What's new

Arab racism against fellow Muslims

rickroll said:
Some good points here and in post #69. Somehow multi-quote reply is not working so I can only quote this one message.
Click to expand...

Hit the reply button on all posts that you want to quote and it will stack them in your reply.

Good thread BTW👍
 
rickroll said:
Some good points here and in post #69. Somehow multi-quote reply is not working so I can only quote this one message.

To clarify - I do not expect Arabs to give special treatment to muslims. The only reason I brought up Islam and muslims in the topic and my initial post is the irony of Arabs considering themselves the original muslims but acting against the basic tenets of Islam. The reason I also mentioned their racism even against fellow muslims was to highlight that their prejudiced behavior is not stemmed from religious superiority ("we are believers and look down on the non-believers") but more of true racism.
Click to expand...
I might be prejudiced but I don't think Arabs or any other religion originators, so to say, hold their own co-religionists hold in any special regard.

Racism has to do with race and yes caste and community before it considers religion.

I think that might have something to do with your culture shock. You expected more from the Arabs as the custodians of Islam and were disappointed.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
It might not be racism in the technical sense, but it works in more or less the same fashion. You mention dharma there, but before the RSS pioneers decided hinduism was too religion based, dharma meant a person ended up a low caste by birth as part of his or her dharma, and they couldn't escape that dharma during their lifetime.

Hence they were treated as lesser beings in the same way a racist would grade some races as lesser.
Click to expand...
There is no technicality here. Caste system has evolved to be a form of discrimination. But it is not race based.

Caste system was alright for as long as there was fluidity in it. Any educated person could be a Brahmin. Any skilled Artisan or Gold smith can become a Shudra or any skilled swordsman could become a Kshatriya. When the lines between various castes became rigid, it became discriminatory.

You cannot equate anything to racism. Any discrimination based on skin color or facial features is considered racist. Varnashrama Dharma does not quality for it.
 
Red-Indian said:
Honestly, I don't see Arab attitudes as racism but more as nouveau riche snobbery.

I don't think there's a lot of history of this behaviour. From what I know, for most of their medium-term history, Arabs were ruled by the Turks, Brits etc. Movies in the 60s, 70s show them either as fawning - effendi, effendi types or noble savages. Sudden oil money and being served by a range of nationalities and everyone begging for their money has probably turned them a bit arrogant like any arrivistes or lottery winners.

Perhaps Muslims expect some special consideration given the common religion and perceive an extra racism when they don't get it. As far as most others are concerned, I don't think Arabs are seen as particularly racist - more as vulgar, tasteless and perhaps exploitative and uncaring.
Click to expand...
Caliphate was under strict Arab rule for only 3 centuries at best.

Rashidun and Umayyads were Arabs. Abbasids were quasi Arabs. They are more central asian. They are the ones that gave Islam as we know today. After Abbasids, Seljuk Turks took over followed by Ottomans.

Basically Arabia was under Turkish rile starting from 1250's all the way till 1917 when Ottoman rule ended.

Arabs are indebted to Americans for discovering oil for them. Arabs did not know what they were sitting on for several millennia until 1938 when an American geologist discovered oil there and the rest is history. Until then, the Hejaz area was sparsely populated by Bedioun Arabs. The land could only support a few people. With oil money, the influx of Arabs started and there were fights over who should control the oil rich areas.

As you have said, money also brings attitude and rich always tend to look down upon poor people.
 
Champ_Pal said:
There is no technicality here. Caste system has evolved to be a form of discrimination. But it is not race based.

Caste system was alright for as long as there was fluidity in it. Any educated person could be a Brahmin. Any skilled Artisan or Gold smith can become a Shudra or any skilled swordsman could become a Kshatriya. When the lines between various castes became rigid, it became discriminatory.

You cannot equate anything to racism. Any discrimination based on skin color or facial features is considered racist. Varnashrama Dharma does not quality for it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that sounds like a revisionist history of Hindu religion, maybe you are giving me the version pioneered by Gowalkar and the RSS movement. But he was an atheist from the 20th century who ridiculed his own religion (Hinduism) and tried to rebuild a new identity based on cultural nationalism.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
I'm sorry but that sounds like a revisionist history of Hindu religion, maybe you are giving me the version pioneered by Gowalkar and the RSS movement. But he was an atheist from the 20th century who ridiculed his own religion (Hinduism) and tried to rebuild a new identity based on cultural nationalism.
Click to expand...
Revisionist? Varnashrama Dharma is as old as India itself. It existed in all cults in India and it was fluid.

Manusmriti is only about 1400 years old. The groups were codified and became rigid after that. There are many instances of Shudras becoming Brahmins and Brahmins becoming Kshatriyas or Vaishyas or Shudras.

The famous sage Valmiki who wrote Ramayan is a tribal person who became a Brahmin.

The Saptarishis do not have castes. All of the 4 castes call these Rishis as their progenitors.
 
Champ_Pal said:
Revisionist? Varnashrama Dharma is as old as India itself. It existed in all cults in India and it was fluid.

Manusmriti is only about 1400 years old. The groups were codified and became rigid after that. There are many instances of Shudras becoming Brahmins and Brahmins becoming Kshatriyas or Vaishyas or Shudras.

The famous sage Valmiki who wrote Ramayan is a tribal person who became a Brahmin.

The Saptarishis do not have castes. All of the 4 castes call these Rishis as their progenitors.
Click to expand...
One of the many reasons I like this forum. Across many topics we also get pretty interesting side discussions. I do not know much about Hinduism so I felt like I learned some new things here (I did have to google quite a few terms in this message). Good stuff!
 
Champ_Pal said:
Revisionist? Varnashrama Dharma is as old as India itself. It existed in all cults in India and it was fluid.

Manusmriti is only about 1400 years old. The groups were codified and became rigid after that. There are many instances of Shudras becoming Brahmins and Brahmins becoming Kshatriyas or Vaishyas or Shudras.

The famous sage Valmiki who wrote Ramayan is a tribal person who became a Brahmin.

The Saptarishis do not have castes. All of the 4 castes call these Rishis as their progenitors.
Click to expand...

What I learned of the caste system at school was that the caste system was linked to dharma, and a reflection of your previous life hence reincarnation. I also read that the only way to move up the caste ladder is to observe the rules of your own caste strictly in you current life. This seems to be the reality of how Hindus have actually thought for the vast majority of recorded history.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
What I learned of the caste system at school was that the caste system was linked to dharma, and a reflection of your previous life hence reincarnation. I also read that the only way to move up the caste ladder is to observe the rules of your own caste strictly in you current life. This seems to be the reality of how Hindus have actually thought for the vast majority of recorded history.
Click to expand...
Your karma in this life is going to affect your next life. The cycle of birth and death will continue until the soul gets moksha. It is common for all cults in India.
You can change your stature or even Varna if you show the skill and talent. I have mentioned many such people who changed their caste before due to their deeds.
At the end of Gupta empire, this internal mobility was prohibited. I don’t the circumstances for it, but it changed for the worse around 7th century. Caste fluidity and intermixing was strictly prohibited. What we see is the result of that change till today.

