A paler shade of black - Arab racism (rooted in Islamic heritage)

guardian ^ | March, 2008

[Righting]

Arabs.. racism.. it exists...

word 'abd - Arabic for "slave" - often used in our household... so common ..its negative connotations.. to anyone darker skin than themselves - from southern Sudanese house servants to migrants from Darfur- clear intent to demean.. addressing a particularly dark-skinned or thick-lipped child.

was a kind of racism that no one challenged, addressed,..through a child's eyes.. on a scale of colour, lighter was good, darker was bad. The word 'abd, although strictly meaning "slave" or "servant", became synonymous with negritude. my Islamic heritage reinforced this with quotes from Muhammad such as "You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian [ie black] slave whose head looks like a raisin" (Sahih Bukhari).

When we moved to E. Africa.. 'abd was seamlessly transferred to the locals whom we interacted only in their capacity as domestic staff , grounds-keepers at international schools. While I myself was "black" of North African descent, my family believed its Arab roots were somehow genetically dominant, giving us smaller features and a marginally lighter skin tone - deeming ourselves to be an entirely a different race from "pure" Africans.

Our next move was to Saudi Arabia, where the Arab ethnicity with which I identified so strongly was suddenly cast into doubt: now it was my turn to be the "slave". My belief that I was an Arab, racially superior to non-Arab Africans, became laughable in the heartland of Arabia - a place where "Arabness" was not only determined by skin colour but by whether you could uninterruptedly trace your lineage back to the founding father of your clan. In fact, ancestry is so important in Saudi Arabia that courts have the power to annul a marriage if gaps are later discovered in a person's lineage.. blood line pollution.

[Cronos]

There was no known written records for Odinism and Druidism, however, all historical writings by pre-Christian Romans and Greeks do attest to a lack of philosophy or anything deeper to their religion than tales.

This is similar to other Aryanic religions, however Hinduism developed a deeper sensibility -- around the time of mahavira (jainism) and gautama (buddhism) to give it depth. Zoroastrianism similarly gave depth to the earlier Irani religion. Both Buddhism and Zoroastrianism completelychnaged their parents, but Zoroastrianism replaced the daevas.

This is quite different from the religions of the pre-Christian Europeans.

Furthermore, Zoroastrianism is one of the "revealed" religions with a deep philosophical base. On most merits it ranks higher than Islam -- especially in clarity of thought where Islam belies it's hodge-podge mixture of beliefs covering up it's true message: Bedouin-Arab nationalism. Islam tells you that if you are of the Bedo race, you are a superior caste (hence the adulation vaunted on the Quareishies and the Aga Khan) and then on BEdo traditions -- hence you have people in Indonesia trying to wear beards and pretend to be Arabs, ditto for people in Syria, Libya etc and ditto for Pakis who try to prove that they are really completely descended from Arabs.

[Hatter6]

I partially agree that Islam is basically Arab-Nationalism. However, trung Roman sources for a complete view of European Paganism is akin to trusting British sources for a complete overview of Hinduism. You would come away with the impression that all Indians do all day is throw widows on bonfires, kill female children, and worship the Elephant Man. The difference is that the British did not do as good a job of eradicating Hinduism in India as Christians did of eradicating Odinism and Druidism in Europe, so the texts are still there for us to see the truth. History is written by the winners.

As for Pakis, their behaviour in my Country leaves me little choice but to believe that they are descended from Arabs.