Talk:Arabs/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Who is an Arab?

No one knows that answer. This piece in the article goes in circles as it bring it right back the the question:

"Race: While the term “Arab” does not refer to a particular race, the majority of Arabs are categorized as Caucasians or “white” as the term is used in the United States.[citation needed] According to the U.S. census bureau, white is defined to include people with ancestral origins in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. The Middle East and North Africa also has people who are black. Although these people refer to themselves as Arabs they are not considered White as their ancestral origins are not from Europe, the Middle East or North Africa. Examples of Arabs who are not White are Sudanese Arabs who are considered black Africans."

Now we all should know that North Africa is the home of the black man and that any people who look black or what people have come to think of as an 'arab' look are really just mixed-race peoples with the 'black African' base. Also, those who look white are European captives,;slaves from Europe.

This piece I grabbed from the article is odd and is a fine example of the confusing BS which is all about taking the black man out of historic interaction and mixing with Europeans. How can a 'black' man in North Africa who 'feels that he is an arab' not be considered white because "ancestral origins are not from Europe, the Middle East or North Africa?" Was the piece not taking about 'blacks' in North Africa? If not from there, where are they from? They are from Africa and anyone white is not native. The history ir very clear despite having to dig for it a lot. There was a whole lot of mixing going on, but the blackness STILL rund deep in North Africa, Egypt and Libya in particualr, while still visible even in Tunisia and Algeria, arguably the whitest nations in Africa, outside of European domination in Southern Africa. There are still to this day clearly black(those who you would not question or make excuses about) Africans in Algeria and Tunisia. Do some research. Arab is no race.-- 04:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make a precision, as i am moroccan i can say that north africa is the land of only berbers and arabs,...the black people was brought by slavery..even if they speak arabic or bereber now.., it's too obvious that the sahara desert separate north africa population from the subsaharan africa..--Yunis79 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alarm: The statement " arabs are not of homogenonous ethnic origin" is not correct. It should say " citizens of Arabic countries are not of homogenous ethnic origin"


peoples of Arabic countries have the highest level of J1 Haplogroup ( semetic ancestry of both Arabs and jewsish Cohanim)and also DYS388-17 ( dubbed the marker of the arabs(exclusive to the arabs, not found in any one person claiming to be non arab any where in the world).


samples are taken from arabic countries randomly without checking if person claims to be an Arab or not?


It is known that 20% of citizens of Arabic countries are not Arabs ( turkish, greek, armenians, maronites, kurds, gitanes, Cercassians, Chechenians, etc) These people deny vehemently that they are arabs.


still 80% of citizens of those countries are arabs according to CIA fact book online.


Even with all the biased sampling noted above( in genetical studies) the Arabic populations have the highest J1 in the world, that makes them( ie the citizens in general) the most pure nation in the world.


In hundred comparative studies done recently, strata were copared from people who claim to be Jewish Ashkenasim, Ashkenazi cohenite, sephardi cohenite, etc etc) compared to random samples referred to as ( Lebanon sample ) ( syria samples, Palestinians sample, etc). This kind of sampling is against statistic analysis sampling methodology conducted any where in Public Health research.

I suggest the statement to be adjusted as Above " citizens of Arabic countires ". Other wise the original staement " arabs are not of homogenic ethic origin" is not referenced by any scientific study ( where sampled people state to be Arabs, not just Lebanese etc)

Thanx Adam( new user). Arabs are the children of Ishmael (end of Story), you want evidence? Bible Quran and New testament ( historical writings of the semites as valid as Herodotus historian of the Greek. I don't see why don't accept all the evidence. Do you want a proof that the sun is really the sun and not the moon?

      • Only Adnani Arabs are the sons of Ishmael***

I strongly disagreee with the misused Bible/Quran quotation (they never mentioned the word Arab even me the word Ara)!), Yemen didnt have anything to do with Ishmael, evidence the Quran and Adnanis themselves who clearly point out that Yemen is the Qahatani fatherland that dont have anything to do with Ishmael, the tribe that toke care of Ishmael and adopted him was a Yemeni Qahtani tribe (Jurhum), and the Adnanis are the sons of Ishmael, The Qahtanis who obviously makeup for the majority (by common sense becaue they existed before Ishmael!), are all the Semitic nations that settled South Arabia or moved to the North.

Today Saudi, Gulf Adnanis still proudly claim Qahatn the Yemen as the origin of the Arabs and thats that. and Ishmael is a drop in the Ocean of Qahtan.

Using Religious Books as Reference Material

A lot of people have been citing the Torah and Qur'an on the talk page. It should be said that using religious books (even ones with some amount of verifiable historical fact) as reference material for an article about race/ancestry is completely inappropriate.

I agree, the Torah, Quran both never mentioned the word Arab, the quran mentioned the Al Aara'ab "the Nomadic Bedouins" in the same way the Assyrians mentioned "Al Aribi", both the Muslims and Assyrians looked at Aribi and Aara'ab as Nomodic groups and not racial groups!


This article posted simply to explain the arab definition, it was poorly formatted, I agree as I am a new member, but the topic was mainly to explain the different between the real arab and the arabised Arabs. Since there is confusion of understanding the Arabic definition, those informations are useful to make things clear. The article was sourced by a noble arab family web site at [1] , [2] and book called ( Muallaqat) for Imru'u al Quais taking about anthology of pre-Islamic Arabic literature. thanks and i'm always yearning to extend informations for this wonderful web page.

Sorry: but there is no mention of Sam and Ham etc in the Quran?, not even in any reliable Hadith, so plaese cut and in Quran.

Islam believes the Genesis part of the Biblr ( especially the geneology part ) is fabricated in later times. Many scientific researchers share the same belief ( even jesus and John the baptist) and the Dead Sea Scrolls Righteous Teaches ( most likely jesus himself)

Quran says that Noah talked to his son to jump on the boat but God drawned him any way).

Again here are more grievous mistakes:

Aribh arabs: refer to proto arabs ( bedoin) who are not settled in villages and cities ( mentioned in Quran and rophet to denote hard hearted arabs who are low in belief The Bedoin and no body else. Again Qahtanites are not Ariba Arabs. The best arabs are Qahtanite. Qahtan and Adnan were tow sons of Kedar the son of Ishmael. Qahtan left to Yemen, while Adnan stayed in Mecca.

Majority of Arabs in arabic countries are decendents of Qahtan ( Qays and Lakham), they made the second immigration wave in 11th to 14th centry after the Adnanites were killed in wars of conquest and also by the Mongolians ( up to Tamerlane 1400 AD) and Crusaders.

I am afraid you mix Qahtanites Arabs with a tribe in Saudi Arabia who are of lower status but not Yemenites ( like Qahtanites). They are purely from Najd middle platue of Saudi arabia, No Qahtanites exist out side the borders of Saudi Arabia.

Almustaeriba is not Mustaeriba Arabs ( where did you add Arabs here) Mustaeriba are non arab people who speak arabic ( even fluently) but easily recognized in their speech as non arabs( even after millenia), neither Mustaeriba wanted to become arabs, nor can fool arabs that they are arabs.

The more I read this article the more I sense it is written in Whole by nonarab with an agenda to demean the Arabs. Should't this article be written by Arabs, and non arabs can write their opinion in a down the page section called critique. Is warren Christofer Jesus christ?

Does a man named Adam Al-Qahtani means he is the ancient Qahtan himself, or that only his tribe Qahtani are the decendents of Qahtan or exclusively the ancient Qahtanite? Is Rod Stewart King Stewart the first?

AlQahtani tribe in saudi arabia has nothing to do with the Qahtanites ( half the Arabs who dwelled in Yemen and decendents in Qahtan)

Also Adnan is not the son of Ishmael, he is son of Kedar ( Qaidar-- in Arabic) the second son of Ishmael. Ishmael had 12 sons, non of them named Ishmael. Adnanites and Qahtanites are the decendents of Kedar who alone of all his brothers stayed in Mecca and entrusted himself with guarding the Kaaba and hence the Kedarites became the most prominent of all arabs. Arabs arranged their clans based on marriages from sons of Qahtan and Adnan ( just like what is happening in Saudi Arabia where King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud had children from all tribes of Suadi arabia to unite the kingdom in his children ( all brothers)...You also mix ancient adnanite tribes with new arabic ones Alanasi is the tribe of king of Saudi arabia) hardly a adnanite, Bani Khaled a qahtanite tribe raised to prominence by being chosen by the Ottoman empire to transport logestics ( food arms etc) on behalf of the sultan). Banu tamim an old arabic tribe were not noble among the adnanites, they were from the Eastern Arabs ( sons of the 12 son of Ishmael), they rebelled against the Prophet ( later became Kharijites and even shia) . They were persecuted by Abu Bakr succer of Prophet, by not allowing tthem to ride horses or donkeys in their own land while other arabs ( westerns of Mecca area) can, as a punishment for becoming Kharijites ( rebels on Prophet and later khalifs), Kaab was a noble tribe.

No arab would dream to claim he is adnanite these days but some from Hadramut ( Adnanite compared to Qahtanites in North yemen.

However both Qahtanites and Adnanintes are brothers and nobles, not Ariba ( qahtanites) and Mustaeriba( adnanite as you claim). Other people who could be Adnanites could be found in Pakistan and even cicily. The adnanites spread world wide. When their numbers fell sharply during Mongol invasion, a new immigration wave from Yemen ( qahtanites) spread to the current arabic countries as far as Morocco. Actually Morroccan are mostly Yemenites still have memories of their latest immigration fresh.

By the way, when did Ishmael learn arabic, Before he was two months old? so what did he speak before that? Hebrew?.

I don't think you believe the corrupted version in the bible in genesis where Hagar put her son ( 13 years according to the corrupted bible) and then she carries him across the desert ( how old was she according to the bible 60 years old?, and then she puts him on the ground and the boy cries ( thirteen years old boy) because he is thirsty, and then his mom the 60 years old search for water while the 13 years old boy sitting on the ground crying?

Did your mother hold you on her shoulder when you were 13 years old?.

Ishmael if was 13 years old should he hold his frailing mom ( 40 to sixty years old ) on his shoulders, and she should feel tired and thirsty and week before he does. I remember when I was 13 years old I would pass the whole day playing soccer only to remember at the evening that I did not eat or drink at all since wakeup.

Arabs believe that Abraham took Hagar and her 2 month old and left them in arid desert on command of God. Baby crying and moving his tiny feet aon the sand water started seeping under neath him, while his mom was chasing Mirages on tow sides. When a passing tribe were passing by found the by now flowing well, the tribe loved Ishmael and highly regarded him as a good omen and later became their Holy man, king, any thing he wants made by them. You should write this story here any arab knows it even by more details than you can remember.

Again all the bible and Abrahamic lineage is mainly related to Adnani Arabs. Abraham himself is a Semite!


There is a "user page" with basically the same content but reworded and Ibrahim for the patriarch's name. If a contributory wants to take the user name Arab, I have no problem with that, but let's not confuse a user page with an article page. Ed Poor, Wednesday, April 10, 2002

The following text was moved from user:Arab because it seems more like it applies to the Arab article than to a Wikipedia contributor. Ed Poor

Arab (noun) - descibes a person of Arabic descent.

