; either they are pious believers, or wicked disbelievers who do wrong. You are all the children of Adam and Adam was made of clay. People should give up their pride in nations because that is a coal from the coals of Hell-fire. If they do not give this up Allah (swt) will be before Allaah, lower
than the Dung Beetle which pushes itself through Khara (dung).” [Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi]
Y’all continue to turn away.
People like Daud think that racism against blacks is ok as long as the perpetrator is Arab. To call out racism is in his sick mind to “call to jahiliyyah”
Daud, keep your Arab supremacist crap dogma to yourself
It is not just Iraq. Racism is alive and thriving in the Arab world. Anyone who says there is no racism among Muslims might as well say there is no Shi’a/Sunni schism. These are myths that Muslims like to perpetuate to feel good about themselves.
Salaam Alaikum,
PM
The thing with middle easterners are these people used to be bedouins before oil was discovered in those countries. So, most of them are not educated and still have bedoin tendencies with the exception of Syria. Arabs in Syria, although it’s a poor country tend to be more accepting of different races because they are more educated than gulf arabs like Kuwaitis (worst type of arabs from what I heard). I was shocked to find out this gulf Arab man from Abu Dhabi is dating Pamela Anderson! I mean he couldn’t go for a woman that didn’t have every man sit on her like a toilet?
@ Mustafa and all the afro-centric Muslims
No, you refuse to accept that the “call out” along the lines of any race or ethnic group is a call to jahiliyyah–not my words, but the words of the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu alayhi wa salam), and he spoke from Revelation!!! In the hadith he categorized the people into two groups, so we should to stop where he stopped!! It is not permissible for a Muslim to align himself with any group, or have emnity towards another group (i.e. walaa wal baraa’) particularly with the Muslims.
Many people on this blog are still bound by the tethers of black nationalism, and you IGNORE the fact that the Prophet (salallaahu alayhi wa salam) forbade basing walaa wal baraa’ on nationalism, regardless of who you and your tribe are. Did any of you ever stop to think that if you don’t get this right, especially after the proofs have been established, that Allaah might throw you in the Hell-Fire!?!
Yes, racism exists. It even runs rampant within our tribe, because no one can deny that Black folks in America can be some of the most racist people on earth. It is just something that we have to deal with, but how you people drone on and on and on about can never be of any benefit because the Shariah clearly tells us to stay away from it.
it’s pretty well known that Islam doesn’t prohibit slavery wholesale.
If this is true, then why should Iraqis apologize for ?
To Tariq -
You are correct in that slavery is permissible in Islam, however, Islam should be dynamic and living complimenting modern life. Thus, a good muslim in today’s world should abhor the practice of slavery.
The question is should we be able to criticize some mainstream muslim beliefs without being considered apostates.
Salaam
So they can’t handle this (racism) in America that they need to export this to Iraq as well and see Iraq in the same context?
There is racism amongst muslims everywhere. For example, if I travel to Dubai -they always mistaken me for a maid all because I’m more Asian by appearance even when I’m mixed, which I find quite insulting, because it shouldn’t really matter where you come from, what the colour of your skin -we should idealistically be One Ummah, united not divided in every sense. What matters is your sincere submission to Allah both internally and externally for Allah won’t judge you on the colour of your skin, but on your deeds/amal.
@ Ron
Allaah said he completed and perfected His Deen with His Divine Wisdom and it is not in need of any alterations from mankind. Sometimes we may not understand His Wisdom, nor why/how He decreed things. There may be some things that we don’t like, but know that Allaah is Most Merciful to His slaves, and NEVER decreed anything but that which is good for us, even if we find it difficult to do. Implementing Allaah’s commands–all of them–is filled with happiness and well-being. Disobedience and rejecting anything from His Deen leads to nothing but destruction, even if we’re fond of it.
Please fall back because you are playing around with kufr.
1. “Islam should be dynamic and living complimenting modern life. Thus, a good muslim in today
@ Ron
33:36 It is not for a believer, man or woman, when All
@ Ron
4:115 And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination.
I think that what Daud is getting at is that slavery is not a bad thing in Islam and there is nothing wrong with Iraqis taking blacks as slaves.
Gotta love the real Muslims. They are honest about what Islam really is
Salaam
There is bigotry everywhere in the world, not just the Arab world or the Muslim world.
My major point was that we cannot view racism (tribalism) in Iraq through the same lense that we view racism in America. That would not be very nuanced at all.
