We MUST Believe Arabs are 'MASTER RACE'?

[ummafnaan]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

As I was doing my usual evening blog troll, I came acroos this very disturbing article:

http://singularvoice.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/salafi-imam-we-must-believe-arabs-are-master-race/

In my whole adult life, I have never, ever heard that the Arabs are supeior to non Arabs until today. Please someone help cause I am actually troubled about this find at the moment. Is it true? Are we non Arabs truly just 'Ajamees'(At leats I think thats what the word is). There are also quotes confirming this belief by the likes of Ibn Taimiyyah and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in the article. Forgive me if this is a thread that has been started before. If yes can someone please post the link.

Jazaakallahu khairan

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

wa alaykumsalam wa rahmatullahi w abarakatuh,

perhaps this helps
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/34749/racism

Secondly:

These forbidden and innovated celebrations stir up tribalism and racism, and imply approval of what the colonialists did by dividing the Muslims’ land and making it into scattered states and peoples.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allaah is that (believer) who has At‑Taqwa [i.e. he is one of the Muttaqoon (the pious)]. Verily, Allaah is All‑Knowing, All‑Aware”
[al-Hujuraat 49:13]

Allaah created Adam and Hawwa’ [Eve], and made their offspring into peoples, tribes, races and colours. All people come from Adam and Hawwa’, and no colour or race is superior to another. Rather all of them are equal before Allaah with regard to their origins, and the one who fears his Lord the most is the best and most honourable before Allaah.

However people split after this into nations, countries and races, is only like the splitting of a single family, brothers from one father and one mother.

This ‘asabiyyah (tribalism) that is appearing nowadays in most countries, where people form factions on the basis of race, colour or homeland, is akin to the ancient tribalism that existed between the tribes of Aws and Khazraj; it is one of the leftovers of jaahiliyyah [ignorance].

There had been many wars between Aws and Khazraj during the Jaahiliyyah, with a great deal of enmity and hatred, and intense fighting, until Islam came and they entered therein, and became brothers by the grace of Allaah.

After Islam had set their affairs straight and they had become united, a Jewish man passed by a gathering of Aws and Khazraj, and he was bothered by their friendship and unity. So he sent a man who was with him to sit amongst them and remind them of the wars that used to be waged between them. He did that and kept doing it until they were provoked and became angry with one another, and they got riled up and started shouting their slogans and calling for their weapons, and threatening to go out to the Harrah (a place in Madeenah) to fight. News of this reached the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so he came to them and started to calm them down, and said, “Are you issuing the calls of the jaahiliyyah when I am still among you?” Then he recited to them the following verse (Interpretation of the meaning):

“And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allaah (i.e. this Qur’aan), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allaah’s Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islamic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allaah makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:103]

When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) recited this verse to them, they regretted what they had done, and they reconciled and put aside their weapons.

Fourthly:

Islam does not forbid a Muslim to love his homeland or the country in which he lives or grew up. What is reprehensible is basing one’s feelings of loyalty and disavowal on that, and loving and hating on that basis. A person who belongs to the same country as you is not closer to you than a Muslim from another land, and the reason for your loving or hating others should not be whether or not they come from the same country as you. Rather loyalty and disavowal, or love and hatred, should all be based on Islam and piety.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to love Makkah because it was the most beloved land to Allaah, but he did not love the kaafirs who lived there, rather he fought them because they fought against Islam and killed Muslims. Neither he nor his companions ever gave precedence to their love of Makkah over the laws of Allaah, so when Allaah forbade those who had migrated from Makkah to go back to it, except for Hajj and three days after it, they adhered to that and did not stay there for longer than that period. Their love for Makkah did not make them disobey Allaah, let alone do anything that was worse than that.

Today you see that tribalism and devotion to one's country has gone to such extremes that places of shirk are venerated just because they are in one’s country; the flag is venerated because it represents the country, so the people stand and salute it with a reverence that is absent in their prayers when they stand before their Lord.

Fifthly:

Using passports is not regarded as a kind of ‘asabiyyah (tribalism) or jaahiliyyah (ignorance) because the purpose is simply to identify a person and the country of which he is a citizen. If it so happens that some people use them for the purpose of boasting and acting superior to others, or to express tribalistic pride in his country, this is something blameworthy.

Sixthly:

We have mentioned that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) loved Makkah and that he gave precedence to obeying his Lord over his love for Makkah.