Historically, an Arab is descendant from one of two sons of the Prophet Ibrahim. The other son's linage is claimed by the Jews

The word "Historically" is innapropriate here, as no verifiable "historical" data is available. To be precise, Arabs originate from Arabia. According to both the Koran and the Torah, Abraham or Ibrahim was born in the city of Ur (now part of Iraq). He travelled to Canaan where he had two sons: Isaac and Ishmael. According to the Torah, Isaac begat Jacob, who begat the entire nation of Israel. According to the Koran, Ishmael lived on, but his legacy was unclear until 2,000 years later, when the prophet Muhammed was told by Allah that there existed a prehistoric, but dormant religion known as Islam. This religion was told to Muhammed...and the rest is history.Loomis51 23:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A massage to Loomis: The bible continues that Ishmael had 12 sons and God will make leaders of them ( leaders of what) what about God promise to Abraham that he will make a great nation from his son Ishmael and that they will fill the earth like sand ( does this refer to jews who are 8 million or Arabs who are 400 millions, what do you think?). Not only Muhammad say jews chanded the original religion. Samaritans say so about jews. Karaite jews say that about the jews, Essenes jews say that too, Christians say that too and so on. when did you arrive from Mars, Mr Loomis?

There is a passage descibing the arbatriness of national boarders of certain nations, and the similarities in groups that are seperated by a national border. I cleaned up the syntax because it sounded very akward and confusing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 09:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Haisam - please don't copy and paste that text from [3] again - that page is copyrighted, and so we can't reproduce it here. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. You're free to weave in the info on that page of course, but you have to do it in an original way, rather than simply copying it across. --Camembert

Original Message --------


Here's the authorization to use the definition:

Message-ID: <025c01c2aa9d$43a0e340$> From: Marvin Wingfield <> To: <> Subject: Definition of Arab Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:03:51 -0500

Mr. Ido:

I am not quite clear as to what you are asking. You are free to used the ADC definition. It is the ordinary agreed on definition. An Arab is someone whose primary language is Arabic, who shares in the common culture and history of the Arab world.


Hm. I see no indication that the person you contacted is aware of the ramifications of placing their text under terms of the GFDL. This is very different than a one time grant to use the text (which is implied in the message). If the it is OK for us to use it then please integrate the text into the current article and don't replace it. --mav 23:29 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Berbers, semitic, white?

The Berber peoples of North Africa, for example, though often called Arabs by Westerners, are language of the country in which they live as a result of the Arab expansion.

Never have I heard anyone refer to the Berbers as being Arabs. Should this be removed?

There is a difference between someone who is of pure Berber stock, and someone who's ancestry is a mixture of Arabs and Berbers. The vast majority of the Magrib is of the latter category and consider themselves Arabs as do other Arabs. In any case I believe that the three categories on Arab geneology given in the articl are a little faulty. See my note below. :)

CCC Clarification. Arab people have a great affinity to their language, and they classify themselves according to their shared language. A Berber's (Amazigh's) first language is not Arabic, hence they are not Arab. Disregarding the intermingling & mixing of the two groups their are many studies that show that Berber & Arabs do share common ancesters. The confusing part is the word Caucasian, people forget that the majority of genetic research do not seperate Caucasian from Semitic. So when you read research that says Berber are significantly Caucasian it would read the same way for an Arab. Many people disregard old Berber tribal oral traditions that state they have an origin in Yemen. Many just say that all those tribes invented those stories to join the elite groups, but this shows the little knowledge they have of Berber tribal societies that pride themselves and their autonomy throughout history. And strangely enough DNA tests place Berber most closely to Yemeni Arabs. Long ago Yemen did not speak Arabic and would have traveled to North Africa thousands of years before Islam & Arabic, hence they (Yemeni) were not Arab yet. When the second wave of Yemeni people went to North Africa bearing Islam and Arabic they met their cousins the Berbers (non-Arabs). But they shared an understanding of common heritage. This is in general and does not negate the historical facts of Europene blood entering here and there, nor does it negate the fact of pure black african entering from the south. But essencially they & Arabs & Phonecians have much in common. by BB

Another misconception is the notion that Arabs started with Ishmael. When in actuality Arabs started much more before Ishmael. They started not long after Noah & Shem. Ishmael was not an Arab by blood & learned Arabic from the tribes he lived with who had been speaking Arabic as it was already well established. Ishmael then intermarried with Arabs and so did his children and on & on, then merging with the Arab people, to a point its hard to tell who is an Ishmaeli Arab from a Pure one. by BB

Nobody knows what Ishmael or Abraham spoke in what language. There was a proto arabic language. They might even spoke Aramaic or Canaanite language ( similar to arabic as evidenced in Tel Merdoukh library (Ebla 2300 BC)( names like Ishamel and David were in the Ebla library)

how do you know he learned arabic and what did he speak before that, how do you there was arabic language? there is no evidence of arabic language and arabs before 1600 BC, Is there? what is your evidence. Did the Coco ( Bird on the window) tell you that or did you see it in a revelation? slow down

Racially, an Arab is a person of Arabic descent, whose original ancestry comes from the Arabian Peninsula. Arabs are a Semitic people, who trace their ancestry from the ancient patriarch Abraham.

I don't see how this makes sense. The Arabs are racially very mixed, as they're descended from a mixture of conquored/assilimated peoples and millions of slaves from throughout the Old World.
This applies better to the Islamic faith, which claims its founders were descended from Ishmael. --Tydaj 00:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arabs are racially classified as White.

Um. Which classification scheme are we using here? Because by language, Arabs are Semitic, as the article makes clear; by "race", they are "white", yes, but we all know how much that means. --Mirv 08:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Arabs are classified as white, no matter what their color is. Most Arabs are light brown in color, although there are many light complexioned Arabs and black complexioned Arabs. They are all called white because there is no official racial catergory for "Middle Eastern"

You guys are using obsolete and oversimplified definitions of race. The old Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid groups (White, Yellow, Black) were popular ways of looking at race decades ago. These have all been debunked and have little genetic basis. You can't just define a race by being white or not, it is much more complicated than that.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 10:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yea thats right, because Arabs, Persians, and Indians may be "caucasoid" but they're clearly not "white".

Actually Arabs are white. The caucasians ( europeans) who consider themselves white are actually red with unclean skin ( black freckles)

This is what ancients described the Goths (Gog) ancesters of current day Europeans

Berber are the Vandals a tribe of the Goths. They lived firstly on the Baltic shore and emigrated with the Goths through Europe during Volkerwanderug period, Vandals ( Berber) settled finally inSpain and moved to North Africa but the Visigoth ( Western Goth drove them out of spain. Berbers ( vandals continued to live in North Africa and raided the Irtalian peninsula until Roman Emperor Justinian sent armies to North africa to subjigate them, however they syrvivved in the mountains untill arabs came.

The Berber have high concentration of Blue eyes and fair hair 20%, they have a genetic marker ( Haplogroup) that is found just recently to be the same as the marker ( ancestry of the Europeans R2b. Their marker was included with the markers of subsaharan africans ( Phutians Nigeria) for the sake to create a marker of Africa large enough to call it Africa Marker. Nothing further from the truth. Don't trust researchers but read carefully their studies ( they come with conclusions like what their payees expect to see) to keep the money flowing


The Berbers are racially mixed some have European features due to mixing with the GErmanic Vandals in the Northern coasts these same populations later absorbed the Ottoman European Slaves. and the darker Berbers that were pushed by the Banu Hlal, Banu Sulaym deep into the Sahara where they mixed with the Negros as some Taureg groups. then the majority of the Berbers who have heavy Yemeni bloodlines (claim Yemeni bloodlines) such as the Zenata, Sanhaja

Definition of Arab

such as the Maronite Christian Arabic-speakers of Lebanon, or the Arabic-speaking Copts of Egypt, or Arabic-speaking Jews, reject this definition, wishing to identify not with a group defined by language but with a narrower one defined by religion or shared communal history.

Huh? First of all, the classification of "Arab" is not based on language (at least, not anymore...there was a period when this kind of Arab Nationalism was popular during the Ottomon period, but not anymore). Second, only an extreme fringe of Civil War-period Maronites reject the label of "Arab". I myself am a "Maronite Christian Arabic-speaker of Lebanon" and I take offence at such a claim. The only real, modern definition of an Arab is someone who is a citizen of an Arab League nation. --Jad 13:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Hi Jad. Though I wrote most of that paragraph, I sympathise with some of your objections to it... I mentioned that some Maronites reject the label "Arab" because I've actually talked to several such people; but I agree, we should make it much clearer that this is an extremist minority. As for the "Arab = speaker of Arabic", though, I think that makes a lot more sense than "Arab = citizen of Arab League nation"; if you call a Berber or a Dinka or a Kurd "Arab", the substantial majority of them (though not all) would strongly disagree, and conversely, the Arab minority in southern Iran or southeastern Turkey or Chad is no less Arab for having happened to fall outside the borders of the Arab League. - Mustafaa 19:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • True, but I think we need to add both definitions: the sociopolitical as well as the ethnoliguistic, because, as you just pointed out, neither is enough as a definition. Maybe we should distinguish between Arab peoples and Arabic peoples, the first refering to the political definition, and the second referring to the linguistic definition. In this way, the minorities in Iran, Turkey and Chad would be Arabic minorities, and not Arab. I know that this may seem like a frustrating play in semantics, but I think that its the only way to deal with the two point of views while mantaining NPOV. Is that alright with you?

So, why don't you expand the part on the minorities within Arab nations, and add that part on Arabic minorities within non-Arab nations?

  • Hmmm... How about something like this:
There are three factors which play varying degrees in determining whether someone is considered Arab or not:
  1. Political: whether they live in a country which is a member of the Arab League.
  2. Linguistic: whether their mother tongue is Arabic.
  3. Genealogical: whether they can trace their ancestry back to the original inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula.

The relative importance of these factors is estimated differently by different groups. The third factor was the original definition used in medieval times, but is usually no longer considered to be particularly significant. - Mustafaa 20:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    • Great work Mustafaa...I think we have achieved NPOV! Total wikiness in action! --Jad 05:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


According to Habib Hassan Touma (1996, p.xviii), "The essence of Arabian culture is wrapped up in:

  • the Arabic language...
  • Islam...
  • Tradition..."

Maronites do not practice Islam. Not Arab. Simple.

On its formation in 1946, the Arab League defined an "Arab" as follows:

"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."

Maronites speak Arabic, but their liturgy is in Aramaic, and they often speak French and English fluently, and often primarily. And their sympathies typically lie with the nation of Lebanon first, and secondly with the WEST. Therefore, not Arab. These are westernized people who worship Christ and who happen to have adopted Arabic due to proximity and previous invasions. How does this make them arab?

  1. A few clarifications. Number 1, most Maronites concider themselves Arab. Number 2, to classify a people by a political statement is baseless. Number 3, Arabs feel an affinity to their language. Essencially I have found a trick that always works. I have always found that if a person's grandparents speak Arabic at home (first language) as well as parents (first language) as well as themselves...they they regard themselves as Arabs. It has never failed.