Racism is of course wrong wherever it displays itself. Those who are true slaves of ALLAH and are of the people of taqwa are One Ummah because that is what Qur’an says.
?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???
“Know that the Muslim is the brother of another Muslim whether you likes it or not.” - Hadeeth
Those who follow the racist model are disobeying the Prophet (SAAS) and are following the path of Iblees.
Let us not get Dawudwalid and Daud confused. Daud, you clearly are conflating some concepts. It’s not even worth addressing. So I’ll move on.
Daud, I agree with you 100%. Just a little quibble, wouldn’t say that anti-Black racism in Iraq is a bi-product of tribalism or directly tied. First we should think about what exactly is tribalism. It is funny how little the notion of tribe is interrogated in studies on Middle East society, while many of the theories of tribalism in African studies have been largely challenged, if not debunked. A discussion about tribalism is beyond the scope of this discussion. But I may have to explore that in my own separate blog.
Whether the tribe is based on real or fictive lineage and relationships, it does play a part in how people construct themselves and deal with others. So, when talking about race in the Middle East, I would take into account tribalism, but not make it the sum of the analysis. For instance, many Blacks became assimilated into tribes even though there may not have been blood relations. The client patron system also formed complex alliances between so called nobles and descendants of Slaves in many societies. They are often subordinate.
However, there is enough evidence to show that Arab writers had long thought along the lines of racial hierarchies. While we have anecdotes of a few leaders and major historical figures who were of African descent , we all can pretty much agree that besides ‘Antar and Bilal, Arabs aren’t too much concerned with celebrating their Black brethren.
Okay, food for thought. I’m definitely going to chew on this subject. Well, I’m teaching a class on this very subject this fall. Thanks for the article Tariq, I may have to use it in my class.
This is truly sad.
May Allah (swt) rid our society of racism!
I used to work in Oman, and blacks are treated with similar contempt there. Arabs are under no illusions about blacks and would be EXTREMELY offended at the idea of considering them as their equals. The Arabs will never accept blacks as their equals…NEVER
The nicest Arabs are Iraqis and Syrians:) I also like UAE arabs.The rest are very very haraam.
Medieval Arab slave owners made distinctions based on skin color. White slaves, known as mamluks, which means
I shouldn’t say “haraam”, because I shouldn’t be generalizing. However, I lived in Middle East gulf for a long time and I have never felt discriminated against.
Ws Wr Wb @ SisterKeeping, I am grown, and what was immature about my post?
Actually Dave,
I think that you are generalizing a bit. And when I say a bit, I mean a lot. . Yes there are clear records that different ethnic groups received different prices. But some of those prices could also relate to the proximity of slaving source and prestige of certain types of Slaves.
There were Black “Mamluks” too who ruled various Muslim societies. There was a Black Eunuch who ruled Egypt. And Moulay Isma’il used Black slave soldiers to consolidate power in Morocco. Muhammad Ali, who is considered the founder of modern Egypt, tried to use slave soldiers from Sudan. But many died, so he then forcibly conscripted Egyptian peasants, something that he as an Albanian Ottoman was loathe to do. You have Malik Ambar in the Deccan India who ruled a dynasty that rivaled the Mughal Empire. sailors and build forts along the coast. Some Blacks achieved high positions in court. I have heard of even a Black Ottoman Grand vizier. I used these examples to press the point that the racial dichotomy doesn’t always hold true. In fact, we can look at the Songhay Empire in Medieval Mali to show how white Saharan tribes were subordinate to the Black Mande Empire. Sure the Songhay was conquered by Moroccans in the 16th century, but they could never get a strong hold in Africa and soon the Moroccan troops splintered and assimilated into society as they intermarried with Timbuktu families. As for understanding European domination, I suggest you pull out a copy of “Guns, Germs, and Steel” for a more reasonable explanation than what you offer.
@ Dave & Margari
Is any of that historical knowledge going to get you closer to Allaah?
@ Daud
is taking a slave going to get me closer to Allah?
@ Margari
Was that not AFTER the Mamluk rebellion? I am referring to a time when the Mamluks were still slaves. Is it not a fact that this distinction was made by Arabs? This is the point. The ‘abeed’ were generally made into eunuchs. Mamluks were not made into eunuchs. All of this was brought to an end by European colonialists and not by other Muslims. The Nation of Islam pushed the lie that Islam was opposed to this sort of behavior and gained the favor of blacks. Now we have Muslims trying to justify their slavery by saying that somehow it was not as bad (because they want to bring it back). The Western world decided that slavery was abhorrent and stopped the practice. The Islamic world tries to justify its atrocities and white wash its history.