It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to Makkah, “What a good land you are, and how dear you are to me. Were it not that my people drove me out from you, I would never have lived anywhere else.”

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 3926; classed as saheeh by al-Tirmidhi and by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 5536.

You can also find similar stories of the Sahaabah and those who came after them, by reading their biographies. It seems that the love of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the Sahaabah for Makkah was because it was the most beloved land to Allaah, as it says in another report narrated by al-Tirmidhi, no. 3925: “You are the best land of Allaah and the most beloved of the land of Allaah to Allaah.” Classed as saheeh by Ibn Hajar.

But the natural love that a person feels for the place where he grew up is something that is not regarded as blameworthy by sharee’ah, so long as that does not distract you from acts of worship and obedience which are more important. Hence we see that the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them), Muhaajireen and Ansaar alike, left their homelands and went out to other lands, spreading the call of Islam throughout other countries. They went out for purposes that were nobler than their attachment to land and buildings.

And Allaah knows best.

[hearandobey]

please see this (http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=1149).

[WM]

Ahl ul-Bayt are better than non-sayyids. Quraysh are better than non-Qurashis. Nobody disagrees about this.

This issue is no different at all. A pious non-Arab is better than an Arab Sayyid.

[pakhtoon]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

As I was doing my usual evening blog troll, I came acroos this very disturbing article:

http://singularvoice.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/salafi-imam-we-must-believe-arabs-are-master-race/

In my whole adult life, I have never, ever heard that the Arabs are supeior to non Arabs until today. Please someone help cause I am actually troubled about this find at the moment. Is it true? Are we non Arabs truly just 'Ajamees'(At leats I think thats what the word is). There are also quotes confirming this belief by the likes of Ibn Taimiyyah and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in the article. Forgive me if this is a thread that has been started before. If yes can someone please post the link.

Jazaakallahu khairan

Seems like the author is a doing the classic cut and paste on peoples quotes.

The arabic language is considered to be superior in the sense its root word "Arb" is derived to mean an eloquent portrayal hence ANY ajamees way of describing something is seen as deficient in every regard.

Brother Abu Usama didn't say arabs are a master race. The guy who wrote the blog is rolling out agit-prop and seems to be someone with an axe to grind.

[WM]

On the Ahl ul-Hadith forum Um Abdullah said this, I think it's worth quoting:

This virtue of the Arabs does not benefit them in this dunya nor the akhirah unless they have taqwa.

It does not save them from hell fire, nor does it give them any benefits in worldly matters nor is it permissable for them to feel pride over non Arabs because of it.

so why is are people upset?

What's the big deal if the Arabs have an extra virtue, it won't do them any good in akhirah, and our goal should be taqwa, so lets work on attaining it, for it is what benefits us in the hereafter.

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

As I was doing my usual evening blog troll, I came acroos this very disturbing article:

http://singularvoice.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/salafi-imam-we-must-believe-arabs-are-master-race/

In my whole adult life, I have never, ever heard that the Arabs are supeior to non Arabs until today. Please someone help cause I am actually troubled about this find at the moment. Is it true? Are we non Arabs truly just 'Ajamees'(At leats I think thats what the word is). There are also quotes confirming this belief by the likes of Ibn Taimiyyah and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in the article. Forgive me if this is a thread that has been started before. If yes can someone please post the link.

Jazaakallahu khairan

Abu Usamah the person mentioned in the article is not a scholar he is not even a student of ilm i heard , shaik al faisal exposed him in one of his lectures for other ''mistakes'' he made aswell.

arabs are not superior over non arabs thats a fact all muslims are equal , i dont care what ibn taymiyya says althrough i am sure such a saying was never made by the shaikh

[hearandobey]

Abu Usamah the person mentioned in the article is not a scholar he is not even a student of ilm i heard , shaik al faisal exposed him in one of his lectures for other ''mistakes'' he made aswell.

and what does that make al-faisal?

[pakhtoon]

Abu Usamah the person mentioned in the article is not a scholar he is not even a student of ilm i heard , shaik al faisal exposed him in one of his lectures for other ''mistakes'' he made aswell.

arabs are not superior over non arabs thats a fact all muslims are equal , i dont care what ibn taymiyya says althrough i am sure such a saying was never made by the shaikh


Wait...you're using faisals account as evidence to slur someone? wow.

You have issues.