Most of the scholars were AJAM (every body who was not Arab)

Strange is that the scholars generally were no Arabs and this applies both to the scientists in Islam and in science. And if there is an Arab under them, then he is Arabised. Nevertheless the owner of CHARIA (Islamic legislation) came from their middle. And this comes because the Arabs are ignorant and have had never knowledge. Even those whom Arab grammar products has made expatriate. First Sibawayh were from the Persian realm and then Al-Zajaaj, these two were AJAM (everyone who is no Arab). The expatriate have made grammar for the Arabs and learned them the Arab language, art, laws and educate science. The most which Al-Hadith after to products have told of origin no Arabs. Then the Islamic scholars were not almost all Arabs. The Arabs could not write, note and not to express. And all those scientists who and have explained products have noted Islamic leathers and Arab grammar and have kept no Arabs of origin. Science was conducted by the Persian scientists, whereas the Arabs for competing with were concerning the power. The Arabs have ternauwernood interfered with science. The industry was carried out by the Arabised. When the Arabs devastate Egypt and the power there got, the Egyptians have kept themselves busy with science and Egypt was the country of science and industry. To these Arabised which kept themselves busy with science were: SAAD ADDIEN ATAFTAZI, IBN ALKHTIEB, NASR ADDIEN ATTUSIE. The work of other Arabiseds has been destroyed. (the original text)

hai, mustafaa, why you delite this frenquenly ? he is an arab according to you. and i didn't brought it from my books, it was in the almuqaddimah of the great arab historian. who can he be an great arab historian if we cannot use his works? ,i'll translate other works and are you saying that i attempt to revange ? are you feeling dat did anything wrong against me ? .Aziri 12:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To put something in a Wikipedia article, it has to be relevant. I could simply paste vast translations from al-Idrisi (or is he Berber?) into this article, and he talks about "Arabs", but that wouldn't make them relevant or interesting. Moreover, I'm tired of correcting your English; from now on, if you add a lengthy section which reads like a Japlish VCR manual, I'll just delete it until you fix it yourself. - Mustafaa 02:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

if you are tired ,late it to an other who can that.Aziri 14:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be Nice of the Iranians to agree to a common mispelling of english for all of us to agree on. TheLibyan

Yeah that they ceased to exist after the fall of the Arab rule? Really..Really glad that I am Arabised, it would suck a major time if I was persified. (shedder at the thought). Oh and we consider our ancient civilizations as a property of Arab people as well.

Page protection

Folks, I protected this page so we can have a rest from this reversion war to a while. You can list objections here, but note that protection is completely within the guidelines in these circumstances. --Zero 23:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i'm disagree sir : 'Zero , i think that you protected mustafaa not the page. Aziri 12:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) --- ibn khaldun used the name arab as bedouin ? who say that ? is that not a claim ? is that not couinterfeiting ? and further are the moor not Mauri's but mix of arab and berber? this wikipedia is beeing to became a theatre not ensyclopidia .Aziri 12:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK: does anybody watching this article think it's improved by adding a long, random Ibn Khaldun quote translated from Dutch? I don't... - Mustafaa 18:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

not me...i don't even understand it...--Jad 07:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

...and who write with ease concerning his beautiful historie ?Aziri 11:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There needs to be a good article on ibn Khaldun. Hopefully someone will write one. But the text doesn't belong on this article. Thank you for making us aware of the quote though. Quadell (talk) 17:39, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

But it does bring up a point...

Do you think we need to add a section on what "Arabized" means? For example, I know that the Christian Spaniards during the Arab conquest of Spain were considered to be Arabized, and now there is a word in English to describe them (Mozarabs)which comes from the Arabic word for Arabized (Musta'arab). Just a thought... --Jad 08:03, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. Quadell (talk) 17:35, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
Excellent idea. Maybe here, or maybe at Mozarab? - Mustafaa 09:22, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

no and no... i liked just show some body how ibn khadlun is the historian of the arab. Aziri 11:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

...i don't mean to be rude, but i think you should stop posting on the english wikipedia. why don't you write for the dutch version? then you won't have to deal with pesky people like mustafaa ;-) ok? you might be making a great point with your contribution...the only problem is we can't understand it (or at least, I can't). --Jad 06:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indian numbering system (unrelated to any discussion)

This is unrelated to the current discussion. In India, an ancient numbering system is still in place. See Indian numbering system. We use terms such as crores, lakhs and arabs. 1 arab is equivalent to 1 billion, (9 zeros). Once the current dispute is resolved, please put up a {{otheruses}} template on top of the arab page, and update the newly created link. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 19:50, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

The page is no longer protected. Go for it. Quadell (talk) 17:42, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, mission accomplished. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:23, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

It would be better to comment on the Arabized Arabs such as the Adanite branch (rather than the qahtani Arab pure branch) the Vast majority of the Arabs are Adanite (from Adnan)TheLibyan

Needs lots more info

This article strikes me as needing a lot of improvement. Some things I immediately notice:

  1. It mentions two traditional groups, the "original Arabs" and the "Arabacized Arabs" but what about the well known third group, the "extinct/lost Arabs"? More detail about the ancient clans in all these groups would be useful.
  2. Jewish tradition does not say that Ishmael is the ancestor of the Arabs, it says he is the ancestor of the Ishmaelites a people who had disappeared from history by the time of Solomon. Josephus says that he was the "founder" of the Arabians but does not use the word for ancestor and calls the Ishmaelites _an Arabian people_ indicating that he was aware of other Arabians. Arab historians had various opinions regarding Ishmael, several producing mutually contradictory attempts at linking Adnan to him while others rejected such genealogies. All this should be mentioned for both completeness and neutrality. Similarly the highly conjectural nature of the equation of Joktan with Qahtan needs to be mentioned for the sake of neutrality (Hebrew form of Qahtan is Kachtan unrelated to Joktan.)
  3. Regarding early references to Arabs and Gindibu it should be pointed out for the sake of completeness and neutrality that there were several different words in ancient inscriptions and in the Bible commonly translated as "Arab" or "Arabian" but that they are not necessarily all the same group (in the Bible we have `arvi, `arviyi, `arvi'i, `aravi, `araavi) and moreover the meaning of the words translated "Arab" or "Arabian" were not always the same (desert dwellers, mixed people, eloquant/pure, person from Arabaya in Assyria, person from the Syrian desert, person from the Arabian peninsula) - its complicated so one is tempted to ignore these subtleties but we need to rise above that.
  4. More info on modern groupings/divisions amongst the Arabs, lingusitic, "ethnic", cultural etc.

Kuratowski's Ghost 23:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a minority view that the Ishmaelites are not Arabs, one that shouldn't be pushed in this article.Yuber(talk) 23:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Its not a minority view, its a scholarly view based on what is actually said by historians (mainly Arab historians). Unfortunately it is a topic that has become tangled up with fundamentalist Christian polemics against Islam which has politicized the subject and made people defensive of points of view which in reality have little bearing on religion. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. That could be interesting, yes; [4] is a good source for that.
  2. Arab tradition says Ishmael was ancestor of the northern ("Arabized") Arabs. Jewish tradition says that Ishmael was ancestor of the Ishmaelites, identified already in the Bible with Midianites; as the Arabs become more historically prominent, it tends more and more to identify the Ishmaelites with Arabs, and the Josephus quote you allude to is useful information on that subject, though I would think a detailed investigation of the term "Ishmaelite" and its shifts would belong in Ishmaelite. Calling the Ishmaelites "a people who had disappeared from history by the time of Solomon" seems somewhat ahistorical, given that the existence of Solomon itself is in question. The equation of Joktan with Qahtan is of course most probably nonsense (did either even exist?), but it's nonsense with a long pedigree. I think "identified with" already makes its conjecturality reasonably clear.
  3. Certainly some uses of the term Arab may be generic rather than specific. That applies not only to the fifteenth century BC, but to the fifteenth century AD! The case of Gindibu seems reasonably clear, being confirmed by the etymology of the name, and is generally cited.
Its not clear to me at all, one expects similar names by virtue of the fact that Semitic languages were spoken all over the Middle East. As the stub on Gindibu notes nothing more is known about him and his Arabs. The name of his people could mean any of a number of things, I don't see how it can be said with confidence that it denotes the same people who emerged as the Arab nation in Late Antiquity in the Arabian peninsula proper with a name meaning "pure" or "eloquant", to me its more likely a reference to the people of the Syrian desert in general (Biblical `Arvim) who are described in the Bible as being a mingled people. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is the Syrian Desert really that specific of an area? I just wrote that article a few days ago and from what I've read about it it's not really a specific location; in fact, the Syrian Desert itself extends into the modern-day nation of Saudi Arabia.Yuber(talk) 00:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The people of the Syrian Desert have been termed Arabs since at least Assyrian times, and have spoken languages more closely related to Arabic than to any other Semitic language since the earliest attested inscriptions there (at least the 6th century BC, for Lihyanite and Thamudic.) I'm not sure what it would mean for a name in the 10th century BC to denote "the same people who emerged as the Arab nation"; the word "Arab" even today doesn't primarily denote the descendants of those people, and its application across time is more relevant than unprovable questions of ancestry. - Mustafaa 00:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To get an understanding of what I'm going on about bear in mind that there are many examples of different ethnic groups in history with similar names who are not necessarily always closely related, think of how many designations are derived ultimately from the Sanskrit word Sindh: Sindhu, Sinti, Hindu, Hindustani, Indian, Indonesian, West Indian, East Indian, Red Indian! Similarly think Roman, Romanian, Romansch, Rhomaic, Roman Catholic, Holy Roman and Romany (note the last isn't even related to the others it just looks the same). Something similar is going on with the various words carelessly lumped under the single transation "Arab" without any real concern for what is meant and how the terms evolved over time in form and meaning and if they are all even related to each other. Its sloppy scholarship to ignore this. One would be laughed at if one tried to portray all the peoples I mentioned above as single "Indian" and "Roman" nations. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But there is no single "Arab" nation to portray. Never has been. As for relation, the linguistics is the key; see below. I do see your point about the dangers of an uncritical identification of groups with similar names as similar, but in this case both the linguistic evidence and the location help avoid the problem. - Mustafaa 01:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, the article should probably have more on the early attestations of the Arabic language, those being a more certain indicator, and later on the traditional histories of the Ghassanids and their like. Heck, it should have a real history section; that's the most obvious gap!

