Talk:Arabization

ABRANIZATION

The countries that were Arabized were Arabized by force. Not to mention the forced conversion and massacres those savage Arabs did to the innocent non-Arabs.

Find some sources then come back and talk.Yuber 23:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guy, I realize you don't like Arabization, but adding such obviously inappropriate categories as "ethnocentrism" is ridiculous, and removing well-established facts about how it happened is frankly unhelpful. The genetic, linguistic, and cultural evidence all point towards the obvious conclusion - already drawn by Ibn Khaldun - that most modern Arabs are Arabized descendants of their countries' original inhabitants. (The genetic surveys alluded to in Berber and Palestinian are a good place to look.) - Mustafaa 03:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I neither like nor dislike Arabization. I was merely offering historical information on the subject. Arab migration is closely tied to the Islamic culture that was spread at the advent of Islam in late 660s. The reason I included imperialism catagory is because Arab traders spread Islam to Africa (which isnt imperialism), but when it was enforced after conquest of African nations by Arab armies, the states conquered slowly had to adopt Arabic and Islam as their religion, culture and language. This is cultural imperialism, and imperialism as is defined in the broad catagories assigned under the names. It is "ethnocentrism" only because cultural imperialism is included there, and it is under imperialism for the purpose of when vassal states were conquered. It doesnt mean that the Arab language religion and culture was spread by warfare, but we both know that during the expansion of Islam, conquest was a big part. Arabization and Islamization (for lack of a better word) are closely linked. Guy Montag 10:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The category imperialism does not apply to Arabization. Arabization was done in areas that weren't even part of the Islamic empire, for example, after the caliphate fell. I have no idea how ethnocentrism applies either, as Arabs adopted much knowledge from other ethnicities and Arabic even has many loan words from different languages. If you want to add a section on Arabization by force in ancient times, go right ahead, but cite your sources.Yuber 13:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to passionatly argue about this. All I can say is that there is alot of important information missing from this article, and in its current form there is something wrong with it. I have requested a 3rd opinion on the subject and I wont be making any edits until I see that opinion written down in talk.

Guy Montag 09:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that "ethnocentrism" is entirely wrong. I don't think we apply that to any other armed migrations of peoples. Most of the Arab migrations didn't even push out the pre-existing populations, and while they often (but not always: think Spain) imposed the Muslim religion, often the result was a syncretic Islam.

"Imperialism" is trickier. Certainly in the days of the unified caliphate, it would apply. After that, it gets subtler. However, to deliberately pick a very contentious example, I would say that the category would be apply to that if and only if it applies it to Zionism. (I see both as instances of settler colonialism; whether or not that is imperialism is an open question.) My own feeling is that I wouldn't use the term "imperialism" either for Zionism or for (post-caliphate) Arabization, and while I'd have no personal objection to it being applied evenhandedly to both, I think it is simpler just to leave it off of this page (which is a mixed bag in that respect: caliphate and later) and attach it to the pages related to specific empires. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:25, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, that is understandable. The problem I had with this article was in how to specifically define the term Arabization as a migration or as a formal or informal government policy (see Russification) after the conquest of other states asimposed on the conquered subjects. If it has to do with passive migration, then I was wrong, if it has to do with both, than something should be noted.

Guy Montag 19:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

... Hmm. I mwouldnt' say "passive", but would you call the German migrations into Europe "imperialist"? The one modern case mentioned about Saddam's Iraq is another matter, but it's pretty tangential to the main topic of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldnt call them imperialist, unless you are talking about the Goths or the Visagoths. I call it pillaging, looting, and raiding :). The confusion was because of the term. I confused it with the same meaning as Russification.

Guy Montag 07:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, Arabization didn't involve much migration, did it? It was more just other ethnic groups beginning to speak Arabic and becoming culturally Arab, to my knowledge. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes for expansion

The following was in the article. It looks to me like good notes for expansion of the article, but it is really just a list rather than a written article, so I am moving it here for now, hoping someone will work it up into something that can go back in (and word it in a less POV manner than this). I've taken the liberty of fixing some spelling. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[begin cut material]

Syria's dictatorship and their persecution of the Kurds, Jews and the Druze.

Some Palestinian terror groups that have the militant Arab Racism Arabization vision (aside from the Jihad motive].

Another great calamity still going on is the Sudan's government Arab militia's racism maiming, massacres, Genocide and Slavery in Sudan, estimated into the millions of victims.

[end cut material]

Disputed?

From the article:

Countries and territories that are traditionally thought to have gone through Arabization include Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, and Sudan, although this is highly disputed.

So what is disputed? And by what citable authority? Without that, the claim of dispute does not belong in the article. Morocco, for example, was in no sense Arab 2000 years ago, and is emphatically Arab now? What is the dispute? What is the controversy? Either this need citation, or this last phrase should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I was similarly perplexed by that statement. Seeing how no one provided any support to the claim, I think it's safe to delete it. Nymos 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think what is disputed is the idea that the countries underwent Arabization at all! Some people may argue that the pre-Islamic cultures and languages all exist to varying degrees in those countries. I agree, however, that the phrase was ambiguous. - Zerida 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

CIA factbook on Sudan, in the language section, has a note that there is a "program of Arabization in process". I thought that would be useful information to include in the article, seems like a citable source.