@ Dave for saying, “is taking a slave going to get me closer to Allah?”
First of all, slavery is permissible in Islaam, so if you take a slave and treat him/her according to the Shariah, then yes, you can get closer to Allaah. Be careful Akhi because you could be mocking the Deen. Only Allaah knows your intentions behind the response you gave, so I’m just going to remind you about the danger of mocking the Religion, because the Reminder Benefits the Believer:
If anyone mocks (including belittles) anything that the Messenger of Allaah (salallaahu alayhi wa salam) came with, whether it’s growing the beard, wearing pants above the ankles, or even slavery–they have disbelieved. In your case your ARE NOT a disbeliever because a scholar has not clarified the matter after which you rejected the nasihah, and/or perhaps you don’t know any better.
Allaah said:
9:66 If you ask them (about this), they declare: “We were only talking idly and joking.” Say: “Was it at All
Daud i would like to take you as my slave and treat you according to the shariah, how much are you asking?
If you are not willing, can you please let me know anyone else who would like to be a slave, my iman needs a boost and i would like to get closer to God.
@ Kalimaat
Be careful. See the above post about mocking the Religion!
Tariq,
Would you mind answering ?
James,
Are those the majority of Arabs in Oman? You met most of them, right? How do the Gulf Arabs treat people from Sri Lanka or India?
I’m sure that a Black American would get treated better in Oman than a Palestinian because of his passport.
When in Egypt, I know that I was treated better than Sudanis that were my same skin color because of the color “BLUE” - meaning American passport.
Then again, maybe my personal experiences are causing me to form generalizations almost as fallcious as yours. LOL!
Ma’a Salaamah
Daud,
We are supposed to seek knowledge, as the saying go, even as far as China. So my endeavor to understand Muslim societies and how Muslims actually embodied this Deen is directly tied to my faith and my hope for building positive Muslim communities. Not that I feel like I have to answer to you, but no I’m not in this just for the sake of knowing. But seeing how narrow your thought process is, you probably would miss that.
@Daud
I find it odd that instead of you explaining how slavery is governed according to the Shariah, you would rather go into how people address YOU and YOUR TAKE on these matters. Mainly, you are more obsessed with people disagreeing with you than you are them understanding this deen. The very idea that someone finds fault with your faulty methodology of knowledge transmission only speaks volumes about you and only blackens your intentions in the eyes of those you SAY you are trying to assist.
Your ego should have nothing to do with this deen, nor should you attempt to use logical fallacies in order to support your weak comments, and they are pretty weak. Just because we don’t revere you does not mean that we do not revere the Rasulullah(saw). You are no Rasulullah!
Another thing, the Rasulullah did NOT bring slavery, contrary to your argument above. Slavery was a preexisting institution. The Rasulullah(saw) brought liberation! Whether Muslims acknowledged the rights of slaves, neighbors, women, children, or parents, was and is their responsibility.
Slavery as we know it in the West is dramatically different from what Islam allows! I find it curious that you do not take this into account as you address people who only know it in the worst of contexts!
One thing that the Rasulillah(saw) had was empathy. He(saw) had the ability to put himself in others shoes. He(saw) was careful with his words.
What you we does not matter if all we aim to do is to stroke our egos and insult the believers .
They have rights over us.
The Evils Of Nationalism By the Shaykh the noble Scholar Abdul’Azeez bin Baaz [1] (Note: he was getting on the Arabs at the time)
Islaam has forbidden the calls of jaahiliyyah (the prelslaamic days of ignorance) and there are many textual evidences which forbid all of the characteristics and manners of jaahiliyyah and their actions, except those (good and decent) practices which Isl aam agreed to. And there is no doubt that the call to nationalism is from these calls of jaahiliyyah, since nationalism is a call to other than Islaam and an aiding of other than the truth. And how many ills, evils and serious wars has such calls of jaahi liyyah caused to their people, causing great harm to their souls, their wealth and their possessions. The consequences of such calls (for the Muslims) was a splitting up of their unity and a planting of enmity and hatred of each other in their hearts and a fragmentation and splitting between tribes and nations.
Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H) rahimahullaah said: [2] “Everything which is outside the call of Islaam and the Qur’aan, with regards to lineage, land, nationality, schools of thoughts and ways, then it is from the calls of jaahiliyyah. lndeed, even when the Muhaa jirs (those Companions who migrated from Makkah to Madeenah) and the Ansaars (those Companions who aided and supported those who migrated) argued, such that one of the Muhaajirs said:” O Muhaajirs! (implying; rally to my aid) ” And one of the Ansaar said: “O Ansaar!” Upon hearing this, the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “Is it with the calls of Jaahiliyyah that you call, and l am still amongst you!” And he became very angry at that.”[3]
And from the textual evidences pertaining to this issue is Allaah the Most High’s saying:
“And stay in your homes and do not display yourselves, like the display of the times of jaahiliyyah (pre lslaamic ignorance). But establish the Prayer, give the Zakaat and obey Allaah and His Messenger. ” [Soorah alAhzaab 33:33]
“When those who disbelieved placed in their hearts pride and arrogance the pride and arrogance of jaahiliyyah then Allaah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and upon the Believers …” [Soorah alFath 48 26].
The Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
“Whosoever leaves off obedience and separates from the Jamaa’ah and dies, he dies a death of jaahiliyyah. Whoever fights under the banner of the blind, becoming angry for ‘asabiyyah (partisanship and party spirit), or calling to ‘asabiyyah, or assisting ‘asabiyyah, then dies, he dies a death of jaahiliyyah.” [4]
Also in Saheeh Muslim (8/120) the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: lndeed Allaah has revealed to me that you should have humility, and that no one should act proudly and oppressively over anyone else, nor should anyone boast over anyone else. ”
And there is no doubt that the call to nationalism is a call to ‘asabiyyah (partisanship and party spirit) and it is a call to becoming angry for the sake of ‘asabiyyah and fighting for ‘asabiyyah. And there is no doubt also, that the call to nationalism is a call to transgression, pride and arrogance, since nationalism is not a divinely revealed way of life which prevents its people from oppression and proud boasting. Rather it is an ideology from the time of jaahiliyyah which leads its people to boasting g about it and having ‘asabiyyah for it even if they are the oppressors and the others are the oppressed ! So O noble reader consider this and the truth will be clear to you.
And from the textual evidences connected with this is what at-Tirmidhee relates from Allaah’s Messenger sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that he said:
“Let people stop boasting about their forefathers who have died, who are merely fuel for the Hell Fire; or they will certainly be more insignificant with Allaah than the beetle which roles dung with its nose. Allaah has removed from you the party spirit of the days of jaahiliyyah and the boasting about one’s forefathers. Indeed a person is either a pious Believer or a wretched sinner. All of mankind are the children of Aadaam, and Aadam was created from clay.[5]
The Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also said:
“Indeed there is no excellence for an arab over a non-arab, nor a non-arab over an arab, nor a white person over a black one, nor a black person over a white one, except through taqwaa (piety and obedie nce to Allaah) [6]
And this accords with Allaah the Most High’s saying:
“O mankind! We have created you from male and female and have made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Indeed the most noblest of you with Allaah is the one who has the most taqwaa.” [Soorah al-Hujuraat 49:13].
So Allaah the One free from all defects- made clear in this noble aayah (verse) that people have been made into nations and tribes so that they may come to know each other, not that they should boast and have pride over one another. And Allaah the Most Hi gh considered the most noblest of them to be the one with the most piety and taqwaa. Likewise, the previously mentioned narration shows the same meaning, and guides to the fact that it is from the ways of jaahiliyyah to vainly boast and to have false prid e for one’s fore fathers and ancestry. This is what the calls of jaahiliyyah lead to, whereas Islaam is in opposition to this. Rather Islaam calls to modesty, humility, taqwaa and to having love for the sake of Allaah, and that the true and sincere Muslim s are merely one of the categories of the children of Aadam ‘alayhis salaam, and that the Muslims are a single body and a single structure; each part supporting the other and each part feeling the pain that the other parts are suffering as occurs in an authentic hadeeth (narration) from the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, that he said:
“The Believer to the Believer is like a solid building, one part supports the other.” And he interlaced his fingers to demonstrate this[7].
The Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also said: “The example of the Believer in their mutual love and mercy is like the example of a body, if one part of the body feels pain, then all the body suffers in sleeplessness and fever. [8]
O people! I call to you in the name of Allaah. Does your nationalism call you to these noble manners of mercy and kindness to the Muslims the arabs and the non arabs and of having mutual sympathy and concern for them, and feeling pain at their pain? No by Allaah ! Rather it calls you to having allegiance with those who have evil character and it calls you to cultivating enmity and hatred for those who deny this false creed of nationalism . So beware, O Muslim who desires safety and salvation, and consider the reality of the affair with a fair consideration, without being prejudiced with party spirit and desires. Only then you will see the reality as it truly is. So may Allaah guide me and you to the means of safety and salvation.
And it is related by Imaam al-Bukhaaree in his Saheeh (8/137), that a young man from the Muhaajirs and a young man from the Ansaar quarreled. So the Muhaajir said: “O Muhaajirs! (meaning: rally to my help)” And the Ansaaree said: “O Ansaar’” So the Prophe t sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam heard this and said: ”Is it with the call off jaahiliyyah that you are calling out, and I am present amongst you !”
Even though the term Muhaajir and Ansaar are two ascriptions which are beloved to Allaah the One free from all defects and He has praised these two groups with a very great praise, in His the Most High’s saying:
“And the first to embrace Islaam from the Muhaajirs and the Ansaar, and those who followed them in goodness, beliefs and actions. Allaah is well pleased with them, and they are well pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens of Paradise, beneath w hich rivers flow, to live therein forever. That is the supreme achievement.” [Soorah at-Tawbah 9:100].
Yet in the above incident, this ascription to the Muhaajirs and seeking the help from them, and the Ansaar and seeking the help from them, when the likes of this was considered to be from the calls of jaahiliyyah, then what about those who claim allegiance e to nationalism and seek help through that and become angry for that? Will this not be more fitting to be considered one of the calls from the days of jaahiliyyah? This is a matter in which there is no doubt, and it is one of the clearest of all matters.
And this is what has been established in the authentic hadeeth (narration), from alHaarith alAsh’aree radiallaahu ‘anhu, that the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
“I order you with five things which Allaah ordered me with: The Jamaa’ah, hearing , obeying, hijrah (migration) and jihaad in the way of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic. So whosoever separates from the Jamaaah by a handspan, throws the yoke of Islaam from his neck, unless he repents. And whosoever calls with the call of jaahiliyyah (the days of ignorance), then he is from the hoarded heap of Hell Fire” It was said: Even if he fasts and prays? He said: “Even if he fasts and prays. So call with the call of Allaah which Allaah gave: The Muslims, the Believers, Worshippers of Allaah.’ [9]
This hadeeth is absolutely clear with regards to rendering futile the calls to nationalism. Its callers deserve that they should be from the heap of Hell Fire, even if they fast and they Pray and claim that they are Muslims. So what a severe threat and se vere warning is given here; warning every muslim from the calls of jaahiliyyah and warning them from entering into this even if such calls are adorned with false talks and enchanting speeches . Rather it is a deception and a blind following which leads it s people to the worst and most despicable of ends. And we ask Allaah for safety and freedom from that.
References :
1. Nuqdul-Qawniyyatul Arabiyyah (pp.39-44), slightly edited.
2. Majmoo ul-Fataawaa (3/456).
3. Related by al-Bukhaaree (8/137).
4. Related by Muslim in his Saheeh (6/21), from Abu Hurayrah radiallaahu anhu.
5. Hasan: Related by Abu Daawood (no.5116) and at-Tirmidhee (no.4233) from Abu Hurayrah radiallaabu anhu. It was authenticated by Ibn Taymiyyah in Kitaabul-lqtidaa (p.35).
6. Saheeh: Related by Ahmad (5/411) and it was authenticated by Ibn Taymiyyah in Kitaabul-lqtidaa (p.69).
7. Related by al-Bukhaaree (no.481) and Muslim (no.2585) from Abu Hurayrah radiallaabu anhu.
8. Related by al-Bukhaaree (no.6011) and Muslim (no.2586) from an-Nu’maan ibn Basheer radiallaahu anhu.
9. Saheeh: Related by at-Tirmidhee (nos.2863) and at-Tilyaalasee (no.1161) and others. It was authenticated by Shaykh al-Albaanee in his checking to Ibn Abee ‘Aasim’s as-Sunnah (no.1036)
‘Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Daud what makes you think i am mocking the deen? I am serious, since Islam allows slavery then let us revive it. Let us turn theory into reality and make it a normal practice permitted by the deen, so i will ask you once again if you do no want to be a slave do you know anyone else who is willing or would like to be a slave? If you do, forward me their details please.