  1. Maybe. Linguistic doesn't belong here - see varieties of Arabic - but certain ethno-cultural divisions, especially the basic one between Bedouin and settled folk, might be worth discussing. - Mustafaa 23:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aha... "The earliest attestations of Arabic are a number of proper names borne by leaders of Arab tribes mentioned in Neo-Assyrian texts. While some of them bear Arabic names, others have names that belong to a group of dialects now called Proto-Arabic or Ancient North Arabian." (p. 74, Edward Lipinski, Semitic Languages: Outlines of a Comparative Grammar, 2nd ed., Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta: Leuven 2001.) I knew I'd track down the source I was half-remembering. It's not in this source, but I have also read that Gindibu is among the latter, the term jundub (grasshopper) being specifically Arabic rather than Semitic. - Mustafaa 01:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mustafaa, the article is starting to look better :) Kuratowski's Ghost 01:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Next target is ideally the etymology section - I happen to think the etymology it currently gives is complete nonsense, but I don't have the sources at hand to prove it. - Mustafaa 02:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm busy doing some reading on the etymology, hopefully I will be able to add something soon. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. This is a great start. - Mustafaa 1 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)
Still lots more to be said. Can you explain the comment about borrowings vs cognates, since primary meaning is carried by the consonents not the vowels could they not be cognates? Kuratowski's Ghost 1 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)
In Akkadian, the choice between e and a is determined by the root: e replaced a in roots that contained ayin. There are in fact Akkadian cognates, but they use e, such as erêbum (to enter, I think). - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

Info still to be added: Close association between `arav and the homograph `erev meaning "mingled people" found in the Hebrew Bible, occurrence of `aravi, `arvi, `arviyi and `arvi'i, possibility of `orvim (another homograph) literally "ravens" being the name of a people perhaps connected with `Orev found as a Midianite name. Greek use of "Arabia" and Persian "Arabaya". Kuratowski's Ghost 1 July 2005 10:03 (UTC)

HHHH Here is a clarification. The original Semitic people came from Arabia, they moved north and east. After time, the Semitic people devised many dialects of "Semitic". Those dialects became known as "Languages" after diversification. Ishmael with his mother moved to the Arabic concentrated area. Ishmael learned Arabic and married an Arab girl. He begot Arab children from their mothers side. Those children again married Arab. This continued until those children became a big tribe called Quraysh or Quraish, reknowed for the perfection of their dialect of Arabic & for being a strong and honored tribe among the Arabs. Their DNA would have been diluted nearly completely by the Arab tribe Ishmael joined. But as we know the Y chromasome is passed down by the father. Hence it is relavent to state that Quraysh's male population would have had a great affinity geneticly to Ishmael, the non-Arab. Yet Maternaly they would have had a greater affinity to the other Arab tribes. by BB


A user using the IP keeps adding a section every few days calling for genocide on Arabs . Is there anyway we can block this guy because the stuff he's saying crosses over the line of just POV and into the area of genocidal death threats.Heraclius 21:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If he shows up again, I'll block him. - Mustafaa 23:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

OtherUses template

Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

{{OtherUses|info=information about the contents of the article}}

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talkcontribs) .

Note that that functionality is now at {{otheruses1}}. {{OtherUses}} redirects to {{otheruses}}, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Own article for etymology

The etymology section is getting very long and there is still more that needs to be said in it. Perhaps it should be moved to a separate article? Kuratowski's Ghost 16:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Arab Christians

Why does this article refer to "Arab Christians" but says "arabic speaking jews"?

If Arab is about speaking a language (by the way what language? Standard Arabic? It's not spoken) why aren't this jews referred to as Arab.

Having both sentences are clearly inconsistent.

--equitor 07:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Good comment! I totally agree. I'll deal with that. Cheers -- Svest 20:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;

Because the Arab Christians consider their identity to be Arab, whereas the Arabic speaking Jews consider their identity to be Jewish, not Arab. Don't forget, Jew, unlike Christian, is an ethnic identity. Jayjg (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Also note what the article itself says: Groups which use a non-Arabic liturgical language - such as Copts in Egypt and Assyrians in Iraq - are especially likely to be considered non-Arab. This applies even moreso to Jews. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Jayjg, that is true if we see it from the side of a Jew identifying him/herself (though there are Asian Jews and in other contexts French Jews, Moroccan Jews, etc...) You can read in the article the questionable Hadith stating that an Arab is anyone speaking Arabic or who learned it. I think with the appearance of Islam, the notion of being an Arab changed. As far as I know, Arabs consider Jews who speak Arabic as Arabs. Cheers -- Svest 21:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
Well, I know a number of Arabic speaking Jews, and they don't consider themselves to be Arabs. I think we should let people self-identify. As for French Jew, Moroccan Jew, etc., those are geographic designations, not ethnic ones. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I said nothing about self-identification! It's a geographical designation. My basis is that Arabs consider whoever speaks Arabic as Arab. Those people can identify themselves as they wish. However, I don't understand how come we have Thai Jews!! Cheers -- Svest 21:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
Thai Jews? Well, those would be Jews living in Thailand, wouldn't they? Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
They can be anywhere since it is not important where they live. Some Shanghai Jews are being found in Shanghai, Vancouver... As far as I know, a valid Jewish marriage can only exist between two Jews and that's why I wonder from where came Thai Jews! They have surely converted to Judaism and therefore the ethnicity basis is questionable. Mihu Yehudi? Acording to WP, the word Jew is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity; and often a combination of these attributes. As long as there are conversions, the ethnicity have a fragile ground. -- Cheers Svest 21:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
Is Thai Jews even a common phrase or ethnicity? I assume they are the small number of Jews born in Thailand. Jew itself doesn't easily fit any of the categories, which is why Jews most often refer to themselves as a people. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Thai Jews are Jews born in Thailand or in any other place that are of Asian ethnicity, exactly Thailand. Of course they are only a few. The point Jayjg is that having Jews from Asian background bring a question mark to the theory about the ethnic identity. As I said, Jews in practice are not of a ONE ethnicity. Cheers -- Svest 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
This is irrelevant. The fact that there may be Thai Jews (BTW this is an unsubstantiated allegation please give some source) does not change anything. It remains to be seen if they are converted to Judaism or people from Jewish descent as most traditional form of Judaism generally do not accept conversions on a large scale. At the end Jewish identity is based on ethnicity because it's the way they see it. As Jayjg pointed, ultimately the identity of a human group is based on how they themselves define it. Moreover this thai group needs to be numerically relevant, a few tens of people is not going to change the Jewish identity--equitor 05:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • shrug* I dunno, I've heard Arabic speaking Jews being considered to be Arab. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, they 'consider'... Arafat sometimes said that sephardim jews are Arabs. The most jingoistic Arab nationalist consider Hebrew to be a subdialect of Arabic. Some people consider that Katrina was sent by Allah to punish the US... It does not mean that it is true.--equitor 21:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg got Arab speaking Jews friends who don't consider themselves Arabs while I have had neighbours who just say they do! Svest 22:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
Maybe they should get together and work it out. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
LOL! I am not sure if that is a problem to them. They are proud to be Jews of course but that's the end of the story. Cheers -- Svest 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
God there was an edit conflict, I almost lost my text :) !
Jayjg, I didn't meant that oriental Jews were Arabs, on the contrary. I wanted to point at the article inconsistency. You need to know that while Christianity is a religion, Estern Christianity (or Christianities to be more accurate) is similar to Judaism on this level because it's closely related to ethnicity and that is its most striking characteristic vis-à-vis of western form of Christianity. This is even true for the Eastern European Churches. An Armenian (who is not an Arab but it's an example of Eastern Christianity) is part of the Armenian church (which is base on ethnicity). Maronite are also an ethnic church, same for Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/copts etc... They pre-existed the Arab presence in the Middle East and had their own distinctive language until recently (and some Christians groups still speak their own language that is different from Arabic). Unlike Judaism, conversion to these Churches are not discouraged but are very rare which means that these churches are largely based on ethnic identities that predates the Arabic/Islamic conquest of the region.
While some Levantine Christians (especially the Greek-Orthodox and this might explain your bias since you may be more familiar with Palestinian Christians, see link C) not all Christians in the Middle East are defined by Michel Aflaq, Edward Said and George Habash. In fact, most of them reject Arabity as an ethnic identity even if they speak dialect of Arabic (which is a weak claim since spoken dialects still retain much of the original Aramean/Syriac language, perhaps as much as classicla). Some so-called Arabic Christians did not even abandon their pre-Arabic language! Iraqi Christians have a distinct language that was also talked by Jewish see.
This sentence ('Arabic Christians') is not anodine since it justifies a controversial Arab nationalistic claim. Actually, the whole concept was invented by nationalist like Aflaq. They tried to recategorize various prearabic people (including the Berbers and the Kurds) as Arab. The people in question (be it 'Arabic Christians' are other) are denied the right to define their own cultural inclination. A very interesting parallel can be made with the English-Irish relations (there's plenty of other examples). Irish people were a celtic/gaeilic people that was conquere by the English crown. Their original gaelic language was progressively replaced with English (although they kept a strong gaelic accent as we all know). Nevertheless, the Irish retained their own identity despite the English attempts to assimilate them. They are not English period. This is evident today but was not so clear in the past (to some English imperialist). While I do not deny that there are Arab Christians, you cannot put an Arab label on all the Christian communities in the Middle-East (and this is what the article does). Nationality/Ethnicity is not only a matter of language.
The point is that while Christianity is not ethnic, some Christians groups/churches are indeed based on ethnic identity. And if there's arab-speaking jews, then it must apply for other ethnicities.
I advise you to read the following links:

--equitor 21:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

On Traditional genealogy

It is true that the traditionally there are three (3) genealogical categories of Arabs. But I believe that the three you have given are severly flawed. As an Arab living outside the Arab World I have thought about this question to no end. As a result I have read anything that has to with Arabs and Arabic (thats how I became aware of this websit). So if the editor of this article finds no contradiction with the categories below I hope he/she will make the necessary amendments. 1. The first category is known in Arabic as 'ARAB BAD'EH (which roughly means, Originating Arabs). These Arabs were and are the Arabs of Yemen. They were not all destroyed as the article suggests. The people of Thamud and Ad were only two groups of this people and not the entire people. In any case it should be stated that the in Quranic stories (those of Ad and Thamud and the rest) God always saves the righteous and smites only the wicked. These Arabs trace their heritage to Qhatan. 2. The second category is known in Arabic as 'ARAB 'ARBAH (literally Arabizing Arabs). These are the arabs of the northern part of the peninsula. They are the children of 'Adnan. Incidently 'Adnan and Qhattan were brothers and the decendents of Sam (Shem in Hebrew and in the Bible) son of Nuh (Noah). They were the sixth generation of Nuh (Noah). I thought greatly about the difference between this category and the first and I believe, as their name suggests, that the second category refers to the Bedouins of the peninsula, whom are unlike the Arabs of Yemen who have alway been sedentary. The last part is just educated conjecture on my part. 3. The third category is known in Arabic as 'ARAB MUSTA'RIBAH (MU.STA.'RIB.AH which means Arabized Arabs). This group (probably the largest) makes up all the ethnic mixturs of the Arabs. Further these people can be divided into two main groups. First they would include Arab-Greek, Arab-Roman, Arab-Persian and other mixtures that were present before Islam and inhabited the very northern parts of the peninsula and the lands of the "sham" (i.e. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine). Second they would also include those mixtures that arose after Islam, and inhabit mostly North Africa. In this last sub-category you can include Arab-Hemitic (Egyptians and I guess Lybia), the Famous Arab-Berber of the Maghrib (Algeria, Tunis and Morocco) also I have seen Maur (Mauritania)and African (the Sudan) as additional subcategories.

In any case these categories are outdated. They would only be of significance to students of history who would care to study how Arabs viewed themselves through out history. In today's world no Arab goes aroud identifying him/her self with the the three adjectives listed above. I think the defination at the top of article "[an Arab is] someone who considers himself to be an Arab (regardless of racial or ethnic origin) and is recognized as such by others" is best defination any of us can give.