Kirkuk

"…many Kurdish families came back to Kirkuk to live peacefully with Arab families." No doubt. But from what I've heard on the news, others came back with more hostile intent, which should be referenced and mentioned. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Other Semitic peoples

"It should be noted that the Arabs were not the first Semitic peoples who migrated out of the peninsula (see: Aramaeans, Canaanites, Akkadians). "

Flat out wrong, even according to other Wikipedia pages (check "Aramaeans" for example). None of these groups originated in or even passed through the Arabian peninsula, to the best of our knowledge. The Semitic peoples arrived in the Middle East from Africa via Sinai, then spilt into two groups - the West Semites, which include the Canaanites and later Israelites and Judeans - and the East Semites, who comprised of the Akkadians and later Assyrians and Babylonians. Arabs come from a third branch, the South Semites, and were probably a later migration since:

A) Arabic is in the same language group (South Semitic) as a few African languages such as Amharic,

B) settlement or even long-term survival in the arid Peninsula is impossible without camels, which were not domesticaed until centuries later (which also makes the claim of pre-Arab peninsular migrations completely illogical), and

C) the first mention of Arabs is in the Battle of Karkar, around the 9th Century BCE, where they are mentioned along with the relatively recently domesticated camels, long after the other groups were already firmly established in the region.

As for the Aramaeans, they probably came from Mesopotamia, possibly from the former kingdom of Mittani. No evidence has arisen to suggest an Arabian origin. I therefore suggest that this entire sentece be deleted. —This unsigned comment was added by 88.155.189.49 (talk • contribs) 14 March 2006. "8th Century BCE" changed to "9th Century BCE" by Naughtius Maximus (talk • contribs) 19 March 2006.

It definitely should be deleted. However, you're wrong on the Arabic language: its Central Semitic. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Semitic peoples are in fact generally thought to have originally migrated from Africa via Arabia, not Sinai.--Yolgnu (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A request for clarification

The article doesn't explain why many people in the Islamic empire were able to keep their ethnic identity but adopt Islam (Turks, Indians, Kurds, Persians) while others adopted the Arab identity, language and culture yet retained their religion (most Arab Christians in Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon etc.) and there were many who were able to keep both their own identity and their religion. Also this article is in need of expansion, so that's why I'm placing stub template. --Inahet 05:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Assyrians

I've never before seen Assyrians listed as victims of the al-Anfal campaign. I'm wondering even about Turkmen. Does someone have a citation for this? - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you never heard about us. That is what the western media does best; ignoring details and just giving you a broud picture. They dont want to confuse you with all different kinds of names and issues, so they just say Kurds were targeted. If you look at the anfal page, you will see that I citated 40+ Churches belonging to the Assyrians destroyed. And also, please refell to the Human rights watch report about the issue; [[1]] see where it says fate of Yezidis and Christians. For more, visit this [[2]] and look under "Saadam Husayn's Invasion and War Against Iran " where it says "September 24, 1988 ". The PUK specifically states [[3]] "The victims included Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians and Caldeans." Also, as stated in the Australian parleiment [[4]] in 1993. Also as stated in UK's parliement [[5]] Chaldean 05:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good citations. So, are you planning to add one or more of them to the article? - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Biblical nonsense

"Ishmael learned Arabic and spoke it fluently…"? I'm not particularly working on this article, and I'll leave this to someone who is, but this strikes me as pretty much nonsense.

1. Ishmael is not necessarily an actual historical person.
2. If we grant that he is the (legendary) ancestor of the Arabs: from whom did the first Arab learn "fluent Arabic"? Jmabel | Talk 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed most of the information from that section because it is unsourced at best, nonsense at worse.

Here is the info I removed: "As such, these peoples are referred to as Adnanites. Arabised-Arabs settled in Mecca when Abraham took his Egyptian wife Hagar or (Hajar) and his son Ishmael to Mecca. Ishmael was raised up with his mother Hagar and one noble Arab family who had settled in Mecca from current-day Yemen. Ishmael learned Arabic and spoke it fluently for the remainder of his life. For this reason his descendents have tradtionally been refered to as Arabised.

More generally, the Bedouin-Arabs are knowns as Arabised-Arabs because they came from the Assyrian desert. Arabised-Arabs can signify arabs who speak other Afro-Asiatic languages. They are "Arabic speakers". They are regarded as Arabs in contemporary times." --Inahet 18:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's now musch shorter, but still dubious: "The term 'Arabised-Arabs' has historically been used to signify Arabs who are descendants of Adnan, the son of Ishmael and grandson of Abraham." I doubt that this is an historical meaning of "Arabised-Arabs". The people with this legendary descent are simply known as "Arabs". "Arabised-Arabs", insofar as it is used, refers to people who lack this ancestry but have culturally become Arab, no? - Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the traditional genealogy of the Arabs. I was always taught that Arabs were descendants of Ismael, and that was it. But since my start in Wikipedia, I have come across a very complex theory. The theory is that northern Arabs known as Adnanites descendend from Adnan and they settled in Mecca. They are known as Arabized Arabs (al-Mustariba). Southern Arabs who descend from Qahtan, brother of Adnan, are considered to be of pure origin (al-Ariba). More is explained in the Arab article but the information is mostly unsourced. Anyhow, I think it is best that we consult with an expert on this subject, so I'm adding the 'expert tag'. --Inahet 07:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Trying to get a citation