First you have to be in the lands of the Muslims, and then the Muslims had to had been at war with someone and won, and the conquered people would be the slaves.
Second, you have to have the permission of the khalifah or one of his representatives to take a slave.
Since none of those conditions are present, you’ll have to be patient.
None of these conditions are present because thay are all theory (khalifah, a war won by muslims, slaves, Muslim lands). It is the wishful dreams of some Muslims that fortunately will only stay dreams. The rest of us will choose to live in the real world.
You do not have to revive slavery, it never died. There are move slaves now than at anytime in history. The countries that ask to be invaded by foreigners are the people willing or atleast accepting their slavery with compliance. The women who flee poor or war torn lands and through themselves into prostitution in western lands are slaves also. When a foreign country has troops in your land, controls your economy and you learn their language in school you are a slave. When you leave your land to go live in your former colonial masters land for a better life; you are a slave.
@ Daud -
Are you a convert to Islam?
Do you want to bring back the Caliphate? If so, how would he be chosen?
What happens to those people without the proper lineage?
You seem to be learned muslim can you help me out.
Salaam
Daud the troll is back.
Listen mate, once again, quoting a paper entitled ‘The Evils of Nationalism’, from a Saudi scholar. You know Saudi as in Saudi Arabia, a country named after the ruling family. You don’t find it at all ironic that a guy who is railing against nationalism is doing it from a country named after the ruling family?
Daud already is a slave, to his Arab masters in Saudi Arabia. He’s as bad as the bloggers from China defending communism.
K-Dude,
First, was Shaykh Bin Baaz (rahimahullaah) correct in what he said about nationalism? That’s what you have to deal with. Did he call everyone to the Book of Allaah and the Prophetic Sunnah? Ask yourself that question!
If he did, than every thing after is falsehood, and evil desires.
[...] post on Nelson’s blog has some interesting comments concerning race as a factor in Islamic culture and [...]
[...] during the campaign, I posted this story on how black Iraqis were praying for an Obama victory in the US in hopes that it would bring [...]
The Prophet Muhammad, Ali ibn abu Talib, Hamza, Uthman, Zaid bin Harith, Hassan and Hussain and the majority of the Quraish clan were dark skinned Arabs of Kushite origin
The pale skinned people you see there today are not original arabs…they are either a by-product of mixing or descendants of migrants from Persia, Turkey, India, Rome and various regions in the Caucus region….the classical ancient Arabs were alaways described as having a dark complexion and they used a variety of classical arabic words to describe themselves
Being a arab is defined by these 3 factors….The person’s language, the person’s country,and the person’s nationality. To be an arab on must posses one of these characterisitcs. So zaytoon regardless of ones color tone, it has nothing to do with ones authenticity of being an arab……..That silly argument you can apply to black people but it has no weight in the issue of who is a arab and who is not…this definition I gave is from firstly the islamic scholars and it also the definition from many historians of the arab culture…..Unlizzted2009
Test
Arabic Terms Used for Complexions
There are many terms that describe complexions in the Arabic language that have different meanings from the same term today or that are no longer used. This is why many people who read descriptions using these terms don’t understand the true meaning of the descriptions.
White أبيض
One of these misunderstood terms is the term “white” ابيض . Most people think that when the Arabs of the past described a person’s complexion as “white”, they meant the same light complexion that is meant today. This isn’t true at all. When the Arabs described a person as “white”, they actually meant a dark complexion. Ibn Mandour, the well-known Arab linguist who was born in the 13th century AD and the author of the famous book on the Arabic language Lisan Al Arab, quotes from another famous book on the Arabic language called Al Tahdheeb the following:
“When the Arabs say that a person is white, they mean that he has a pure, clean, faultless integrity…They don’t mean that he has white skin, but they mean to speak well of his honor and the purity of his integrity. When they say that a person has a white face, they mean that his complexion is free from blotches and a blackness that is unattractive”.
The author of Al Tahdheeb is Mas’ud ibn Umar Sa’ad Al Deen Al Taftaazaani, the well-known Arab linguist who lived during the same time as Ibn Mandour.