[rasheed gonzales]

The part of the problem with this whole issue is in the manner it's presented. Abu Usamah could have chosen his words a bit more carefully, as the word "superiority", which he chose to use for the word "fadl", carries certain (sometimes negative) connotations and implications with it.

It is a fact that Allah has preferred and given more virtue to some things over the others.

For example, Allah says, «These Messengers, We preferred (faddalnâ) some of them over others; from them are who Allah spoke to. He raised some of them in levels; We gave 'Îsâ bin Maryam and aided him with the spirit of holiness» (2:253). He also says, «And We have preferred (faddalnâ) some of the Prophets over others; and We gave Dâwud the Zabur» (17:55). He has preferred and given virtues to some of His prophets and messengers over others, or you can say, He made some of them "superior" to others.

Allah also says, «Men are the custodians of women, because of what Allah has preferred (faddala) some of them over others and because of what they spend of their wealth» (4:34).

He also says, «And Allah preferred (faddala) some of you over others in provision» (16:71).

Despite all this, Allah says, «O people, surely, We created you from a male and a female. We made you races and tribes so that you become acquainted with one another. Surely, the noblest of you with Allah are your godliest. Surely, Allah is knowing [and] aware» 13:49. Allah tells us in this verse that the godliest amongst us, i.e., the ones with the most taqwâ, are the noblest in His eyes. So in the end, this is all that matters.

Just before the verse in which He said He men are "superior" to women, Allah says, «Do not desire what Allah preferred (faddala) some of you over others with. For the men is a share of what they earned and for the women is a share of what they earned. Ask Allah of His bounty. Surely, Allah is knowledgeable of everything» (4:32).

[Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari]

Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, when he described his lineage, said that he is the best of the best, mentioning his tribe, his larger tribe and banu 'Isma'eel.

Source: Sealed Nectar.

[William Wurkmun Fosterr]

As the Beach Boys say: "Be true to your school.":)

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

and what does that make al-faisal?

faisal studied under different shuyookh we cant say the same about ''abu usamah'' i guess you never heard what abu did regarding to shaikh umar abdurrahman

[Saifur Rahman Al Afghani]

"Gold in essence is more valuable than silver. But this does not mean that there cannot be a silver piece that is of more precious than a gold piece".

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

Wait...you're using faisals account as evidence to slur someone? wow.

You have issues.

whats wrong with it he used abu usamahs own words to refute him

[Abu wakee]

Firstly why would you take such an ethnocentric and racist self victimizing blogger for his word?

Secondly arabs are not superior to non arabs by simply the virtue of being an 'arab'.

[ummafnaan]

Firstly why would you take such an ethnocentric and racist self victimizing blogger for his word?



Because brother Abu Wakee, firstly and most importantly he is a muslim and it is his right over me that I believe him, until I see irrefutable proof showing otherwise. And secondly cos as I said, I stumbled across the article and that is why I brought the topic up so someone could help me clarify the issue.

[Umm Ahmed]

Many Arabs might think they are superior and I have heard many asians say this as well .
But at the end of the day Allaah says

O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allâh is that (believer) who has At-Taqwa [i.e. one of the Muttaqûn (pious - see V.2:2). Verily, Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (Al-Hujurat 49:13)

[ummafnaan]

Jazaakallah Sister Umm Ahmed,

I once had my step dad's Arab friend ask why I wear the niqaab? He said it was only for Arab women cause they were too 'beautiful' and so needed to be 'protected'. As for me, I am black so I don't need to wear the niqab and proceeded to tell my step dad to discourage me from wearing it. Suffice to say i was very annoyed by that statement.

On my first visit to bilaad ul haramain I was appaulled to see how SOME of the Meccans would treat the other black, pakistani, asian, etc sisters. Infact I think the only reason I got off lightly with them was because I spoke English and I noticed they were in awe of anybody who could speak English.
Could it be that it is ideas like the one propagated by this article that have given SOME Arabs this feeling of superiority over other muslims?

Allahu musta'an

[Abu wakee]

Because brother Abu Wakee, firstly and most importantly he is a muslim and it is his right over me that I believe him, until I see irrefutable proof showing otherwise. And secondly cos as I said, I stumbled across the article and that is why I brought the topic up so someone could help me clarify the issue.

I wonder if you fail to see his clear bias, outlandish claims and clear hatred for any muslim not from his own race. Btw, what he is doing is a logical conclusion of super-salafism, their extreme yet erronous puritanism is translating in a different form in case of this individual. Such people with such phrenic dystrophia should be paid no heed.