Philip the Arab

I see Philip link as a relevant "see also". It gives the reader a better understanding of who is an Arab. Cheers -- Szvest 14:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

It's unclear if Philip the Arab was an actual Nabatean Arab or just a Roman who lived in that general area. Yuber(talk) 15:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yuber, it is very clear historically that Philip was an Arab. His article indeed is very explicit. -- Szvest 15:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
He was the son of Julius Marinus. Doesn't sound very Arabic to me...Yuber(talk) 15:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yuber, have a look at Hermitage Museum. Also, according to, His father was Marinus, an Arab chief of Roman Knightly rank. The name says nothing Yuber. Emile, Edouard, Georges are just names. -- Szvest 16:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
Some other sources say Marinus was a Roman, so who knows. He's only called Philip the Arab because of where he was born. He never referred to himself as an Arab. Yuber(talk) 21:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong Yuber! Arab is not a name of a place, but rather a name of an ethnicity. If he was called Philip the Syrian(after the name of the Roman province where he was born), then there might be a doubt if he was arab or not. And regarding your point about his name doesn't sound arabic, look at the names of most persians, kurds, turks, and muslims in general, they pretty much sound arabic, but they aren't arabs Jidan 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

AL-Andalus's insertions

Al-Andalus keeps inserting the following text:

Jews from Arab countries - mainly Mizrahi Jews and Yemenite Jews - are today usually not categorised as Arab for modern political reasons. This was not always the case. Iraqi Jews, for instance, viewed themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith, with the distinction between Iraqis being religious (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.) "rather than as a separate race or nationality". [5]

To begin with, the text makes the unsourced and, actually, false claim that today Jews are not characterized as Arabs "for modern political reasons". Jayjg (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not false. Prove otherwise. David Ben Gurion "We do not want Israelis to become Arabs. We are bound by duty to fight against the spirit of the Levant that corrupts individuals and society." Abba Eban, "one of the great apprehensions which afflict us is the danger of the predominance of immigrants of Oriental origin forcing Israel to equalize its cultural level with that of the neighboring world." There was, and remains, a policy of de-Arabization of Arab-Jews in the state of Israel. Al-Andalus 17:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
That is your original thesis. You need to quote a reliable source which makes the claim, as per Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
What? That is my "original research"? Are you saying that those words were not uttered by Ben Gurion? The problem is that you believe that the only "reliable"; sources come from Zionist institutions, which by their very nature would not propagate sources that counter their position, even if it is fact. So you are impossible to placate. Furthermore, your position of what constitutes as comming from a "reliable" source ultimately skews for sources to portray only the Zionist POV. Finally, by the guidelines specified in WP:RS, the source is reliable, it is only in YOUR judgment that it is not. Do not hold YOUR VIEW of a source to be a higher authority than the merit of the source itself, as that would then constitue YOUR pushing of a POV (while not of the content itself, but of the source, to keep the content out). Al-Andalus 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
Assuming they said it, what they said and what it meant are two different things. You have been trying to promote the original thesis that Israel's "Ashkenazi Zionist rulers" actively suppressed some sort of Mizrahi Arab identity. Please find some reliable sources which advance this theory. Jayjg (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Second, it inserts one highly selected opinion by one author (Mendes) as if it were fact, and not merely his minority opinion. Jayjg (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Substanciate that it is not only YOUR opinion that it was a minority. Today perhaphs, after the de-Arabization of the Arab-Jews, but this was not the case in the past. Most did in fact view themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith (if from the Arab countries they came, and if they were not from within another minority, such as Kurdish Jews). Al-Andalus 17:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
If it is not a minority opinion, then you need to find other reliable sources which back up that claim. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Third, it (without evidence of justification) generalizes this claim about Iraqi Jews to all "Jews from Arab lands", even though the author himself readily concedes that the situation of Jews in Iraq was, in many ways, unique. Jayjg (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It says no such thing. Keep searching for nuances. Al-Andalus 17:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
Mendes specifically states that "While some of these factors were paralleled in other Arab countries, others were arguably unique to Iraq". In any event, he certainly never claims that any Jews except Iraqi Jews saw themselves as Arabs. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but the edition you reverted did specify that it was Iraqi Jewry. Why not leave it with at least that? So far we know that Iraqi Jewry saw itself aas Arab Jews, and that it was also the case in other Arab countries, but so far we can't acertain as to the extent of this identity in those countries. Al-Andalus 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
The current version does indeed say exactly what the source says, that before the anti-Jewish actions of the 1930s and 1940s, Iraqi Jews generally viewed themselves as Arab. It cites the author exactly, and quotes him directly. What more could you want? Jayjg (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Fourth, it ignores all sorts of other information provided in the article itself; for example, that this was true in the 1920s, but that anti-Jewish actions of the 1930s and 1940s (including the Farhud) radically changed this. Finally, it changes the term "Arabic speaking Jews" to "Jews from Arab countries" which broadens the category to all sorts of Jews (e.g. Moroccan), few of whom spoke Arabic, and who were never (as far as I know) characterized as "Arab". Jayjg (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It ignores no such thing. It clearly states that is TODAY that those Mizrahim from Arab countries are not considered Arabs, but that this was not the case at one time in the recent past. As for the Farhud, it was a tragic even in the history of Iraqi Jewry, but one cannot ignore the fact that it was one event (which itslef was not a manifestation of local politics, but the result of Nazi idealogiees being grounded in Iraq by Nazi German emissaries). Ashkenazi Zionists like to emphasize on the Farhud, and turn it into the Holocaust of the Middle East. Arab nationlism did at one stage (and even today among liberal Arab nationalist, and even the official declaration of the PLO) included "Arabs of the Jewish faith", but this was compromised by the intrusion of Zionists (European Jews) into Iraqi Jewry (and all non-European Jewry for that matter) who were in fact anti-Zionists. Al-Andalus 17:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
Even Mendes himself lists many other factors besides the Farhud which contributed to this, and not all were the result of Nazi influence. These included dismissals of Jews from government posts, and bombings against Jews and Jewish institutions in the 1930s, a government initiated "official anti-Jewish policy of controlled oppression and discrimination" in the 1940s, and the "arrest and execution of the millionaire businessman, Shafiq Ades... an assimilated Jew unsympathetic to Zionism." Even if your source were a good one, it is entirely unreasonable to make such partisan use of its contents. Goodoldpolonius2 complained vociferously about this above as well. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Mendes does state that there were other factors besides the Farhud, but that one is the most cited by Ashkenazi Zionists. The dismisals of Jewish civil servants was the direct result of Nazi propaganda having reached the Middle East (since much of the region was at that time under colonial occupation of one or another European power). All of those events - the dismissals, the Farhud, etc - are the result of the introgression of European ideologies (Nazism and Zionism). As for the bombings, I don't believe you even have the audacity to mention them, being that the consensus (outside Zionist apologetic circles, of course) attributes them to small undergroud Ashkenazi-led Israeli Zionists networks in Iraq. A claim that most Iraqi Jews to this day protest against the state of Israel.
That the Iraqi "goverment initiated "official" anti-Jewish policies" is a fact that no one will deny, but you seem to forget that for the most part, it was also at the persistance of Israeli (Ashkenazi) Zionist emmiseries that these policiees were formulated to have the Jews of Iraq in an exodus to Israel. Of course, neither are we going to deny that to a certain extent, Iraq also wanted to rid itself of those few Zionist, but they were under the impression that most would not leave, at least not the majority who were anti-Zionists and an integral part to Iraqi Arab society and nationhood.
You are probably well aware that these tacticts were not new. They had been used by Zionist even against their fellow European Jews. Making pacts with several goverments around the world, getting them to enact anti-immigration laws for fleeing European Jews, or pressuring them to refuse entry of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe, so as to have as many of these Jews to go to Palestine. Chaim Weizmann "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe". They were opportunistic parasites, willing to participate in the Nazi murder of millions of Jews in their demented quest to create their secular anti-Jewish State of Israel. Had it not been for the Zionists, even the Holocaust that befell European Jewry would not have been on the scale it was. When they were not merely participating in the killings (as in Europe), they were the ones actually setting off the bombs at synagogues and cafés (in Iraq, Egypt, etc).
How many time did the Zionists refuse the transportation of European Jews to safety in countries willing to absorb them, just because they would not relocate to Palestine, and thus sentencing hundreds of thousands to Jews to death (including the almost enitre Jewish population of Hungary). And now today, the Zionists have the audacity to propaganda that if Israel had existed at the time of the Holocaust it never would have happened, forgetting that the persecution (which because of the Zionists turned into the that massive murder, the Holocaust) was an integral part in the process of the estamblishment of the Zionist State (even Herzel acknoweladged this in Der Judenstaat). Al-Andalus 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
O.K., your theory is interesting and all, but it isn't found in the sources you have provided, nor in any other reliable sources that I am aware of. Jayjg (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Just a small correction to one of the many assertions made: Hungarian Jews had proportionately more survivors than most other Jewsih populations in the occupied countries, so claiming that "almost the entire community" perished is false. And blaming the Holocaust on the Zionists seems far-fetched. //Big Adamsky 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Almost the entirety of the remainder of Hungarian Jewry. I think that makes better sense. Al-Andalus 10:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

Number of Arabs

Linguistic: someone whose first language is Arabic (including any of its varieties); this definition covers more than 700 million people. Arabic belongs to the Semitic family of languages.

I seriously doubt that 700 million people speak Arabic (MSA or any of the very different colloquial languages) as a first language. All other articles point to a figure around 200-300 million, and I don't see where the extra ~400-500 million could come from. I will change the figure tonight (UTC-5) without further evidence.

Yom 20:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Jew cannot be Arab

The word "Jewish" is also means a "Jewish People". A person who belogs to the jewish people cannot be belong to the Arab people. In the Israeli ID: a jew who was born in french- in the ID is written only Jewish & not french as people. because the jewish people is a people as any other. For example, my grandfather was born in lybia and he is jewish, however whem he came to Israel he is a jewish an any other. The fact that he is from lybia is really doesn't matter. Therfore he isn't Arab. Another reason is than Jewish means from Judea, and Arab from the Arabian Peninsula. Can person be either from Judea & Arabian Peninsula? 09:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish is not necessarily an ethnic term, thought it was originally an ethnic religion. Judaism is a religion; there are Arab Jews still living in Iraq and other Arab countries that are ethnically of the same ancestor as their neighbors, but are of the Jewish faith. Yom 19:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You are not right, my friend was jew & he was leaving in iraq. However he wasn't iraqi he was jew. Even jews who leave in Israel, in their ID it isn't written they are Israelis but Jews. 07:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What an absurd discussion. I happen to profess the Jewish faith but I am Canadian. Does this mean I cannot be Canadian because I happen to be Jewish? What nonsense! On none of my official documents of citizenship/proof of identity is the word Jewish written. User ID above must be confused. To be Iraqi is to be a citizen of Iraq, ones religion does not matter unless there is a racist policy involved in dealing with citizenship. There is no country called Jewland hence no one can claim to be of "Jewish" nationality.

What does your being Jewish with Canadian citizenship have to do with Jews not being Arabs? A Jew doesn't acquire "Arab citizenship" like one acquires Canadian citizenship. And further, your argument above admits that Judaism is a race, not merely a religion ("ones religion does not matter unless there is a racist policy involved in dealing with citizenship"). Did you intend that? 19:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

All of this is due to Theodore Herzls doctrine of Zionism described in Der Judenstaat, which has changed over the years from the original thesis, though people argue in what ways. He argued that Jews in Europe would never be safe without their own state. In Europe, religion is in many ways ethnicity, especially in the baltic states. The European mindset pervades modern Zionist thinking. This includes the idea that every ethnicity deserves its own state. The fact is before Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Cook and those like him became champions of Zionism, many religious orthodox jews thought the idea of a Jewish State blasphemous since God was to provide it, without human interfernce. The Jewish national identity is an evolution of the exclusion Jews encountered as minorities in various societies. However, most of the time, ethnicity and nationality is how one defines one's self not how others define them. Angrynight 04:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jew might be a Jordanian citizen, egyptian citizen, but never arabi! if he live in jordan so he jordanian citizen but he doesn't belong to the arab people. 10:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed a few times here. Theorically, please note that culturally, a Jew can be considered an Arab but never ethnically.