Funny thing is, Manu Smriti only mentions 4 castes. But we have thousands of castes today. This just shows internal groupings have skyrocketed since the strict enforcement of Caste rules. It is abhorrent and should be smashed to pieces.
Ambedkar had the guts to question it. Non- Sawarna(non-high caste) people deserved their rights and reservations were enforced for their upliftment when India got its independence.
But like all things in India, even reservations were exploited by certain low caste people and leftist parties use it as a weapon to divide Hindu vote bank.

Give it another 50 years, no one will care about caste in India. Inter caste marriages have picked up pace and it will only accelerate in the future with the older generations fading away.
 
Champ_Pal said:
Give it another 50 years, no one will care about caste in India. Inter caste marriages have picked up pace and it will only accelerate in the future with the older generations fading away.
Click to expand...

That is because due to exposure to the rest of the world via digital connectivity such ideas look ridiculous - not because there was some hidden truth in the original idea of inherent or incarnated social divisions. The western world does not believe in castes yet they are the first world and India is third world. What caste would Americans or the British Raj be classified as?
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
That is because due to exposure to the rest of the world via digital connectivity such ideas look ridiculous - not because there was some hidden truth in the original idea of inherent or incarnated social divisions. The western world does not believe in castes yet they are the first world and India is third world. What caste would Americans or the British Raj be classified as?
Click to expand...
Foreigners would generally be classified as 'Mlechhas' - outside or by some interpretations below the caste system.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
That is because due to exposure to the rest of the world via digital connectivity such ideas look ridiculous - not because there was some hidden truth in the original idea of inherent or incarnated social divisions. The western world does not believe in castes yet they are the first world and India is third world. What caste would Americans or the British Raj be classified as?
Click to expand...
After the Glen Hoddle incident in the UK people became very careful about disclosing these types of belief. In fact they aren't very mainstream.

Hamza Yusuf , Sadiq Khan, Jacob Rees Mogg and Tim Farron got grilled over their attitude to LGBT because of the Abrahamic religious stance on it. They had to duck and dive to protect their careers.

Hindus are somewhat lucky they don't face the same scrutiny. Can you imagine Sunak, Patel or Braverman being asked about caste system or whether disabled people were sinners from a previous life?

That's why overall I think they are happy presenting the soft face outside ( yoga pants, fireworks and Bollywood) over the harder face they want to show at home where nobody is looking.

Maybe we can learn from them.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
That is because due to exposure to the rest of the world via digital connectivity such ideas look ridiculous - not because there was some hidden truth in the original idea of inherent or incarnated social divisions. The western world does not believe in castes yet they are the first world and India is third world. What caste would Americans or the British Raj be classified as?
Click to expand...
Caste system is fading away because people don’t follow any of its rules. This is like following Islam and eating pork and doing adultery.
A system or faith only exists if the people follow the rules.

I don’t know why British or Americans even be considered as part of caste system. You made no sense there. This is like asking whether a Baniya falls under a Sunni or Shia.

All of these European societies also had rigid class system. There were revolutions against that system for equal rights. No society is immune to this BS.
 
My Mamo (maternal uncle) lived in Saudi arabia for more than 15 years and was there in may 1998 when Pakistan carried out nuclear tests. He told be that many saudis he knew back then were overjoyed about it and they were hugging and congratulating him and praising Pakistan.

When we talk of Arabs, there is a need to differentiate between arab rulers like the house of Saud and ordinary arabs. The oil wealth has made those arab ruling elite arrogant and they suck up to the white man and look down upon black and sub-continent muslims.
But most ordinary arabs i have met in Canada/USA were not racist at all. I have many arab friends and there is a genuine feeling of muslim unity
 
Red-Indian said:
Honestly, I don't see Arab attitudes as racism but more as nouveau riche snobbery.

I don't think there's a lot of history of this behaviour. From what I know, for most of their medium-term history, Arabs were ruled by the Turks, Brits etc. Movies in the 60s, 70s show them either as fawning - effendi, effendi types or noble savages. Sudden oil money and being served by a range of nationalities and everyone begging for their money has probably turned them a bit arrogant like any arrivistes or lottery winners.

Perhaps Muslims expect some special consideration given the common religion and perceive an extra racism when they don't get it. As far as most others are concerned, I don't think Arabs are seen as particularly racist - more as vulgar, tasteless and perhaps exploitative and uncaring.
Click to expand...
Very good thread to be bumped and good post.

I am not Arab but I am well aware of the Racist and Xenophobic behavior of Arabs towards non-Arabs, let me read through some of the replies and lets continue this good discussion.
 
rickroll said:
Sorry this is not just a simplistic response but a cop out one. Maybe you do not want to speak against any muslim nation and are trying to justify or cover up atrocities? Your point is some anecdotal cop out ("there are good and bad people everywhere) while I have cited research papers from valid sources.

Different groups of people having racist and non-racist ones is an obvious fact that everyone is aware of. But some groups have a much higher percentage as a result of generational institutionalized racism. You have multi-generational exploitation of a group of people who are poorer, darker (add colorism to the equation), always look up at you for mercy, you (you or your forefathers) hold the power to make/break their lives, you have LEGAL protection for their modern day slavery, you also hold a (flawed) religious superiority over them ... your opinions are influenced by what you grow up with at this point and you will be more racist than others.

  1. Have you been to the middle east and see how they treat you before they realize you are an American? I have and it is disgusting. My family has some Pathan mix but it is mostly Punjabi+Sindhi. I am clearly American once I start speaking. Until I speak or show my US passport for any requirements, their behavior towards me has been night and day. Not once or twice but EVERY time (I have traveled to the middle east 8-10 times during my consulting days).
  2. Have you spoken with people who have directly suffered (suffering) either themselves or their family members by Arabs in the middle east? I have.
  3. As a percentage of population, which part of the world has a higher percentage looking down on us South Asians - Americans, Latin Americans, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Africans or Arabs? Just be honest without your religious lens in play in order to not offend the self-perceived "arbiters of Islam"?

Again - I do not want to add my anecdotal points and hence I have added as many valid research papers as possible here.

When it comes to study of groups of people, it is not all or nothing. Everyone knows not ALL people in a group are good or bad. That is not the point and we are not in kindergarten. It is about probabilistic percentages. Which population group has a higher percentage (and thus probability) or a certain action and then, the reason why.