Shams Al Deen Mohamed ibn Ahmed ibn Othman Al Dhahabi, a well-known historian also of the 13th century, says in his famous book Siyar A’alaam Al Nubalaa, “When the Arabs say that a person is white, they mean that he is black with a light-brownish undertone”. The Arabic definition of a white complexion is “al lown al hinti bi hilya sawdaa” اللون الحنطي بحلية سوداء . “Al lown” means complexion, “al hinti” means light brown, and “bi hilya sawdaa” means with a black appearance. It’s a black complexion with a light-brownish undertone. The “hilya” of a person is what’s apparent in his/her color or appearance. So a person with a “hilya” (appearance) “sawdaa” (black) has a black appearance. So a person called “white” ابيض by the Arabs of the past had a blackish complexion with a light-brown undertone.
So anyone who reads someone being described as “white” in an Arabic book of the past should understand that “white” means a dark complexion. It’s very important that people bear this in mind.
Red أحمر
Since in the past the term “white” was used for a person whose complexion was like a “black” person today, one must wonder what it is that the Arabs of the past called people who were “white” in the sense that the word is used today. In the past, those who had complexions like those who are considered “white” today were called red. Tha’alab, the Arabic language scholar of the 9th century AD says, “The Arabs don’t say that a man is white because of a white complexion. ‘White’ to the Arabs means that a person is pure, without any faults. If they meant that his complexion was ‘white’, they said ‘red’”.
Ibn Mandour says that the expression The Red People applies to the non-Arabs because of their whiteness and because of the fact that most of them are fair-skinned. He says that the Arabs used to call the non-Arabs such as the Romans and the Persians and their neighbors, The Red People. He also says that when the Arabs say that someone is white, they mean that he has a noble character–they don’t mean that he is white. He says that the Arabs call the slaves The Red People. This is because most of the slaves of the Arabs were white (red). Click below for original in Arabic.
Al Dhahabi says “Red, in the speech of the people from the Hijaz, means fair-complexioned and this color is rare amongst the Arabs. This is the meaning of the saying ‘…(He was) a red man as if he is one of the slaves’. The speaker meant that his color is like that of the slaves who were captured from the Christians of Syria, Rome, and Persia”. So it must be understood that what people call “white” today was called “red” by the Arabs of the past. Click below for original in Arabic.
Adam آدم
Another term that the Arabs used in the past to describe a complexion and that is misunderstood today is the term “adam” آدم. this term was used by the Arabs very often in the past. However, people today, both Arab and non-Arab, have no idea what this word means. Therefore, when they read about someone being described as “adam”, they have no idea what is meant. The term “adam” means very dark-skinned.
Ibn Athir, the famous scholar of the 12th century says concerning the term “adam”, “When used to describe the complexion of a human, it means very dark-skinned…It is said that the term comes from the expression the ‘face’ or ’surface of the earth’ which means the color of the earth. From this term Adam, the father of mankind, received his name”.
Ibn Mandour says, “There is disagreement concerning the origin of the name of Adam, the father of mankind. Some people say that he was named Adam because he was created from the face (udma) of the earth. Other people say that he was named Adam because of the adam (very dark) complexion that Allah created him”. Ibn Mandour also says, “The scholars of the Arabic language say that the origin of our father Adam’s name is from the fact that he was created from dirt and also the color “adam” resembles the color of dirt”. What these scholars say about the origin of our father Adam’s name is consistent with what Allah says in the Quran about the creation of Adam. Allah says that He created Adam from black mud. Since Adam was created from black mud, it’s only natural for his complexion to be like that of black mud, which is very “adam”. Click below for original in Arabic.
It appears that the word adam was also used in Hebrew. The word in Hebrew is admonee. The prophet David was described in the Old Testament as admonee. Esau was also described as admonee. Unfortunately many Jewish “scholars” translate the word incorrectly. They translate it as red. However, it’s very clear that the word in Arabic means black-skinned and the Arabic language and Hebrew language are similar. I doubt very seriously that the word could mean black in Arabic and red in Hebrew. Whoever makes such a contention should bring forth proof.