At the Jews article you can read that Jews are "an ethno-religious group descended from the ancient Israelites and from converts who joined their religion." However, it is also mentioned that the term also includes "those who have undergone an officially recognized formal process of religious conversion to Judaism."

Finally, you can also read Who is a Jew? for more detailed info. The debate is not an easy one though! Falashas are considered Jews though they are of African origins. Cheers -- Szvest 17:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Putting aside the Mizrahim and Teimanim, if a Jewish mother bears a daughter with a non-Jewish Arab father, that child is Jewish. If this child in turn bears a child with another non-Jewish Arab father, that child is just as Jewish, yet also Arab. That Arab and Jewish are mutually exclusive terms is a fallacy. That the identification as such is these day a limited phenomenon (following the cultural cleansing of Arab Jews in Israel subsequent to their absorbtion and continued modern politics) is another kettle of fish altogether. So to say that "culturally, a Jew can be considered an Arab but never ethnically" is untrue. A Jew can be an Arab either in culture, ethnicity, or both, and still remain 100% Jewish. Let go of the political baggage and it'll clear things up for you. Al-Andalus 13:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Might I remind people that Judaism is a religion and not a 'race'. Thus there are Arab Jews, Russian Jews, German Jews etc. Tombseye 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussion? What's the need for these unending discussions anyway? There's a lot that can be said, but I don't see the need. AucamanTalk 20:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction a Jew CAN be an Arab

CCCC Clarification. Actually a Jew (ethnically) and an Arab (ethnically) can be the same person. How?!?! You may ask HOW!?!? Well its very simple. Jews follow "Matrilineality" which is a system in which one belongs to one's mother's lineage. And Arabs follow "Patrilineality" which is a system in which one belongs to one's father's lineage. Hence. IF the FATHER is an Arab and the MOTHER is a Jew, then the child would be an ARAB JEW. :-D by BB


It's always been my understanding that, in 711, Spain was invaded by Arabs (and Arabized Berbers, and individuals of mixed Arab and Berber ancestry) with a minority of black African "slaves and mercenaries". The Moors article, however, turns this on its head, asserting that "The Moors of Africa were the primary military force [in the invasion of Iberia]. When the Arabs arrived, the main part of the battle had been completed already," and that "In 756, Al-Andalus proclaimed itself an independent state. Thus, its only links to the Arabs would be the Islamic faith and the Arabic language." It also states that "Dr. Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannan author of 'Africa: Mother of Western Civilization' goes on to prove this group is from Ethiopic origins that migrated to northwest and northeast regions of Africa, and the only thing Arabic about the Moors was the fact that they were Moslem." Previously, it contained the tendentious quote: "Moorish culture was African in origin, bright in achievement, and powerful in its influence on the rest of Europe.", taken from here (which is also the source of much of the current article’s plagiarism). Aside from this, the current totalitarian of the article, Elohimgenius (who claims to be a Moor himself), has made up the term "European Moor". Is this person (and his work that is the current Moors article) misinformed or am I? I thought that perhaps those of you who frequent the Arabs page would be knowledgeable enough to determine whether the Moors article needs to be changed, and whether some intervention is necessary, or not. --Jugbo 21:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Race can be a complicated topic with this issue as there are modern perspectives (Euro-American, African American, and Mideastern/North African/Arab-Berber) and ancient ones. Mostly, it is believed that the Muslims (Moors is just a derivative of the term Muslim) of Spain were largely of Berber extraction, but led largely by the Arabs who had recently conquered them and then Caliphs ruled Spain. There were, what we'd call today 'black' rulers of Spain though, notably the Almoravides. The Arab-Berbers did view sub-Saharan people as different from themselves, but weren't strict when it came to mixed people or intermarriage (as neither were Northern Europeans until the modern era really). An interesting book on the subject is one by Bernard Lewis (can't stand the guy mostly, but he's written a few books that aren't bad) called 'Race and Slavery in the Middle East'. He uses native sources so European misinterpretation and race is not a problem when he discusses the region (including North Africa). Mostly, non-Muslim blacks were viewed as alien similar to Slavs, while Muslims who were sub-Saharan varied in their level of acceptance in society. The Berbers generally regard sub-Saharan people as different, but this again varies. The Tuareg are clearly largely of sub-Saharan background for example. The rendering you are referring to sounds like some of the Afro-centric stuff written on the subject, which takes the opposite position of the old white supremacist views that sought to portray all important peoples of the past as Northern European in appearance (including Jesus the Levantine Jew). In my opinion, both extreme positions are inaccurate and genetic tests show who the Berbers and Arabs are related to and the African component is substantial in some places, but overall I'd say North Africa is not African culturally so much as Southwest Asian, if we're comparing to areas outside of North Africa that is. Ultimately, one has to keep in mind that continents don't equal one culture or people. Eurasia is a vast supercontinent with massive diversity and China and India border each other with the Nepalese and Tibetans overlapping a little. Similarly, I'd say the Maghrib is more or less an extension of the modern Middle East, while Mauretanian, Sudan, East Africa show a high degree of overlap. Having been to the region and known many people from the region and studied the area in grad school, these would be my conclusions. Tombseye 00:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Conquerors Were Moors

The Islamic conquerors of Spain & Southern Italy were called Moors. We must delve more deep into the question "Who were the Conquerors?" instead of just one term (Moor) that describes them. History has been recorded on both sides of the fence. Arabs, Berbers & to a lesser extent West Africans are those very Moors. West Africans played a vital role during surges in history, yet the Arabs & Berbers were in it for the duration.

Back to the point about the Conquerors, they in general divided their Army into 3 seperate nearly equal in size entities. One was called the Yemeni Army (an all Arab Yemeni group). Second was the Amazigh Army (an all Berber group). And third was called the Arab Army that comprized of Arabs from the 4 corners of the empire but also contained at different times "West Africans". This third group although called the Arab group could be understood to be an all inclusive group of any Muslim of any nationality/ethnicity. And just as in pecking order the spoils went first to the Arabs then the Berbers.

Another point is that a very light colored Arab still possesses genes for an easy tan. And those that traveled and fought in the Sahara, didn't have cars as they do today, soldiers that were in the gleeming sun all day (on camel or horseback) was hardly "white". Even today a Moroccan Arab that spends all his days at the beach soakin in the rays resemble dark brown Brazilians.

The ever tanning Arab sweltering in the Sahara, was symbolized in the eyes of the Europe during the dark ages as a "Dark Face" or "Black" and were used in a derogatory mannor similar to derogatory terms used today against Africans. by BB

Arab definition

Hello guys, over all, I did not get it. Arab is a person whose race and ethnicity is Arab or his or her language is Arabic. For example, I wonder how Egyptians can be called Arab while ethnically they are absolutely not related to Arabic peninsula. Same case with Syrians. I am afraid they are not Arabs. If they are Arab, so who are the people that were living in Yemen? However that I appreciate Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Egyptian culture, I am not sure if they are real Arab. However, being Arab is not necessary a pride or shame. I did not mean this at all. I wanted just to clarify the discussion.

  • I think you'll find that the majority opinion out in the world is that an Arab is one who speaks Arabic, is from the middle east and is ( in a circular way ) seen by other Arabs as an Arab. Peripitus (Talk) 21:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, self-identification is key, perhaps it is the most important in identifying who is an Arab and who is not. I don't think anyone who is from the "Middle East" is considered an Arab by others, maybe people from the "Arab world", but then again you have significant non-Arab minorities living there who do not want to be labeled Arab. Also, I don't think there is an answer to "Who are the original/real Arabs." I have heard different theories, one theory is that the South Arabians (Yemenis) are the true Arabs and other Arabs are the decendants of Arabized people (including the prophet Muhammed) (see Adnan). And then another theory, which is completely opposite, in that Yemenis were Arabized by northern Arabs. Anyway, it is not important to get caught up in this, we choose to call ourselves Arabs regardless of our roots, and many will be offended when their Arabness is questioned. --Inahet 23:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Clearly put. I have asked the question of two people I know, a Druze from lebanon and coptic christian from Egypt - both were surprised that some may regard them as not being Arabs. Arguing origins from long ago may lead you to declare that the Australians are mostly european, English are mostly French and the citizens of the Southern USA are Spanish which would be clearly incorrect - Peripitus (Talk) 03:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with this, I don't think it's right to use the term 'Arab' for all of Middle East. Further, I also think the definitions under 'geneological' and 'linguistic' can be debated. For example, someone who lives and was born in Mexico, but technically their origins 10 generations ago are Arab, does that make them Arab also? Or someone who lives in Iran and their first language is arabic, are they also Arabs? Io Katai 06:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Page protection?

I think we should protect this page. We've had a rash of vandalism lately, including some very offensive vandalism that I heard about from a third party source that posted it elsewhere as an example of the disreputability of Wikipedia. StaticElectric 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not enough to protect this article. We can deal w/ it until it becomes necessary. Cheers -- Szvest 18:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

What the ????

  • "some Arabs can traced thier names back to Noah." (No comment needed.)
  • "The Arabs originally came from Petra" (!!!!)
  • ". The term Arabised-arabs is also used for defining the arabs whom spoke other languages than ancient Arabic (semetic languages in the Middle-East such as Phoenician, Assyrian, Akkadian, Aramaic etc. and hametic (Ham son of noah) languages such as Egyptian, Berber or Tamazight and some African languages)." (this reflects some extreme Arab nationalists who pointlessly redefine "Arab" to mean "speaker of any Afroasiatic language")
  • "Biblical tradition: in the Biblic context someone who is a descendant of Abraham through his son Ishmael, and his sons Medan and Median." The Bible has no relevance to the question of who is an Arab; it only rarely even uses the term, although Christian and Jewish tradition identifies the Ishmaelites with the Arabs.
  • "According to Islamic tradition an Arab is a person descending Isma'il (Ishmael) son of The Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham)." Wrong. According to Islamic tradition, the northern (musta`riba) Arabs are descended from Ishmael; the southern ones aren't.

Why not just revert this to the last vaguely accurate version? - Mustafaa 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • well, it's a fact that some arabs can trace thier names back to noah.
  • the first arabs were known were in petra in wadi araba.

--memo 00:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)mimo

I took down the "Biblical tradition" part

Because it statemeants were unfounded. The bible does not refer to the Arabs as descendants of Ishmael. "Ishmaelites" and "Arabs" are mentioned seperately in the bible without any hint that they are both one in the same. The tradition that identifies the two with each other is a much later one (originating, I believe, from Iosephus). I have no idea were to the claim that the Medan and Median were forefathers to the Arabs, but it's definetly not the bible. Harvest day fool 17:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Josephus describes the descendents of Ishmael as an Arabian people meaning that they lived in Arabia (Petraea), he doesn't say that they were the Arabian people, there were many ancient nations in Arabia. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual bases

They are the Arabs whom directly descendant of Noah through his son Sem through his sons Aram and Arfakhshaath.
... is used for defining the Arabs who are descendants of Abraham through his son Ishmael through his Son Adnan, and they are known as Adnanite: it is defined to the Arabs who 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 left from Yemen and settled in Mecca after the rainless took part in Yemen at that time). Ishmael learned Arabic language and he spoke it fluently during his life.