[Umm Ahmed]

Ummafaan I think there is some pride that comes with being an arab , Language of the Quran , Islaam came to them :)
Wealth I think is what has given Arabs this feeling of superiority , but if you speak to them about this, they will acknowledge that its a wrong way to feel.

[rasheed gonzales]

Sorry, gave the wrong reference to the verse about having the most taqwâ; got the numbers flipped around.

faisal studied under different shuyookh we cant say the same about ''abu usamah'' i guess you never heard what abu did regarding to shaikh umar abdurrahman
I wonder just how much you know about brother Abu Usamah's studies.

[ummafnaan]

Jazzakallahu khair to everyone for their contribution. I think the link from hearandobey kind of clears any doubts I had.

[WM]

A pious non-Arab is always better than a less pious Arab, and on this statement every party agrees.

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

what about ibn taymiyya's claims
could anyone shed some light on that ''issue''

[WM]

Ibn Taymiyya never contradicts the above statement. If you think he does, then you haven't understood him.

Maybe the brother who wrote this could have done it with more hikmah- Allahu a'lam.

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

Ibn Taymiyya never contradicts the above statement. If you think he does, then you haven't understood him.

Maybe the brother who wrote this could have done it with more hikmah- Allahu a'lam.

Sheikh-ul-Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) was of the opinion that Arabs ARE SUPERIOR (Afdal) than Non-Arabs and he claimed that this was the view that was held by the MAJORITY of the scholars - ‘Al-Jamhoor’- .

He wrote: “And the MAJORITY of scholars are of the opinion that the Arab species is better (Afdal) than the Non-Arab (species) just as the nation of Quraish is better (Afdal) than the Non-Quraishite nations and (just as) the nation of Bani Haashim is better (Afdal) than the Non-Bani Haashim (nations).” Majm’u Al-Fataawa 19/29

He also wrote: “…This was the position of Imam Ahmed (ra) and the MAJORITY of Ahlul ‘Ilm.” Iqtidaa As-Siraatil-Mustaqeem 2/421

Also, refer to what he said in Majmu’ Fataawa 27/472.


http://singularvoice.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/salafi-imam-we-must-believe-arabs-are-master-race/

^^ according to his ''blog'' ibn taymiyya made those statements take the statements as they appear and lets either refute the words of ibn taymiyya or expose the possible mistranslation of the writer of the article?

[Salahadeen]

Sheikh-ul-Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) was of the opinion that Arabs ARE SUPERIOR (Afdal) than Non-Arabs and he claimed that this was the view that was held by the MAJORITY of the scholars - ‘Al-Jamhoor’- .

He wrote: “And the MAJORITY of scholars are of the opinion that the Arab species is better (Afdal) than the Non-Arab (species) just as the nation of Quraish is better (Afdal) than the Non-Quraishite nations and (just as) the nation of Bani Haashim is better (Afdal) than the Non-Bani Haashim (nations).” Majm’u Al-Fataawa 19/29

He also wrote: “…This was the position of Imam Ahmed (ra) and the MAJORITY of Ahlul ‘Ilm.” Iqtidaa As-Siraatil-Mustaqeem 2/421

Also, refer to what he said in Majmu’ Fataawa 27/472.


http://singularvoice.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/salafi-imam-we-must-believe-arabs-are-master-race/

^^ according to his ''blog'' ibn taymiyya made those statements take the statements as they appear and lets either refute the words of ibn taymiyya or expose the possible mistranslation of the writer of the article?

If you guys click on the Multaqa thread, you will find that me (Dr. Salaf) and Bassam Zawadi repeatedly asked Shaykh Haitham to provide proof for his claim that Arabs are superior than non-Arabs. The only "proof" that was given were the words of Shaykh Al-Albani, Ibn Taymiyyah, etc....without a single proof from the Quran or the authentic hadeeth.

All these arguments (i.e. justifications) about how gold is superior to silver but not every gold piece is superior to every silver piece...these are all racist statements.

Just substitute the word "white" for "Arab" and "black" for "non-Arabs", and then it will become patently obvious how racist these statements are.

If you can provide a single proof from the Quran or authentic hadeeth, please bring it up! We went ten pages in that other thread, and nobody was able to bring up a shred of evidence.

As for the hadeeth about how the Prophet [s] was chosen from the Quraysh, etc, we dealt with that in the thread.