If you can understand it better with simpler logic then think about this - If 8 out of 10 of your high school friends watch soccer and 8 out 10 of your undergrad friends watch cricket. You now want to watch a game of cricket and you cannot ask any individual but must only go with one group or another without knowing what they will do. You are better off going with your undergrad friends from a sheer probabilistic viewpoint, right? This is how it is when people's lives and interactions are affected by one population group or another.
Click to expand...
You are clearly referring to Saudi Arabia here so lets call it that and confine our discussion to Saudi Arabia. It is clear to see and witness their behavior.

Saudi Arabia is a fiefdom of a particular family which is bitterly subdivided and always looking over their shoulders for signs of mutiny and who can race to power. The Saudi military is subdivided and headed by particular fractions of "House of Saud" and command is handed to the family member considered most loyal.

I have lived and interacted with members of Royal family, turned their job offer and also know about conduct in the Governor palace where people come for their needs.

What are people's thoughts about Saudi Arabia? What do you think and know about the people and their customs etc? I will let people say their experiences and then I will tell you about mine while traveling extensively throughout 13 provinces and interacting with Bediuns etc.
 
LordJames said:
You are clearly referring to Saudi Arabia here so lets call it that and confine our discussion to Saudi Arabia. It is clear to see and witness their behavior.

Saudi Arabia is a fiefdom of a particular family which is bitterly subdivided and always looking over their shoulders for signs of mutiny and who can race to power. The Saudi military is subdivided and headed by particular fractions of "House of Saud" and command is handed to the family member considered most loyal.

I have lived and interacted with members of Royal family, turned their job offer and also know about conduct in the Governor palace where people come for their needs.

What are people's thoughts about Saudi Arabia? What do you think and know about the people and their customs etc? I will let people say their experiences and then I will tell you about mine while traveling extensively throughout 13 provinces and interacting with Bediuns etc.
Click to expand...

I have interacted and worked/studied with Arabs. They were always friendly with me.

I also have friends and family in gulf states. They never speak ill.

There are racists in all countries. There are desi racists, white racists, black racists, East Asian racists etc. We shouldn't generalize.

Most Arabs are not racists in my opinion.
 
sweep_shot said:
I have interacted and worked/studied with Arabs. They were always friendly with me.

I also have friends and family in gulf states. They never speak ill.

There are racists in all countries. There are desi racists, white racists, black racists, East Asian racists etc. We shouldn't generalize.

Most Arabs are not racists in my opinion.
Click to expand...
But you can't deny that people from India/Pakistan and particularly Bangladeshees are discriminated against in the (Gulf) Khaleej?
 
Whoever perceives himself superior to others on the basis of ethnicity himself is at fault. He'll be answerable to Allah for his deeds. We just have to worry about ourselves. I am sure not all Arabs are like that. Those who are, are answerable for their own actions. No need to make a big deal about it.
 
The popular label in the gulf to describe pakistani/hindustani cohort is al-hindi.

And the saudi attribute for al-hindi is miskeen.

As in dirt poor.
 
rickroll said:
Context: I have a good friend who is a muslim from Kerala and has been in the US for decades now. His community is the oldest muslim community of South Asia (please look up Mappila muslims for an interesting read -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mappila_Muslims). He is an incredibly smart and kind person, our children are all similar ages so our families spend time together during some weekend days. I recently watched a movie from Kerala in his place (I forgot the name of the movie) and it was about the exploitation of middle east immigrant workers through the Kafala system.

More on the issue: While it was just a movie (well made one I might add), it got me curious and started discussing more about this with my friend. He shared many harrowing racist incidents from his own circle of friends and family, racist incidents by Arab muslims on fellow South Asian muslims. Besides this anecdotal account, I have seen and faced flippant behavior from Arabs myself, and have heard vile behaviors towards Pakistani workers from my extended family. My best friend (also a Pakistani American) and I got into serious fights during my high school with Arab kids who openly called us "Pakistani dogs" and would get into detail of how they had Pakistanis as slaves. I could not grasp the origins of their visceral hatred then, but I started understanding later on. This got me curious (dare I say also agitated) enough to explore more articles and research papers to understand the extent of this hate perversion by the Arabs and man it is shocking. I'm attaching some of the papers I came across for anyone interested and in the spirit of creating a discussion of substance.

My questions/frustrations: Islam preaches equality and nobody can dispute that. How are these vile creatures making peace with their racism while also offering their daily prayers? So we can say humans can be flawed at individual level and the system as a whole should be closer to idealism. Many of the GCC countries are Islamic by constitution, then how do they have a state sanctioned slavery system (Kafala) that goes against the very tenets of equality and creates lawful slavery? How do they (Arabs and Arab nations) then posture towards other muslim nations that they are the arbiters of everything about Islam and expect us to bow down to them? I admit, I have looked down on Hindus due to their religion having a fabric of inequality (caste system) but it is painful and frustrating to see that contemporary Islam has the same malaise with the Arabs looking down on all of us here as "below them sub-humans". This is increasingly making me ask myself if I have any right to critique on the caste system of Hindus when Islam today has such serious fissures due to such corrupted practices.

Reference Links
  1. Recruitment of migrant workers -- https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/f...-beirut/documents/publication/wcms_519913.pdf
  2. Migration in the Middle East -- https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/t.../mainsite/policy_and_research/gcim/rs/RS5.pdf
  3. 2020 UN Report on Racism (touching on this Middle East racism) -- https://undocs.org/en/A/HRC/44/57/Add.1
  4. Human smuggling in the Middle East -- https://agsiw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Ubaydli_ONLINE_edits.pdf
  5. Institutionalized Middle East slavery by withholding passports -- https://www.stopslaverynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/032.-IHRB_Fees-and-IDs-Report1.pdf
Click to expand...
Discrimination in the Gulf region—particularly against Indians, Pakistanis, and more severely against Bangladeshis—is a harsh reality. Denying or sugarcoating it serves no purpose. However, it's important to note that these prejudices aren't rooted in religion. From my interactions with Saudis at high levels, including those close to the House of Saud, I found many to be non-practicing in terms of Islam. A significant number have never visited the holy sites, don’t attend Friday prayers, and openly prioritize leisure, travel, and indulgence over religious observance.

Historically, the rise of the House of Saud is less about divine legitimacy and more about opportunism. Initially a group of tribal raiders, they rose to power through British intervention and strategic alliances with scholars who opposed Ottoman religious innovations. This partnership laid the groundwork for what became modern-day Saudi Arabia—where religious authority and political power prop each other up for mutual survival.