I thought Wikipedia was not in the habit of treating holy books as historical sources. These are claims, not facts, and this article needs to reflect that. Tradition may hold these things, and certain aspects of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam may also hold them, but there is no historical evidence that these people ever lived. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 21:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

image: Arab world

What do the dark green, light green and stripy sections on the image mean? Could we have a key in the image caption? ntennis 05:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You can just click on the image for further details. Yom, could you please explain to us why the map is horribly inaccurate? -- Szvest 17:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign
Yes, it's on the images' talk pages. Image:Ethnic Arabs Map.GIF.GIF [sic] (Talk) and Image:Arabs Map.GIF (Talk), which are identical. Here's what I posted on the former image (which is a repost of the former plus another point):
This map is no different from Image:Arabs Map.GIF; it has many problems. The only difference is that a couple black lines representing the Nile delta and a few rivers in the Sudan are shown. Below is my explanation of the problems from earlier. ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 17:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There are many mistakes with this map. For one, Eritrea and Somalia are not Majority Arab states. There aren't any Arabs native to Somalia, and Eritrea only has the less than 1% Rasha'ida immigrants from the late 19th century in the country. Moreover, the "strong Arab influence" in the region should be limited to the northern Eritrean coast (i.e. areas north of Massawa), Djibouti, the Somali coast, the Ogaden region in Ethiopia, and the area around Harer. Note that Djibouti is Afar and Somali, with almost no Arabs, so it is also mislabeled. Senegal and Burkina Faso, too, should not be included as having "strong Arab influence," though northern parts of Mali, and probably all of Niger (excepting maybe very southern areas) can be said to have strong Arab influence. Other areas aren't properly light Green. Moreover, non-Arabs in Sudan extend much farther north than that (Southern Sudan, the autonomous region, itself extends farther north, and non-Arabs live outside of the strictly defined region). All of Darfur and Western Sudan aren't Arab. Furthermore, Western Sahara is not considered "Arab" by its inhabitants, but rather "Saharawi.' Mauritania, too, is not completely Arab. It probably is Majority Arab, but large sections are inhabited by non-Arabs. Regarding Kenya, only the coast can be said to have "strong Arab influence." The labelling of Chad as majority Arab is incorrect. At most, it can be said to have "Arab influence" in a few of its Northern areas, but I would leave that out as well. Note that all of my definitions of "Arab influence" for the Horn are rather loose. Most of these aren't "strong," but actually rather weak. I would leave out the "Arab influences" part (hard to define anyway), and simply go with ethnic Arabs. It's also not relaly necessary since the article Arab is on the people, not on their influences, and "Arab" influences in this article seems to be "Muslim" influence, and the two cannot be equated. Also note that the Beja are shown on the map as being Arab, which they are not. The whole Red Sea coast of Sudan and the southeastern Red Sea coast of Egypt should be mid-Green, and not fully Arab. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 00:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Another note, it shows Israel as an Arab state with non-Arab minorities. According to the Demographics of Israel, non-Jews are about 20% of the population and mostly Arab, but well short of a majority, so it should properly be shown as a majority non-Arab state with Arab minorities (a color that doesn't exist yet). — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I could note some more problems (most of the Sahara being "Arab," while it's in fact mainly Berber and Tuareg, e.g.), but those above are enough that the image shouldn't be used. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 17:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree w/ most of your comments. -- Szvest 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Just to clarify, the image on this article when I originally posed the question was Image:Arab world.png. It's different to the ones above; this image has been discussed on the arab world article talk page. Thanks! ntennis 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Culture section

I reverted this recently added culture section as it doesn't say much, and what little it does say is WP:POV. There's already a "See Also" link to Arabic culture (though that article could use some work and expansion). OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Che Nuevara

In the interests of not turning Wikipedia into a vehicle for religious propaganda, I have added the words "traditionally considered to be" in a few places where the text seemed a bit too biased towards those who take the Bible literally. This section needs rewriting in a more impartial way though.

South Arabian Civilization

Inahet, what evidence do you have of a Mesopotamian origin of South Arabian civilization? I am almost 100% certain that this is not the case. South Arabian civilizations began to flourish ca. 800 BC, and definitely not 3000 BC, which is why I removed the part about "one of the oldest civilizations in the Near East," since many pre-800 BC civilizations existed there. I kept the "many" wording for descent, but it does require a citation. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 20:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're talking about, I'm not the one who added that content. :D --Inahet 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I know you aren't the original source of that content, but you reverted an edit of mine reinserting it. Perhaps you were only trying to reinsert the "Many" part for Arab origin beliefs, but you also inserted the above information. See this diff. If that was an accident, though, then there's nothing to discuss. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 20:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I really don't know how that happened, I think I was multi-tasking at the same time and didn't realize how long the page was open before submitting my edit. Also to clarify, I changed "most" to "many." --Inahet 21:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

South Arabia civilization gave birth to the Semitic tongue (evidence is Salibas study) although misguided were he claimed the Hebrews origin from Yemen, alll the Semitic languages, even Punic names as far as Sicily and Andalusia (preIslamic names, Such as Salduba and Corduba, are the same names of ancient villages in Al Ma'afer and Rayma in Yemen. However the Genetic stock shows the Semitic invaders slowly changing their skin by mixing and the original population that entered Yemen came from Upper Mesopotamia. The Qahtani term refers to the Pure Semitic tongue (Quh in local dialects in many Arab countries still refer to the same term). Arabs, Saraceans, Moors are names give to the Arabs by outsiders and the Arabs choose to give their collective the Arab identity in the 20th century, before that it was the Semitic culture excluding the Hebrews who made it clear that they are a selected Elite by GOD.

Removed Map

Ethiopians/Eritreans are not influenced by arabs. Somalis and sudanese are. that is why I removed your map. Please don't put that false information out. You can draw somalia and sudan in but not ethiopia/eritrea. We are majorily christian.

Removed Image:Ethnic Arabs Map2.GIF.GIF

Ethiopians and Eritereans are influnced by Ancient Yemenis Genetically more than anything else (I will not disregard a common origin theory that was changed once the Mesoptamians arrived 3thmillenia BC), The Somalis and Sudanese followed the Arab culture and absorbed some Arab tribes, yet they still dont resemble the Arabian Bedouins whom they absorbed.

Qays Ibn Mattatia's Story

This text is obviously missing many sentences, as it is not possible to follow the logic of the story. I have googled for the original Arabic text and it makes sense, so I have rewritten this paragraph accordingly. Here is the Arabic (can be found here [6]):

روى الحافظ ابن عساكر قال جاء قيس بن مطاطية إلى حلقة فيها سلمان الفارسي وصهيب الرومي وبلال الحبش فقال : هؤلاء الأوس والخزرج قد قاموا بنصرة هذا الرجل يعني محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم فما بال هذا وهذا ؟ مشيرا إلى غير العرب من الجالسين فقام إليه معاذ بن جبل رضى الله عنه فأخذ بتلابيبه ثم أتى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأخبره بما قاله فقام النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مغضبًا يجر رداءه حتى أتى المسجد ثم نودى الصلاة جامعة، فاجتمع الناس فخطبهم قائلاً : (( يا أيها الناس إن الرب واحد، وإن الدين واحد، وليست العربية باحدكم من أب ولا أم وإنما هي اللسان، فمن تكلم العربية فهو عربي )) .

The previous paragraph read:

"Qurra Bin Isa Al-Wasiti narrated to us from Abu Bakr Az-Dzuhli narrated to us from Malik Bin Anas from Abu Salama Ibn Abdur-Rahman who said: Qays Bin Mattatiyya came to a circle in which were sitting Salman the Persian, Suhayb the Roman, and Bilal the Ethiopian, whereupon he said: People! The Lord is One and the Father [Adam] is one. Being an Arab is not, in any of you, inherited from father or mother but it is only the language that is spoken (Innama Hiya Al-lisan). So, whoever speaks Arabic then he is an Arab." Then Mu'adzh Bin Jabal stood - still holding the other's collar - and said: 'What do you order us to do with this hypocrite, O Messenger of Allah?' He replied, 'Leave him to the Fire.' And Qays was among those who committed apostasy during the Ridda, at which time he was killed." This however is not a sound Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad, rather a statement of a religious hypocrite, Qays Ibn Matatiya.

I have also removed the following statement, which is an inferrence based on the previous, erroneous version of the story:

This however is not a sound Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad, rather a statement of a religious hypocrite, Qays Ibn Matatiya.

no one here is saying that ethiopians are arabs and it was an arab who brought christianity to ethiopia, so you need to check your history home boy. and by the way, ERITREA is always begging to be a member of the arab league you joke. I think that means they think of them self as arab. the arab world is about 10 - 20% christian, so you can stop you're stereo-typing of arabs only being muslim. and I think ethiopians are confused about their race. they call blacks ( barriya ) which is equel to arabs calling blacks ( abd ) not that either is nice. but any way, when they come to america, they call them selves black. yeah some ethiopians are black but not every single ethiopian is racially black. some looks like west african negro others could blend in an arab country.

About the box "Arab populations"

Ahlan wa sahlan. I think the top-right box is a mess. First, it has doubtful figures; among others, 15 million Arabs in Iran! (it was just reverted down to 4 million this morning, after I asked for evidence, and right now to 3 million!); 12 million in Brazil, and so on. Furthermore, there is a problem in counting among "Arab populations" just any immigran people in the world who may have some Arab origin among their ancestors, even when most of them have lost all connections with their original language (Arabic) and cultures; one typical example being Brazilian Arabs here numbered to 12 million, although probably their vast majority only speak Brazilian Portuguese (which is contradictory with the row in the same box saying explicitly that the sole language spoken by Arabs is 'Arabic') and have been assimilated to the Brazilian meltingpot (see my discussion there). Knowing this, can we really say there are 12 million Arabs in Brazil, and put them on just the same level of 'Arabhood' as the Arabic-speaking populations from Morocco to Iraq? At least things should be made clearer. (incidentally, Brazil belongs in Latin America, but presently it looks as if it did not). Finally, why mention among Regions with significant Arab populations Iran or Turkey or USA (which only have less than 4 million each), and not mention Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen etc.?? If what is meant is Regions with significant Arab populations outside Arabic-speaking countries (??) then this should be made clear, and Egypt or Saudi Arabia should then be listed out. That box is still pretty messy. Womtelo 14:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

it looks like it was recently changed[7] but without justification or citation?