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

If you guys click on the Multaqa thread, you will find that me (Dr. Salaf) and Bassam Zawadi repeatedly asked Shaykh Haitham to provide proof for his claim that Arabs are superior than non-Arabs. The only "proof" that was given were the words of Shaykh Al-Albani, Ibn Taymiyyah, etc....without a single proof from the Quran or the authentic hadeeth.

All these arguments (i.e. justifications) about how gold is superior to silver but not every gold piece is superior to every silver piece...these are all racist statements.

Just substitute the word "white" for "Arab" and "black" for "non-Arabs", and then it will become patently obvious how racist these statements are.

If you can provide a single proof from the Quran or authentic hadeeth, please bring it up! We went ten pages in that other thread, and nobody was able to bring up a shred of evidence.

As for the hadeeth about how the Prophet [s] was chosen from the Quraysh, etc, we dealt with that in the thread.

couldnt agree more akhi well said.

white/black/arab/asian/latino muslims are all equal

[WM]

You fool (I feel as though), if you heard it from the Prophet (sal Allahu `alayhi wa sallam) himself you still wouldn't believe it. In fact, plenty of evidences were provided, but it makes no difference to you. It's so rare to find people who care about the truth, and the truth alone; people like you just follow their prejudices and their ahwa, and whatever you say to them doesn't benefit them at all. Both of you have *clearly* misunderstood the concept being discussed, and on top of that you continue to debate without any 'ilm at all. Give me negative rep, I don't care, you people need to be cut down to size.

Ibn Taymiyya goes on to say: “HOWEVER, the prevalence of one group over another group does not necessitate that every individual (from the preferred group) will have preference over the individual (from the other group). For in the Non-Arabs there are many who are better many of the Arabs. In those not from the Quraysh from the Muhajirs and the Ansar were many who were better than many from the Quraysh. In those not of Bani Hashim from Qurash and those not from Quraysh were many who were better than many from Bani Hashim. In regards to this, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) stated: ‘The best of generations is the one I have arisen in, then the ones succeeding them, then the ones succeeding them.’ Yet, in the later generations there are many who are better than many from the Second and Third generations (designated in the Hadith). With this, the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) did not isolate the Second or Third generations (designated in the Hadith) by jusristic decree. Likewise, he did not isolate the Arabs by juristic decree. Moreover, he did not isolate some of his Sahabah with juristic decree other than what was for the rest of his Ummah, but when anyone from the Sahabah had a preferred quality, they were informed of it. Similarly for those who came before and after were not isolated with juristic decree. They were informed of what preferred qualities they had which made them stand out based UPON THEIR DEEDS, AND THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR LINEAGE.” [sZaman translated this in the 'comments']

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

You fool (I feel as though), if you heard it from the Prophet (sal Allahu `alayhi wa sallam) himself you still wouldn't believe it. In fact, plenty of evidences were provided, but it makes no difference to you. It's so rare to find people who care about the truth, and the truth alone; people like you just follow their prejudices and their ahwa, and whatever you say to them doesn't benefit them at all. Both of you have *clearly* misunderstood the concept being discussed, and on top of that you continue to debate without any 'ilm at all. Give me negative rep, I don't care, you people need to be cut down to size.

Ibn Taymiyya goes on to say: “HOWEVER, the prevalence of one group over another group does not necessitate that every individual (from the preferred group) will have preference over the individual (from the other group). For in the Non-Arabs there are many who are better many of the Arabs. In those not from the Quraysh from the Muhajirs and the Ansar were many who were better than many from the Quraysh. In those not of Bani Hashim from Qurash and those not from Quraysh were many who were better than many from Bani Hashim. In regards to this, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) stated: ‘The best of generations is the one I have arisen in, then the ones succeeding them, then the ones succeeding them.’ Yet, in the later generations there are many who are better than many from the Second and Third generations (designated in the Hadith). With this, the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) did not isolate the Second or Third generations (designated in the Hadith) by jusristic decree. Likewise, he did not isolate the Arabs by juristic decree. Moreover, he did not isolate some of his Sahabah with juristic decree other than what was for the rest of his Ummah, but when anyone from the Sahabah had a preferred quality, they were informed of it. Similarly for those who came before and after were not isolated with juristic decree. They were informed of what preferred qualities they had which made them stand out based UPON THEIR DEEDS, AND THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR LINEAGE.” [sZaman translated this in the 'comments']

is it that difficult to have a normal discussion without calling people ''fool''
ibn taymiyyas sayings on this matter are clear:
He wrote: “And the MAJORITY of scholars are of the opinion that the Arab species is better (Afdal) than the Non-Arab (species) Majm’u Al-Fataawa 19/29
^^ this fatwa if it is his fatwa is pure nonsense and a lie also the fatawa by him mentioned in the blog are nonsense arabs are not better or superior.