Religious discourse in Saudi Arabia is strictly state-controlled. Sermons and mosque programs, including those in the two Holy Mosques, are government-approved and scripted. Any unsanctioned commentary is prohibited. The kingdom’s social structure revolves around roughly 400 extremely wealthy families, a bloated middle class kept comfortable through state support, and a Kafala system that thrives on the exploitation of foreign labor. While there are individuals within the elite and Kafala-benefiting groups who sincerely practice Islam and hold ethical values, they are largely powerless to challenge the system.

Saudi interaction with the West increased significantly post-oil discovery, particularly through overseas education. However, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan marked a turning point in political awareness among Saudis. Then came 9/11—an event that gave the House of Saud the justification to clamp down hard on internal dissent and reformist voices.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), while young and ambitious, appears to believe that liberalizing society—especially through entertainment and loosening social restrictions—will help preserve the regime. However, the economic resources to sustain such a transformation are dwindling. Vision 2030, once marketed as a grand national strategy, has been scaled down due to financial constraints. The West, recognizing the symbolic value of Saudi Arabia as custodian of Islam’s two holiest sites, continues to exploit this association, and normalization with Israel now seems only a matter of time.

Much of the online discourse, especially from Hindutva circles, accuses Arabs (specifically Saudis) of racism and unfairly ties these attitudes to Islam. But in reality, this racism stems from a lack of true Islamic practice. Western media also often draws subtle connections between labor abuse and Islam, despite the fact that anyone who’s visited Hajj or Umrah can see that commercialism dominates the sacred atmosphere. Activism—even in symbolic forms like wearing "Save Gaza" apparel—is banned. It’s forbidden to gather for informal discussion in mosques, to critique public services, or to access independent Islamic education unless sanctioned by the state.

Countless scholars are imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, while the general public remains uninformed about global events due to media censorship and the language barrier. When Al Jazeera began broadcasting investigative programs on Saudi society, it faced immediate backlash and censorship. In remote areas, I met Saudi men who genuinely believed that Saudi soldiers protect Masjid Al-Aqsa, unaware that it remains under Israeli occupation.

Beneath the surface of conservatism, Saudi society faces an internal moral crisis. Pornography and homosexuality are widespread, with alarming rates of HIV—a matter that top Saudi doctors have acknowledged privately, though the government refuses to address publicly. As oil revenues shrink and subsidies dry up, the societal contract that once maintained order is fracturing.

The pulpits across the world often echo outrage over Indian abuses in Kashmir or American drone strikes, yet remain silent on Saudi bombing campaigns in Yemen, including the killing of Shia children. Why is that? Why is there no mention of semi-nude performances taking place just miles from the Kaaba, while mosques worldwide turn a blind eye?

Saudi Arabia is at a critical crossroads—economically, socially, and spiritually. The silence and complicity from both within and outside its borders only deepen the crisis.
 
BunnyRabbit said:
Whoever perceives himself superior to others on the basis of ethnicity himself is at fault. He'll be answerable to Allah for his deeds. We just have to worry about ourselves. I am sure not all Arabs are like that. Those who are, are answerable for their own actions. No need to make a big deal about it.
Click to expand...
Good coping mechanism
 
Destruction of Arabs

Narrated Zainab bint Jahsh: The Prophet () got up from his sleep with a flushed red face and said, "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. Woe to the Arabs, from the Great evil that is nearly approaching them. Today a gap has been made in the wall of Gog and Magog like this." (Sufyan illustrated by this forming the number 90 or 100 with his fingers.) It was asked, "Shall we be destroyed though there are righteous people among us?" The Prophet () said, "Yes, if evil increased." [Bukhari]
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Islam has colour blindness baked into the religion itself, that is how it has been adopted wholeheartedly across every race spectrum. But of course that doesn't mean that racism will go out of fashion, the vast majority of people are not believers, so the kuffar mentality reins supreme.
Click to expand...
Its innate human nature to discriminate, strong men fight against it and weaks have to develop a coping mechanism.
 
Farhan The Man said:
The popular label in the gulf to describe pakistani/hindustani cohort is al-hindi.

And the saudi attribute for al-hindi is miskeen.

As in dirt poor.
Click to expand...
You can't describe a human being as "Al-Hindi" in Arabic grammar in the context which you are describing and the Arabs don't! If you had not slept through your "11 years of Madrasah" you would have learned the grammar rules described in the 2nd or 3rd beginner lesson of Arabic language and know how absurd you sound when you say dumb things!

Arabic:

فرحان من الهندِ. هو هنديٌّ​
Transliteration:
Farhan min "Al-Hind".
Huwa "Hindiyyun"

Notice the addition and then absence of "Al" and then notice how Arabic grammar works and the change in case.

Translation:

Farhan is from India.
He is Indian.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
It's innate human nature to fight against discrimination as well. Strong men don't need to do it, weak men need to justify it by putting derogatory labels on others to make themselves look better.
Click to expand...
You mean like curry munchers?
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
It's innate human nature to fight against discrimination as well. Strong men don't need to do it, weak men need to justify it by putting derogatory labels on others to make themselves look better.
Click to expand...
Only strong men fight against it and that's what I said, but what can subcontinent Brethren do against Arabs? Just deploy the coping mechanism.
 
JaDed said:
You mean like curry munchers?
Click to expand...

Curry munchers is a western term - particularly one used by the British for Indians. British Indians and many who post here often share the same issues with Pakistanis and Muslims so as they are on the same page, using the same language makes sense.
 
Josh said:
Only strong men fight against it and that's what I said, but what can subcontinent Brethren do against Arabs? Just deploy the coping mechanism.
Click to expand...

Why do they need to do anything against Arabs? If someone is a racist then it's their problem so they need to cope with it right?
 
The un-Islamic behavior of some Arabs has long been foretold—along with the consequences.

My point is simple: this behavior isn’t because of Islam, but because they’ve strayed from it. Traits like racism and arrogance stem more from excessive wealth and indulgence than religion.

Arabs who genuinely follow Islam consistently show kindness, generosity, and good character—it’s evident in their actions.

Also, when people speak of "Arabs," they usually mean those in the Gulf. But Arabs come from many regions, including parts of Africa that subcontinent communities rarely visit due to limited economic opportunities.

Farhan The Man said:
I wonder if arabs put effort learning urdu.

Talk about being loyal to king, more than himself.

Pity such existence.
Click to expand...
Muslims typically learn Arabic for two main reasons—and they’re quite straightforward. One, to directly access the Qur’an and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). And two, to improve job prospects in Arabic-speaking countries.

There is no Islamic obligation to understand Arabic; it’s encouraged, but not mandatory. Learning Arabic for work is no different than someone picking up German or French for employment in those regions.

As for Arabs and their interaction with South Asians—many do understand and speak Urdu, especially those involved in business or daily interaction with people from the subcontinent. I personally know several Arabs who speak Urdu quite well.