"Keeping the surname is an important part of Arabic culture"

Umm, don't most Arabic-speaking cultures use patronymics rather than surnames? This sentence looks, on the face of it, like obvious nonsense. Rhialto 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on The Arab Mind

A controversial book, but should we censor it entirely? Would we censor The Birth of a Nation? With 21,600 Google hits and reported extensive use by U.S. agencies this book deserves a mention in See Also. I concede that the book can be simplistic in places, but it has extensive cites. I propose the wording: "The Arab Mind, a cultural psychology book (which some consider racist)." Simesa 15:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • 1) Its an advirtisment for this Book, accoridng to Wikipedia's rule Wikipedia:Spam
  • 2) And even if its not, how is this book which was written by an Anti-Arab Zionist Jew[8] relevant? I quote a citation from this book[9]:" one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation." Would a book written by Hitler about Jews be relevant to understanding who the jews are?
Jidan 16:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Those are not quotes from the book, nor did Patai imply the one about force (I've read the book). The article said "The Patai book, an academic told me, was 'the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior.' In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged—'one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation.'" What Patai actually said was that the Arab tendency is to escalate verbally until someone gets physically hurt, at which point the mediators step in. Simesa 17:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
And it is not an advertisement for the book anymore than Casino Royale is for the movie. Are we not to have articles on books and movies? If your fear is that someone might read it, is that not censorship? Simesa 17:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The author generalizes the arabs as if they are ONE single person. He describes the arabs behaviour like you would describe the behaviour of some kind of animal. The Guardian says about it: Its best use is as a doorstop [10]. If you want to add this book, then do it in the article Anti-Arabism, but please not here. Jidan 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I had put the Guardian's criticism in the article. And it's a valid critcism that the book lumps all Arabs together. There is an overall tone of criticism of the Arabs, which Patai apparently feels is justified. Finally, he was definitely pro-Israeli (he also wrote The Jewish Mind, but I haven't gotten that yet.) I still think it belongs here, but let's think on this a day. Simesa 18:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Simesa, I am sorry to tell you that you wasted your time reading this book. The best way you can come to close understanding the Arab Mind, is by sitting and talking with an Arab by a cup of coffee/tee, or even better, find an Arab girl/boy friend, but not by reading a book as you did :-) Jidan 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jidan. This book may be cited somewhere in Wikipedia, but does not necessarily deserve the privilege of being cited under 'Arab'. I've just added (on Arab) an internal link to "Anti-Arabism", which is relevant -unfortunately- as a general notion related to Arabs, just as Anti Semitism is related to Jews. Obviously that's where Patai's book belongs; you even have a whole section there called Anti-Arabism in Israel. Womtelo 20:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my experience is that it is quite possible to learn about others by reading. My reading of Myers-Briggs has been extremely rewarding. The novel Shogun is all about the Japanese culture and its clash with the Western culture. I'm not expecting fluency with the culture, but, say, enough to understand the motivations behind geopolitics. Second, although the book finds that traits seen as common to most Arabs are not productive in a Western-dominated world, I don't agree that that is necessarily the same as being anti-Arab. Patai may be strongly pro-Israelli but the only place I saw it in his book was where he theorized that the Arabs were using Israel as an excuse not to face their internal problems (my reading indicates that their hatred runs much deeper). Third, "privilege" is baloney - Rule #1 is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: present the unfavorable along with the favorable, with cites for both. I had decided earlier not to press this solely because some Arabs would be incapable of taking the book as anything but an insult. I think I'll stick with that despite this discussion. Simesa 23:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Simesa, I understand what you mean and you are of course right about present the unfavorable along with the favorable. The thing is, the author of this book is not a neutral observer, he is an ultra-Zionist, pro-israeli supporter. Meaning there is some self-interest conflict. Maybe you could mention him in the Arab-Israeli conflict as the Israeli point of view. Jidan 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You dismiss a book you haven't even opened solely because you don't like the author's religion and/or nationality? (That's in the book, by the way - Chapter 16, subchapter 4.) As to Arab-Israeli conflict, I read it and, except for the point mentioned above (which, as I said, I don't see as a major factor), the book doesn't pertain. Simesa 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Are we going to list and advertise every book about arabs here solely based on google? If you have usefull citations from that book, then please add them in the article, although I would have prefeared a neutral author. A Zionist author is certainly not neutral. Jidan 01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This book is notable because, as New Yorker contributor Seymour Hersh said, "The Patai book, an academic told me, was 'the bible of the neocons [neo-conservatives in the U.S. government] on Arab behavior.'" [11] Hard for a non-fiction book to top that kind of power. However, there are competing books and theories (Patai discusses several) and they probably should be included. Maybe an article on Arab psychology like the one for Filipino psychology. Maybe that's the solution. (BTW - you can read most of my own psychology from the links at INTP.) Simesa 02:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the RfC -- the solution is the article in the section below, and if we can't write that then we probably shouldn't be presenting just one viewpoint. Simesa 18:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

New article on Arab cultural psychology

I have started writing off to see if I can find an editor to write Arab psychology. Simesa 03:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think Arab Culture would be more appropriate. Jidan 11:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I asked the American University of Beirut, but none of the faculty was interested in writing such an article. They had two concerns: first, the subject is too broad to be able to prove assertions, and second, that whatever is written would quickly become politicized. Finally, "little empirical research" has been done. I guess this is one of those areas where an article would be impractical. They did thank me for asking. Simesa 17:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Arab psychology? Do we have articles w/ X psychology? -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There are articles on sports psychology, poker psychology and Filipino psychology. The article on Generation X is largely cultural psychology. Still, this would be something of a new area. Frankly, Arab cultural psychology is an extremely important topic, and it is a mystery to most of the English-language readers of Wikipedia. But I guess you can't cram a college doctorate into one article. Simesa 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, there's a business course called The Massey Triad (see Morris Massey) that says (among many other things) "What you are is where you were when you were age 10." So to see how someone thinks, look at where they were and what happened when they were age 10. The culture at that time in that place therefore becomes extremely important. Simesa 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The important thing is the usage of notable references and sources. I don't think a topic about Arab psychology got enough of those. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be very interesting. Jidan 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Images of Arab people?

Shouldn't this article have an image of about 5 Arab people, like the articles about Portuguese people, Swedish people and so on to let people know how Arabs look like? --Escondites talk 19:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reponse: There is no "Image" of arabs. Because of the diversity of community and mixture that took place during the past 15 centuries. There is no clear arab race...only Arab Tongue...and similarities in social fabric.

The editor of this page was very accurate when he described that Arabs are not a homogenuous group of people. They are a groups and tribes that assembled with the Original arabs what we call today an Arab society, which like all scorities is dynamic

Sudans Arabs

Clearly we see Arab is not a race as the people who run around Darfur are called Arabs but are 100% African. drop the POV,--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


I think there are only a hand full of true ethnic arabs in sudan. I also think that the so called sudanese arab would feel like an arab if they were to go to yemen or saudi, where those people are the most ethnic arab as one can be. I am yemeni and I could go to saudi arabia and blend in if it wasn't for my yemeni arabic accent. i no this sudanese security gaurd that is not only very dark but looks no different from any guy from ghana or mali and this guy is telling me how the black africans are trying to steal land from arab families including his, because they want the arabs to migrate else where!

arab is an ethnic term, the sudan by large are arab in cultural sense. they are not semitic arabs like the ones from middle east or even the north african countries.


Shouldn't the part about "tracing lineage back to Noah or Adam" be removed? From a non-religious standpoint there's no evidence these religious characters have even existed. If it really needs to stay, it should be weaselized with "some arabs claim to be able to trace..." or similar. 惑乱 分からん 11:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Arabs in Brazil. The Largest Arab Immigrant Population

Brazil has the largest population from the Levant Arabs diaspora. The Arab population is estimated at between 10 to 12 million people, mostly Syrians and Lebanese. Brazil has more Lebanese than Lebanon. There are currently 7 million Lebanese people in Brazil. "Arab roots grow deep in Brazil's rich melting pot - World - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper" "Brazil Has More Lebanese than Lebanon" "The Arabs of Brazil"

A Little Late?

Surely this can not be correct: "...who built up one of the oldest centres of civilisation in the Near East beginning around 800 BC." Didn't the Summerians and other fertile crescent peoples have "centres of civilisation" well before 800 b.c.? Like at least 3000 b.c.? Aren't they also in the Near East? So is the statement from the article wrong? S. Randall 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Hmmm - This appears incorrect. someone who has better knowledge of the subject should check into it. thuglasT|C 04:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct definition

Hi, I'm the smartest person on wikipedia, and I say this is the correct definition of Arab:

In everyday life, an Arab is anyone, most of whose ancestors between 6th century BC and the 6th century AD spoke Arabic. Because this language originated in Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, Arabs are of Middle Eastern or West Asian origin. Iseebias

السلام It is hard to learn new things if you r too smart. Appreciate the locality of your info due to your دين and دنيا and reality . فَلَنَقُصَّنَّ عَلَيْهِم بِعِلْمٍ وَمَا كُنَّا غَآئِبِينَ --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 12:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

imagine these people citing that is funny. dont blame me.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 13:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Arab" descendents in Latin America outnumber those in USA, Turkey, Iran, Australia

People of Lebanese, Syrian, Palestinian, Jordanian and Egyptian origins in Latin America outnumber those in areas listed. Like someone said before there are more Lebanese in Brazil than in Lebanon. Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, all have substantial populations. Most other countries also have some "Arabs". They should be listed or talked about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Says who? Prove it - besides, this may be a very sketchy link based on the fact that prior to the Reconquista, there was a lot of Arab and Spanish mixing. When the Spanish colonized south America, they would have brought this blood with them, but I think the word descendent should be reserved for those who claim arab ancestry. Other wise, whether you look at it from a science or a religious point of view, we all have blood relations, few nations have not met other than for war. Tourskin 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Says who?? I'm not talking about immigration from the time of Columbus. Many Arabs emigrated to Latin America in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Most of these Arabs were Christians, Druze, Alawites, Jews and other minorities.


vandalism people. Arabs are not dirty crusaders. Tourskin 02:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No....but some of them are dirty Jihadies Invasion10 05:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


This page needs it, the definition of arab is being vandalized in a very racist way.Tourskin 02:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Syria and Iraq are also cultural Arabs

Syria and Iraq should not be listed as ethnic Arabs but cultural Arabs. Maybe they should be placed on both Cultural and ethnic. Palestine and Egypt should be listed also under cultural. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Apparently you do not know no thing about Syria and Iraq. Read about Iraqi and Syrian families the majorities are of Arab descended although some are mixed. Also Iraq and Syria especially southern Iraq and Syria are of well-known Arab tribes--Aziz1005 15:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I know plenty about Iraq and Syria and there are both cultural and ethnic Arab families in those countries. You still have not listed Egypt, Palestine and Mauritania.

Syria and Jordan

i think that yemen should not be regarded as a complete arab nation, that is an old myth. Their language even has alot of pre-arab words, more than any others in eastern arab countries. I also think that jordan and syria should be regarded as completly arabs (except the kurdish populatin in syria ofcourse). These three countries actually have the most pure ethnic arabs. Yemen does not at all. It was a major hub, it was not arab before the islamic explosion and there is alot of african blood there. Where saudi arabia has retained its arab identity except in in mecca and medina. jordanians too. For whoever says that syrians have crusader blood. They dont have that much really. They have lighter skin because of turkish and kurdish mixture. Western iraq is also very ethnically arab. Please change!

How can Jordan be completely Arab when the majority of Jordanians are of Palestinian descent. Jordan, Syria and Iraw should be considered to have both ethnic and cultural Arabs.

Ok,they are naturalized after the israeli conflict. But almost all of the population when the state was made were ethnic arabs around 95%.

Syria is very arab except the kurdish parts and the latakia. As most of the arab immigrated there after the islamic expansion, more than they did to any other country.

== syria gets it's arab roots pre Islam through yemen ( ghassanid) and the second after the Islamic expantion.

==POv the two major tribes that arabs can claim to come from are either the adnan or qatan.

I also think that jordan and syria should be regarded as completly arabs (except the kurdish populatin in syria ofcourse). These three countries actually have the most pure ethnic arabs. - this statement is far from being right. In fact Syrians are the least arabs of all middle east. They are extremelly light skinned and it is accepted that they are of mix Arab, Aramean, Assyrian, and Greek ansestry. Chaldean 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)