[WM]

You still don't get it.

[Basic Muslim]

Some of the anti-black statements in the comments in defense of the Arabs are superior argument (from the Salafi brothers) was over the top and very sad. To think that many of the black American brothers and sisters accepted Islam on the premise that all races are equal to have to hear this must be disheartening

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

You still don't get it.

his views are clear so is the text so you are the the one ''not getting it''

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

Some of the anti-black statements in the comments in defense of the Arabs are superior argument (from the Salafi brothers) was over the top and very sad. To think that many of the black American brothers and sisters accepted Islam on the premise that all races are equal to have to hear this must be disheartening

well all muslims are equal

the pseudo salafis must stop their racist nonsense

i dont care if ibn taymiyyas fatwa supports their view i would flush it down the toilet without hesitating.

racism cant be justified

[Abu wakee]

You fool (I feel as though), if you heard it from the Prophet (sal Allahu `alayhi wa sallam) himself you still wouldn't believe it. In fact, plenty of evidences were provided, but it makes no difference to you. It's so rare to find people who care about the truth, and the truth alone; people like you just follow their prejudices and their ahwa, and whatever you say to them doesn't benefit them at all. Both of you have *clearly* misunderstood the concept being discussed, and on top of that you continue to debate without any 'ilm at all. Give me negative rep, I don't care, you people need to be cut down to size.

Ibn Taymiyya goes on to say: “HOWEVER, the prevalence of one group over another group does not necessitate that every individual (from the preferred group) will have preference over the individual (from the other group). For in the Non-Arabs there are many who are better many of the Arabs. In those not from the Quraysh from the Muhajirs and the Ansar were many who were better than many from the Quraysh. In those not of Bani Hashim from Qurash and those not from Quraysh were many who were better than many from Bani Hashim. In regards to this, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) stated: ‘The best of generations is the one I have arisen in, then the ones succeeding them, then the ones succeeding them.’ Yet, in the later generations there are many who are better than many from the Second and Third generations (designated in the Hadith). With this, the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) did not isolate the Second or Third generations (designated in the Hadith) by jusristic decree. Likewise, he did not isolate the Arabs by juristic decree. Moreover, he did not isolate some of his Sahabah with juristic decree other than what was for the rest of his Ummah, but when anyone from the Sahabah had a preferred quality, they were informed of it. Similarly for those who came before and after were not isolated with juristic decree. They were informed of what preferred qualities they had which made them stand out based UPON THEIR DEEDS, AND THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR LINEAGE.” [sZaman translated this in the 'comments']

The funny thing is that the piece of tool (the blogger) seems to have totally ignored Szaman's comments. To me he just sounds like another hate-consumed angry and mentally imbalanced person who seems to have taken a disliking to 'immigrants'. A bit like black version of BNP.

al-hanafi, do you seriously lack comprehension skills? Really is it that hard for you to read the whole of Ibn Tayimiah's statement and read it in 'context'

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

The funny thing is that the piece of tool (the blogger) seems to have totally ignored Szaman's comments. To me he just sounds like another hate-consumed angry and mentally imbalanced person who seems to have taken a disliking to 'immigrants'. A bit like black version of BNP.

al-hanafi, do you seriously lack comprehension skills? Really is it that hard for you to read the whole of Ibn Tayimiah's statement and read it in 'context'

i do read it in context and am still bothered with the following lines:

''was of the opinion that Arabs ARE SUPERIOR (Afdal) than Non-Arabs''
''He wrote: “And the MAJORITY of scholars are of the opinion that the Arab species is better (Afdal) than the Non-Arab (species)''

[WM]

Bilal (ra) and Salman (ra), two non-Arabs, are better than each of the 300 million or so Arabs alive today, and ibn Taymiyya would not dispute this- in fact, Abu Usamah fully endorses this statement in his article. That's because an Arab is not better than a non-Arab, except in taqwa. Your problem is that you haven't tried to understand what ibn Taymiyya means, brother.