Perhaps your limited experience in “Karachi” and minimal real-world exposure during your “11 years in Madrasah” explains why you're unaware. Even everyday Arabs often know enough Urdu to communicate—this happens in offices, hospitals, and public spaces all the time.
 
The word of Allah (SWT) was spoken in Arabic. It is sad to see so much hate for the people who live and breath the divine language. They are the ones who understand the Divine words truly without any mistranslation. They have every right to feel superior for they are superior. I have been told a thousand times Arabic is a special language and The Holy Quran cannot be interpreted by the means of other common languages. Why shouldn't the people who have inherited that language be considered superior?
 
Farhan The Man said:
Ditto. Corroborated by quranic diction.

arabic islam is incompatible for non-arabs/south asians anyways.

For the simple fact god didn't intend it for us. It's clearly stipulated.
​
[Quran 12:2] We have revealed it an Arabic Quran, so that you may understand.​
[Quran 14:4] We never sent any messenger except in the language of his people, to make things clear for them.​
Click to expand...
Note the stupidity and logical fallacy of this argument!

If Qur'aan was revealed in lets say "Urdu", it would have been inaccessible (according this this absurd logic) to all "Non-Urdu" speakers, replace "Urdu" with a language of your choice.

Lets compare and contrast, shall we?
  1. The primary language of Hindu scriptures is Sanskrit which is not read (let alone understood) by vast majority of Hindus and not spoken by overwhelming majority!
  2. The primary language of Qur'aan is in indeed Arabic which is spoken by millions and understood by millions and its grammar rules are preserved and taught in most communities. Millions of Muslims around the world "read" it in their prayers, if they want to understand the Qur'aan, translations are available in multiple languages and easily, click here and go. The verbatim Quran is memorized by millions in a foreign language.
Now watch the "11 year Madrasah student" not understand the argument, not answer but change topics and write something completely incoherent!

images


I have given enough Arabic lessons to "Mr 11 years in Madrasah" in the past few weeks in almost every thread, dude knows nothing about Islam or Arabic or Qur'aan and has left Islam but can't help inserting himself into every conversation with humiliating results.
 
Farhan The Man said:
Shot yourself on the foot. Freudian slip.

Read. But not understood.

Akin to regurgitating german or chinese diction. Not for us either.
Click to expand...
"Read" vs Understand
The primary language of Qur'aan is in indeed Arabic which is spoken by millions and understood by millions and its grammar rules are preserved and taught in most communities. Millions of Muslims around the world "read" it in their prayers, if they want to understand the Qur'aan, translations are available in multiple languages and easily, click here and go. The verbatim Quran is memorized by millions in a foreign language.
Click to expand...

What a waste of "11 years in Madrasah"...
 
@The Bald Eagle

I wish there was an option of "irrelevant" discussion, attempt to derail thread so posts by Hindutava who deliberately insert themselves into every thread, infect it and then prolong it to page and pages of irrelevant discussion can be reported.

Half of these guys literally don't read and don't reply when their stupidity is exposed and simply change the argument.
 
Aang_The_last_airbender said:
The word of Allah (SWT) was spoken in Arabic. It is sad to see so much hate for the people who live and breath the divine language. They are the ones who understand the Divine words truly without any mistranslation. They have every right to feel superior for they are superior. I have been told a thousand times Arabic is a special language and The Holy Quran cannot be interpreted by the means of other common languages. Why shouldn't the people who have inherited that language be considered superior?
Click to expand...
That is the issue. You cannot offer prayers in any other language.
Basically every Muslim has to learn and speak Arabic fluently if he wants to understand the message of Islam.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LordJames said:
@The Bald Eagle

I wish there was an option of "irrelevant" discussion, attempt to derail thread so posts by Hindutava who deliberately insert themselves into every thread, infect it and then prolong it to page and pages of irrelevant discussion can be reported.

Half of these guys literally don't read and don't reply when their stupidity is exposed and simply change the argument.
Click to expand...
Thanks removed irrelevant bit
 
Champ_Pal said:
a Chinese man singing a Telugu song and swaying his hips to the lyrics.
Click to expand...
A valid analogy. This. To firm up predicament of a south asian muslim convert.

In karachi, you have quran blasting full volume in malls during ramazan. The shopkeepers/shoppers are equally unawares of what is being said.

It's futile to impose a foreign language on the poor masses. Mind automatically filters out irrelevant noise.
 
Farhan The Man said:
A valid analogy. This. To firm up predicament of a south asian muslim convert.

In karachi, you have quran blasting full volume in malls during ramazan. The shopkeepers/shoppers are equally unawares of what is being said.

It's futile to impose a foreign language on the poor masses. Mind automatically filters out irrelevant noise.
Click to expand...
The divine word is in Arabic, it is duty of every human to learn the divine language. Its simple! 🤷‍♂️
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Out of interest what is the language of Hindu texts?
Click to expand...
LordJames said:
@The Bald Eagle

I wish there was an option of "irrelevant" discussion, attempt to derail thread so posts by Hindutava who deliberately insert themselves into every thread, infect it and then prolong it to page and pages of irrelevant discussion can be reported.

Half of these guys literally don't read and don't reply when their stupidity is exposed and simply change the argument.
Click to expand...
Sorry not allowed to discuss that
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Do Hindus across India understand it?
Click to expand...
Abrahamic religions simply cant grasp that Hinduism talks about infinite paths to Divine Soul.
So the idea of cramming and memorizing religious texts is not essential or gives you extra brownie points.
Not many would grasp, Rigveda itself question the idea of creation and creator ( a very atheist perspective) or can be interpreted as the the question of creation and creator is futile (an agnostic POV) or thousands other views about life and after life. Take your pick and carry on. Mahavira, Gautam Buddha and Guru Nanak ji recognized this aspect of Indian philosophy and preached their own path as they saw fit for their time. Indian spiritual philosophies have been inclusive while Abrahamic texts lay very strong emphasis on showing themselves to be exclusive and special.
 
Aang_The_last_airbender said:
Abrahamic religions simply cant grasp that Hinduism talks about infinite paths to Divine Soul.
So the idea of cramming and memorizing religious texts is not essential or gives you extra brownie points.
Not many would grasp, Rigveda itself question the idea of creation and creator ( a very atheist perspective) or can be interpreted as the the question of creation and creator is futile (an agnostic POV) or thousands other views about life and after life. Take your pick and carry on. Mahavira, Gautam Buddha and Guru Nanak ji recognized this aspect of Indian philosophy and preached their own path as they saw fit for their time. Indian spiritual philosophies have been inclusive while Abrahamic texts lay very strong emphasis on showing themselves to be exclusive and special.
Click to expand...