I see that Khoikhoi has asked for a citation for "Countries and territories that are traditionally thought to have gone through Arabization include Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq." It's going ot be very hard to find a lot on line, because most online uses of "Arabization" will be about recent Arabization policies, not about the 7th and 8th centuries. At a quick check, looking online will require searches like Syria "7th century" Arabization -kurds. I don't have time to follow up right now, but this may help anyone who is trying to find appropriate citation. Khoikoi, you might want to try following this up yourself. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to do some research, but I don't have that much time nowadays. —Khoikhoi 05:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Arabized Arabs

I wanna know does the arabized arab consider semitics? And if anyone have some info about what kind of language they spoke, especially those who settle in South Iraq. Thanks, Yours Semitic

• What? Funkynusayri 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

His/her questions are this:

1. Why are Arabized peoples considered Semitic?
2. What is the language people from southern Iraq spoke before they where Arabized.

I can answer the first one: "Semitic" is primarily a linguistic, not racial category, and since Arabs are considered Semites, and since Arabized peoples are considered Arabs, Arabized peoples are Semites. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Modern Times"...

Saddam Husseins strategy in al-Anfal campaign was not fuelled with an intention to "Arabize" Kurdish-speaking groups in Kirkuk. He was in fact trying to spread out the opposers of the solidarity of the state. If the rebellion against him wasn't staged for political and economical gain by the Kurds, the Anfal campaign wouldn't have come to fruitition, thereby debunking any claim that it was "forced" Arabization. I think we need to revise that section. 213.42.2.11

Racism

I've added some info on Sudan and will come back later to add sources -- unless someone else cares to do so. Certainly, however, the perverse and virulent anti-black racist thread in Arab culture needs to be examined here in the context of Arabization of the African continent and the slave trade as well. This is certainly a factor in the ongoing, brutal Arabization of Sudan. deeceevoice 13:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

At least some of the information about Sudan is totally wrong and not substantiated. "In Sudan, the majority of citizens are blacks of various faiths who do not self-identify as Arab." This is wrong. The majority of citizens in South Sudan are black and not Arabs. There are various groups in the north who don't identify themselves as Arabs as well, like Nuba. The total of these are nowhere near a majority. Nuba are less than 2 million (5%) and all Southerners are around 25%. Please substantiate/reference you claims. Also, the dam being constructed is the Merowe Dam. Look up the Human Impact in that page. There are resistence, and even some rebelling against the government by the people there, but these people (Manasir, Hamadab and Amri) do regard themselves as Arab. I must say I am from a neighbouring tribe (Shaiqiyah) with roots in the same area. Don't mistake the Sudanese government corruption, dictatorship and problems all over Sudan with just their Arab/Islam policy. They even have strong Arab and Islamic resistance.--143.167.172.126 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Arabization in Malaysia

File:Arabization 123.jpg

Arabization in Malaysia

---

An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.

Arabization in Malaysia is fact, not POV, and please do not delete the picture. We already have discussion under Talk:Malaysia regarding Arabization in Malaysia and we have support from Wikipedia member. Please read this member wrote (below) taken from discussion page Talk:Malaysia:

"::Indeed no. There are currently issues n Malaysia with the spread of Wahhabi Islam financed by Saudi Arabia, and an attempt to radicalise Malaysian Islam. That might belong under a political/religious topic. But the typical Malaysian dress has been such for a long time, and is merely now more prevalent. What you might have been noticing, if you are new to Malaysia, and had never visited before, is that there are a lot more visitors from Arab countries, who find Malaysia a very pleasant holiday destination. They do, indeed, dress in conservative Wahhabi style - but please bear in mind that such a style is also not inherently "Moslem", rather a style of dress, and is not typically Malaysian. docboat 01:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)"

Thanks docboat Naiseroder 04:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Naiseroder have permission to repost and edit a comment originally posted by docboat on the talk page of Malaysia? The original post left by editor docboat, does not seem to agree with the conclusion presented by Naiseroder, being that the image is appropriate or NPOV. Atari400 10:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

any original arabs left?

are there any Arabs who aren't descended from arabised arabs today? I've thought about Yemen but vast intermarriage with northern African groups rules them out but the original arab tribes came from Yemen or Oman right? DomDomsta333 (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously there are many in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE and Oman, and of course there would be some Arab migrants to previously non-Arab countries such as Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, etc. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bedouins... They even live similarly to the way the "original" Arabs lived. --173.59.59.164 (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Baathists

Considering only the content that is sourced, the article can be boiled down to Saddam Hussein's Arabization. Should we move this page to something like "Baathist ethnic cleansing in Iraq"? TO me that would better reflect the content of the article.VR _talk 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)