Black أسود
Another misunderstood term used by the Arabs of the past to described a person’s complexion is the term “black”. It must be understood that when the Arabs of the past used the term “black” to describe a complexion, they meant that the person’s complexion was actually black–much darker than the complexion of people who are called “black” today. The Arabs used the term “black” أسود or they used the term “shadeed al udma (very adam)” شديد الأدمة . The two terms were used interchangeably to describe a very, very dark complexion. Most people who are called “black” today are actually not black. Many people mistakenly believe that an Arab that the Arabs described as “black” was from a different race or origin from the other Arabs. This isn’t the case at all. When the Arabs described another Arab as black-skinned, they were only expressing the fact that the person was so dark-skinned that he/she was black, a color much darker than the color of most so-called African Americans and also a color much darker than the color of most so-called Africans. They didn’t mean that he/she wasn’t an Arab. The term “black” is used today for people who are not black at all. There are some peoples and tribes in Arabia and in so-called Africa who are black-skinned, but black-skinned is a specific complexion– a very, very dark complexion. This is an important point that must be kept in mind.
Yellow أصفر
Another misunderstood term used by the Arabs of the past to describe a person’s complexion is the term “yellow” أصفر. When people read that a person was described as having a “yellow” complexion, they believe that what is meant is the light complexion that the term is used for today. However, when the Arabs of the past described a person’s complexion as yellow, they didn’t mean a light complexion at all. In fact, they meant that the person was black-skinned. The terms black and yellow were used interchangeably by the Arabs of the past.
Ibn Mandour says, “Yellow also means black… Al Faraa says concerning the words of Allah in the Quran, ‘Like they are yellow camels’, ‘Yellow (camels) here means black camels’”. You will find many Arabs who were known to be black-skinned described as both black-skinned and as yellow. For example in the book Kitab Al Aghani by Abu Al Faraj Al Asbahaani of the 10th century AD, Saeed Ibn Misjah, the well-known Arab singer of the 9th century AD, was described as both black-skinned and yellow in the same chapter. It is a known fact that Saeed Ibn Misjah was black-skinned. Both terms (black and yellow) were used to describe him in Kitab Al Aghani because the terms were used interchangeably by the Arabs of the past.
Green أخضر
Most people are unaware of the fact that the Arabs of the past used the term “green” for black. Black and green were used interchangeably. This is why black-skinned Al Fadl Ibn Al Abbas Ibn ‘Utba Ibn Abi Lahab said:
I am the green (black) one. I am well-known. My skin is green (black). I am from the noble house of the Arabs. Whoever crosses swords with me, will cross swords with one who is noble and strong.
Abu `Uthman’ Amr Ibn Bahr al-Kinani al-Fuqaimi al-Basri, an outstanding African scholar known to posterity as al-Jahiz (ca. 776-869), has been described by Bernard Lewis as “one of the greatest prose writers in classical Arabic literature.” On this issue all of the major authorities agree. According to Christopher Dawson, “Al-Jahiz was the greatest scholar and stylist of the ninth century.” Philip K. Hitti wrote that al-Jahiz “was one of the most productive and frequently quoted scholars in Arabic literature. His originality, wit, satire, and learning, made him widely known.”
Born in Basra, in southern Iraq, al-Jahiz “studied philology, philosophy, and science there,” and became a brilliant scholar, prolific writer and chronicler of the deeds of African people. Al-Jahiz lived during an era marked by a visible increase in overt racial hostility directed by Arabs against Africans in the Islamic world. One of the most extreme reactions to this was the massive slave insurrection in 868 (around the time of Al-Jahiz’s death), known in Arab histories as the “Revolt of the Blacks.”
Al-Jahiz was the author of the Book of the Glory of the Blacks Over the Whites–a special essay in which the global history of African people and the subject of Blackness itself was discussed. During the 1980s, through the efforts of Mr. William Preston, the work was finally translated and published in English. It was long overdue. The Book of the Glory of the Blacks Over the Whites is a remarkable document. It includes penetrating commentaries on great African heroes such as Antarah the Lion, Lokman–the celebrated sage of the East–and the African ancestry of the Prophet Muhammad himself. According to Al-Jahiz, Abd al-Muttalib, the guardian of the sacred Kaaba, “fathered ten Lords, Black as the night and magnificent.” One of these men was Abdallah, the father of the Prophet Muhammad.
SOURCES:
The African Presence in Early Asia, edited by Runoko Rashidi & Ivan Van Sertima
History of the Arabs, by Philip Hitti
http://www.mujahideenryder.net/2009/04/11/the-saudi-obama-shaykh-adil-kalbani-first-black-imam-of-masjid-al-haram-makkah/