Buddha and Nanak did not preach their own versions otherwise there would be no new religion. They would refer to themselves as Hindus.
 
Aang_The_last_airbender said:
Abrahamic religions simply cant grasp that Hinduism talks about infinite paths to Divine Soul.
So the idea of cramming and memorizing religious texts is not essential or gives you extra brownie points.
Not many would grasp, Rigveda itself question the idea of creation and creator ( a very atheist perspective) or can be interpreted as the the question of creation and creator is futile (an agnostic POV) or thousands other views about life and after life. Take your pick and carry on. Mahavira, Gautam Buddha and Guru Nanak ji recognized this aspect of Indian philosophy and preached their own path as they saw fit for their time. Indian spiritual philosophies have been inclusive while Abrahamic texts lay very strong emphasis on showing themselves to be exclusive and special.
Click to expand...
This all seems like excuses and a flowery interpretation of history.

The reality is different - most sikhs don't feel they are a part of Hinduism, buddhists got chased out of India and we have read the tales of the Brahims and how priestly castes guarded these texts from the masses who don't understand the language.

Regardless of the above, the point is around language. Rig Veda was written by divinely inspired sages, and the gods spoke to each other in language that masses cannot understand without translation.

So rather than @Champ_Pal and you mocking Pakistani muslims inability to understand Arabic and comparing it to Telugus reciting in Chinese, perhaps a more apt comparison would be with the average Hindu who also cannot access their religious texts and language of gods without intermediaries.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
This all seems like excuses and a flowery interpretation of history.

The reality is different - most sikhs don't feel they are a part of Hinduism, buddhists got chased out of India and we have read the tales of the Brahims and how priestly castes guarded these texts from the masses who don't understand the language.

Regardless of the above, the point is around language. Rig Veda was written by divinely inspired sages, and the gods spoke to each other in language that masses cannot understand without translation.

So rather than @Champ_Pal and you mocking Pakistani muslims inability to understand Arabic and comparing it to Telugus reciting in Chinese, perhaps a more apt comparison would be with the average Hindu who also cannot access their religious texts and language of gods without intermediaries.
Click to expand...
Most Sikhs live in Punjab of India, since you dont stay here, I doubt you know what the majority Sikh sentiment is.
and nowhere I have said Sikhism is part of Hinduism, it is part of Indian philosophies.

Your question is about the book and whether people understand them, lets stick to that. Else we have thesis worthy content about Islamic teachings and how the Islamic world operates around the world despite supposedly having only "one message".
Brahmins had control over teaching and propagation of Sanskrit, which made them feel superior and guardians of divine knowledge. Mahavira, Buddha and Guru Nanak ji, rejected that hoarding of divine truth. That's why the modern languages emerged from Prakrit and Pali which were the common languages of the people.

Coming to your last sentence, I have said before. Abrahamic religions cannot grasp the essence of basic Indian philosophies. There are infinite paths to God, you can choose whether you want an intermediary or not. There is no compulsion, because there are infinite paths. Sub continental Muslims when challenged about religious texts simply veer towards vaxxing eloquence of the Arabic language.

Regarding mocking Pakistani Muslims about lack of Arabic. I will simply say that in all my discussions with my Muslim friends about religion, and talking about interpretations of the Islamic teachings the most common cop out I have heard several times is that " Quran is written in Arabic and Arabic is a special unique language. Its translation cannot be done in other languages". I have never heard Hindus giving such a cop out. So if Muslims all over the world give Arabic such a high status compared to other languages, it is natural for the Arabs to feel naturally superior.

We have veered off topic quite a bit, its about Arab Racism. My point is simple when subcontinental Muslims are ready to praise the specialty of Arabic, Arabs obviously will special as the gatekeepers of the special language. Hence, its natural for Arabs to look down upon non-Arabs.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
So rather than @Champ_Pal and you mocking Pakistani muslims inability to understand Arabic and comparing it to Telugus reciting in Chinese, perhaps a more apt comparison would be with the average Hindu who also cannot access their religious texts and language of gods without intermediaries.
Click to expand...
Again, emphasizing, I do not find anything special about Arabic. Why should any person feel inferior about not knowing a foreign language. This is the common mocking of people who are not versed in English in our corporate world. That is shitty and crap. Even if a person is well versed in English, Americans and English can find ways to mock the foreign accent.

It is the Muslims themselves that have given special status to Arabic, remove that and no more special snobbery by the Arabs. Simple.
 
Aang_The_last_airbender said:
Again, emphasizing, I do not find anything special about Arabic. Why should any person feel inferior about not knowing a foreign language. This is the common mocking of people who are not versed in English in our corporate world. That is shitty and crap. Even if a person is well versed in English, Americans and English can find ways to mock the foreign accent.

It is the Muslims themselves that have given special status to Arabic, remove that and no more special snobbery by the Arabs. Simple.
Click to expand...
You are making a number of points in a scattergun approach across two posts and taking some random examples to confirm your beliefs. Conveniently you know about Sikhs and I do not, and conveniently the straw man you have created about Arabs superiority and Arabic superiority is confirmed by your experiences that only you can verify

The lived experience of Muslims is different. Arabs have became more visible in 20-30 years compared to subcontinent Muslims and it may give a skewed example of what is considered superior and what isn't. As an example, The Ottoman courts didn't consider the Arabs superior, nor did the Mughals or Safavids. Arabic is given special status in the modern version of those countries but there is no superiority of Arabs.The language of these imperial courts was Persian, Turkish and Indian languages were used extensively by Mughals too. Arabic was the religious language.

Arab perceived snobbery is a modern phenomena as a result of wealth and oil money not as a result of language status.

Why Hindus don't mind translation of Sanskrit texts so much isn't to do with any feelings of superiority/inferiority of language. It is purely theological - high caste preserved the religion and kicked around lower caste when they tried to obtain knowledge.
 
Farhan The Man said:
It's not perceived. When it's factual.

When they block your entry. To your preferred place/object of worship.

Even after you handed over your hard-earned earnings. To them.

arynews.tv

Hajj 2025: PM Shehbaz to request Saudi facilitation for 67,000 pilgrims

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif said that Saudi Arabia’s authorities would be approached and requested to facilitate 67,000 Pakistanis,
arynews.tv arynews.tv
Click to expand...

But Arabs were never perceived to be immune to racism any more than the caste obsessed Indians are. That is why in the Prophet's PBUH final speech he actually referred to this and made special mention that an Arab was no better than a non-Arab, and a white was not superior to a black.
 
Farhan The Man said:
It's not perceived. When it's factual.

When they block your entry. To your preferred place/object of worship.

