Arab racism against fellow Muslims

[uppercut]

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

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

Good thread BTW

 

[Red-Indian]

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.

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.

 

[Champ_Pal]

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.

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.

 

[Champ_Pal]

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.

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.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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.

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.

 

[Champ_Pal]

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.

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.

 

[rickroll]

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.

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!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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.

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.

 

[Champ_Pal]

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.

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.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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.

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?

 

[Red-Indian]

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?

Foreigners would generally be classified as 'Mlechhas' - outside or by some interpretations below the caste system.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

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?

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.

 

[Champ_Pal]

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?

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.

 

[junoon]

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

 

[LordJames]

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.

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.

 

[LordJames]

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.

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.

 

[sweep_shot]

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.

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.

 

[LordJames]

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.

But you can't deny that people from India/Pakistan and particularly Bangladeshees are discriminated against in the (Gulf) Khaleej?

 

[sweep_shot]

But you can't deny that people from India/Pakistan and particularly Bangladeshees are discriminated against in the (Gulf) Khaleej?

Yes. It happens I guess. I am not denying it.

But, my point is, racism exists all over the world. It is not exclusive to Arab world.

Every country has good and bad.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

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.