Even after you handed over your hard-earned earnings. To them.

arynews.tv

Hajj 2025: PM Shehbaz to request Saudi facilitation for 67,000 pilgrims

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif said that Saudi Arabia’s authorities would be approached and requested to facilitate 67,000 Pakistanis,
arynews.tv arynews.tv
Click to expand...
There’s nothing for you to worry about; in fact, you should feel relieved, as you have left Islam and acts of worship in Islam no longer concern you. As for the way Arabs treated you in the UAE, it wasn't due to racism—it stemmed from your intellectual shortcomings and academic inadequacy, which continue to haunt you.
 
LordJames said:
There’s nothing for you to worry about; in fact, you should feel relieved, as you have left Islam and acts of worship in Islam no longer concern you. As for the way Arabs treated you in the UAE, it wasn't due to racism—it stemmed from your intellectual shortcomings and academic inadequacy, which continue to haunt you.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there are some communities who have genuine reasons to resent Islam. If you are a gay party scene guy - and I'm not talking about Farhan here, just an example - you can imagine why Islam would be a buzzkill.
 
So puerile coming from you, expected a lot better response. But it happens when bias is profound.

By the way should Christian appoint the new pope from a aramic background, according to your logic??
Aang_The_last_airbender said:
The word of Allah (SWT) was spoken in Arabic. It is sad to see so much hate for the people who live and breath the divine language. They are the ones who understand the Divine words truly without any mistranslation. They have every right to feel superior for they are superior. I have been told a thousand times Arabic is a special language and The Holy Quran cannot be interpreted by the means of other common languages. Why shouldn't the people who have inherited that language be considered superior?
Click to expand...
 
The Bald Eagle said:
So puerile coming from you, expected a lot better response. But it happens when bias is profound.

By the way should Christian appoint the new pope from a aramic background, according to your logic??
Click to expand...
Considering the puerile logic, Is the Christian World following a Bible written in Aramaic? 🤷‍♂️ Bible has been revised, edited and translated into hundreds of version over the the centuries.
Quran is cited as being pure and untouched by humans by being retained in its original Arabic form. Its not my claim, its what you yourself would hear time and time again in religious discussions.

Random bias accusations just because of my Indian identity are beneath you. Just dont get triggered that an outsider can have an objective view point. Atleast Venom bhai, treated my views at face value instead of personal attack here.
 
Aang_The_last_airbender said:
Considering the puerile logic, Is the Christian World following a Bible written in Aramaic? 🤷‍♂️ Bible has been revised, edited and translated into hundreds of version over the the centuries.
Quran is cited as being pure and untouched by humans by being retained in its original Arabic form. Its not my claim, its what you yourself would hear time and time again in religious discussions.

Random bias accusations just because of my Indian identity are beneath you. Just dont get triggered that an outsider can have an objective view point. Atleast Venom bhai, treated my views at face value instead of personal attack here.
Click to expand...
Mr Aang, Holy Quran has already been translated in almost every big language of the world...if you want one of its copy in Hindi, Telugu or Gujrati etc then please let me know will forward you. 👍
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Mr Aang, Holy Quran has already been translated in almost every big language of the world...if you want one of its copy in Hindi, Telugu or Gujrati etc then please let me know will forward you. 👍
Click to expand...
Again, The Arabic form is considered the oirginal, the final and definitive, right? That's not the case for Bible.
I am a curious guy have freely read translations of many religious books, not fully but parts, in my spare time. Thanks for the offer.
Coming back to topic, Do you deny that we end up hearing how grand and exquisite the Arabic language is when people try to probe deep into religious texts. I have not heard it once or twice but several times. My Muslim friends in the end up telling me upto how special Arabic is. if that's what an Indian Muslim feels. If I were an Arab, I will automatically develop a superiority complex.


This is not me or my bias !
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
To be fair, there are some communities who have genuine reasons to resent Islam. If you are a gay party scene guy - and I'm not talking about Farhan here, just an example - you can imagine why Islam would be a buzzkill.
Click to expand...
Count me out of the gay party scene but if I'm honest, gods being buzzkills is one of the reasons I'm an atheist.

All these gods have to be really boring if they can't see the spiritual value in a good drinking session and an occasional toke with a bunch of old friends. I can't be bothered with boring gods. If we lived back in the Viking days, I'd be a real fervent believer. Now those were fun gods. Pity we outgrew them.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
To be fair, there are some communities who have genuine reasons to resent Islam. If you are a gay party scene guy - and I'm not talking about Farhan here, just an example - you can imagine why Islam would be a buzzkill.
Click to expand...
People's personal lives are not our concern from ideological or practice perspective but @Farhan The Man doesn't know the basics of "Islam" let alone someone who has claimed to have spent "11 years at a Madrasah".
 
Aang_The_last_airbender said:
Again, The Arabic form is considered the oirginal, the final and definitive, right? That's not the case for Bible.
I am a curious guy have freely read translations of many religious books, not fully but parts, in my spare time. Thanks for the offer.
Coming back to topic, Do you deny that we end up hearing how grand and exquisite the Arabic language is when people try to probe deep into religious texts. I have not heard it once or twice but several times. My Muslim friends in the end up telling me upto how special Arabic is. if that's what an Indian Muslim feels. If I were an Arab, I will automatically develop a superiority complex.


This is not me or my bias !
Click to expand...
They won't my friend, atleast if they know even a little bit about their religion...

PS: Following Hadith of Prophet Muhammad PBUH is also in Arabic 👇

لا فضلَ لعربيٍّ على عجميٍّ ، ولا لعجميٍّ على عربيٍّ ، ولا لأبيضَ على أسودَ ، ولا لأسودَ على أبيضَ - : إلَّا بالتَّقوَى ، النَّاسُ من آدمُ ، وآدمُ من ترابٍ
Click to expand...
It's graded Sahih by AlAlbani, source in a book called شرح الطحاوية

Translation:

There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab over an Arab, nor a white over black, nor a black over white, except in Taqwa (fear of Allah). People are from Adam, and Adam is from dirt.
 
Aang_The_last_airbender said:
Do you deny that we end up hearing how grand and exquisite the Arabic language
Click to expand...
This. I always wondered. Why.

A language that lacks basic sounds of P and G is linguistically hindered. For example, GAP franchise is written/pronounced as JAB. Defeats the labelling mechanics.

Moreover, to exacerbate these inherent limitations, you need diagonal dashes to differentiate similar spellings to mean different words. The language is relatively primitive.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
They won't my friend, atleast if they know even a little bit about their religion...

PS: Following Hadith of Prophet Muhammad PBUH is also in Arabic 👇


It's graded Sahih by AlAlbani, source in a book called شرح الطحاوية

Translation:

There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab over an Arab, nor a white over black, nor a black over white, except in Taqwa (fear of Allah). People are from Adam, and Adam is from dirt.
Click to expand...
Difference in practical and theory. I am not the one suffering racism at the hands of Arabs, its you guys.
 
Red-Indian said:
Count me out of the gay party scene but if I'm honest, gods being buzzkills is one of the reasons I'm an atheist.

All these gods have to be really boring if they can't see the spiritual value in a good drinking session and an occasional toke with a bunch of old friends. I can't be bothered with boring gods. If we lived back in the Viking days, I'd be a real fervent believer. Now those were fun gods. Pity we outgrew them.
Click to expand...

That is totally understandable. I don't know that much about other religions, but the Abrahamic ones certainly put an emphasis on the afterlife, and that means reining in some hedonistic behaviour in this life.
 
Aang_The_last_airbender said:
Difference in practical and theory. I am not the one suffering racism at the hands of Arabs, its you guys.
Click to expand...

That is a dumb statement, we don't suffer racism at the hands of Arabs any more than you do. As for difference in practical and theory, you will find that most people of any race don't live up to the ideal, doesn't matter which race you are. Just look at your own country if you don't believe me.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
That is totally understandable. I don't know that much about other religions, but the Abrahamic ones certainly put an emphasis on the afterlife, and that means reining in some hedonistic behaviour in this life.
Click to expand...
Some of the old Hindu texts and gods were pretty tolerant of carousing (as well as a lot of other less salubrious stuff). Hindu revivalism and reform has tended to be more puritanical and frowns on drinking, what are considered deviant sexual practices etc. Buddhism and Jainism are all about renunciation anyway. Even the Sikh religion prohibits alcohol from what I know (though hardly any Sikh of my acquaintance with the prohibition).

There's hardly any fun religions left. I think you have to go Tribal or Folk to get a religion that allows you to let your hair down in this life and still get a decent afterlife. Maybe I should do some research in case I need to find religion later in life.
 
LordJames said:
Discrimination in the Gulf region—particularly against Indians, Pakistanis, and more severely against Bangladeshis—is a harsh reality. Denying or sugarcoating it serves no purpose. However, it's important to note that these prejudices aren't rooted in religion. From my interactions with Saudis at high levels, including those close to the House of Saud, I found many to be non-practicing in terms of Islam. A significant number have never visited the holy sites, don’t attend Friday prayers, and openly prioritize leisure, travel, and indulgence over religious observance.

Historically, the rise of the House of Saud is less about divine legitimacy and more about opportunism. Initially a group of tribal raiders, they rose to power through British intervention and strategic alliances with scholars who opposed Ottoman religious innovations. This partnership laid the groundwork for what became modern-day Saudi Arabia—where religious authority and political power prop each other up for mutual survival.

Religious discourse in Saudi Arabia is strictly state-controlled. Sermons and mosque programs, including those in the two Holy Mosques, are government-approved and scripted. Any unsanctioned commentary is prohibited. The kingdom’s social structure revolves around roughly 400 extremely wealthy families, a bloated middle class kept comfortable through state support, and a Kafala system that thrives on the exploitation of foreign labor. While there are individuals within the elite and Kafala-benefiting groups who sincerely practice Islam and hold ethical values, they are largely powerless to challenge the system.

Saudi interaction with the West increased significantly post-oil discovery, particularly through overseas education. However, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan marked a turning point in political awareness among Saudis. Then came 9/11—an event that gave the House of Saud the justification to clamp down hard on internal dissent and reformist voices.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), while young and ambitious, appears to believe that liberalizing society—especially through entertainment and loosening social restrictions—will help preserve the regime. However, the economic resources to sustain such a transformation are dwindling. Vision 2030, once marketed as a grand national strategy, has been scaled down due to financial constraints. The West, recognizing the symbolic value of Saudi Arabia as custodian of Islam’s two holiest sites, continues to exploit this association, and normalization with Israel now seems only a matter of time.

Much of the online discourse, especially from Hindutva circles, accuses Arabs (specifically Saudis) of racism and unfairly ties these attitudes to Islam. But in reality, this racism stems from a lack of true Islamic practice. Western media also often draws subtle connections between labor abuse and Islam, despite the fact that anyone who’s visited Hajj or Umrah can see that commercialism dominates the sacred atmosphere. Activism—even in symbolic forms like wearing "Save Gaza" apparel—is banned. It’s forbidden to gather for informal discussion in mosques, to critique public services, or to access independent Islamic education unless sanctioned by the state.

Countless scholars are imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, while the general public remains uninformed about global events due to media censorship and the language barrier. When Al Jazeera began broadcasting investigative programs on Saudi society, it faced immediate backlash and censorship. In remote areas, I met Saudi men who genuinely believed that Saudi soldiers protect Masjid Al-Aqsa, unaware that it remains under Israeli occupation.

Beneath the surface of conservatism, Saudi society faces an internal moral crisis. Pornography and homosexuality are widespread, with alarming rates of HIV—a matter that top Saudi doctors have acknowledged privately, though the government refuses to address publicly. As oil revenues shrink and subsidies dry up, the societal contract that once maintained order is fracturing.

The pulpits across the world often echo outrage over Indian abuses in Kashmir or American drone strikes, yet remain silent on Saudi bombing campaigns in Yemen, including the killing of Shia children. Why is that? Why is there no mention of semi-nude performances taking place just miles from the Kaaba, while mosques worldwide turn a blind eye?

Saudi Arabia is at a critical crossroads—economically, socially, and spiritually. The silence and complicity from both within and outside its borders only deepen the crisis.
Click to expand...
If the Arabs were racists due to Islam then two of the most prominent Scholars of our time wouldn't have been accepted as the Deans of their departments at (several) most prestigious Saudi universities

Dr Vaniya Abdur-Raheem [1933-2023] Director of the ‘Translation Centre at the King Fahd Glorious Qur’aan Printing Complex



Dr Mustafa Al-Azami [1930-2017] Dean of Hadeeth Sciences at King Saud University


  1. Both of them were "Non-Arabs"
  2. Both of them were "Indians"
  3. Both of them were converts to Islam from "Hinduism"
There are many other examples but these two should be sufficient.

The point I am making is that the racism of Arabs is due to lack of Islam and not due to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
Arab leaders approve $53bn alternative to Trump's Gaza plan
Replies
16
Views
266
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
R
Gaza war driving Muslim ‘isolation’ in UK: MWL chief
Replies
38
Views
460
Cpt. Rishwat
Cpt. Rishwat
FearlessRoar
The silence of the Arab world on Palestine
Replies
79
Views
1K
deltexas
D
LordJames
Why are Muslims always losing?
2
Replies
118
Views
2K
Stewie
Stewie
M
Why do Pakistanis show such strong solidarity with Palestine?
Replies
70
Views
1K
BunnyRabbit
B
Back
Top