[Abu wakee]

i do read it in context and am still bothered with the following lines:

''was of the opinion that Arabs ARE SUPERIOR (Afdal) than Non-Arabs''
''He wrote: “And the MAJORITY of scholars are of the opinion that the Arab species is better (Afdal) than the Non-Arab (species)''

LOl I really felt an impulse to call you an idiot for this. It just shows that you indeed did not understand what he said in context. Just as Szaman mentioned it in his comment this only is in the case of kafa'a in marriage and the qur'an being arabic. And ofcourse it is conditional as Ibn Tayimiah said himself that:

"They were informed of what preferred qualities they had which made them stand out based UPON THEIR DEEDS, AND THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR LINEAGE.”

[Salahadeen]

Dear Abdullah Ali al-Hanafi:

I do not think it is a proper way to attack Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [ra], Shaykh al-Albani [ra], etc. It certainly is not proper to say that we should "flush his fatwa down the toilet". Neither should we attack those Salafis (pseudo-Salafis as you say).

Rather, all *I* say is that I humbly disagree with them. And as Brother Muhaqiq mentioned, possibly without knowledge. Perhaps it is that they had some information that I do not have, but so far I have not yet been able to hear a shred of evidence to support their stance. In any case, this does not mean I am disrespecting these scholars; rather, they will get one reward for ijtihad no matter what.

Dear brother Muhaqiq:

You said:


if you heard it from the Prophet (sal Allahu `alayhi wa sallam) himself you still wouldn't believe it. In fact, plenty of evidences were provided, but it makes no difference to you.

This is not a fair assessment of yours, dear brother. The *very* reason that I am against such sayings is because of the statements of the Prophet [s] himself. The Prophet [s] himself said in authentic ahadeeth:

"No Arab is superior to a non-Arab"

And yet, the statements of these scholars are that Arabs are superior to the Non-Arabs.

Do I remind you of the hadeeth--which has a true meaning--where one Sahabi was saying something along the lines of "but Umar said..." and the other Sahabi responded with something along the lines of "I tell you what the Prophet said, and yet you tell me what Umar said"....(I reworded it a bit since I don't remember the exact wording).

Then you said:

In fact, plenty of evidences were provided, but it makes no difference to you.

This is a lie. Both me and Bassam Zawadi kept asking for evidence, and none was provided. Only two or so hadeeth were given, which did not at all convey what was being said, ESPECIALLY in light of the overwhelmingly clear hadeeth that no Arab is superior to a non-Arab.

Instead of just claiming that evidence was provided, why don't you make a post with all of the evidence to support your view? And just include the Quran and authentic hadeeth. No views of scholars, since that is not a proof.

Ibn Taymiyya goes on to say

That is pretty much how the thread on multaqa went, with people just providing quotes from scholars as proof.

[WM]

There's no point discussing anything with people like you who are and ever remain convinced of their own opinions. Once I would have tried to change your opinion; but there isn't any point. There isn't any point trying to change anyone's opinion.

[Salahadeen]

Bilal (ra) and Salman (ra), two non-Arabs, are better than each of the 300 million or so Arabs alive today, and ibn Taymiyya would not dispute this- in fact, Abu Usamah fully endorses this statement in his article. That's because an Arab is not better than a non-Arab, except in taqwa. Your problem is that you haven't tried to understand what ibn Taymiyya means, brother.

Brother, I understand what Ibn Taymiyyah [ra] is saying. I understand the argument about how gold is superior to silver, but some silver pieces are superior to some gold pieces. I also understand how a pious non-Arab is better than a pious Arab.

But it is STILL racist. Can you imagine going into a job interview, and there is another applicant who applies with you. He is equally qualified as you, but he is white, so they hire him instead. And then when you protest, they say "Oh, but don't worry, if you had been superior in qualifications, then we would've hired you, but since you are both equal, then whites are superior to browns."

[Salahadeen]

There's no point discussing anything with people like you who are and ever remain convinced of their own opinions. Once I would have tried to change your opinion; but there isn't any point. There isn't any point trying to change anyone's opinion.

OK, if you feel that way. I feel the same way about you.

I think your response is just because you don't know what the evidence is. The most you can do is find two ahadeeth and give them an interpretation even though they can easily be interpreted differently, ESPECIALLY in light of the overwhelming ahadeeth like 'no arab is superior to a non-arab.'

[WM]

I don't care about your opinion of me. Everyone hates me anyway.

[Salahadeen]

I don't care about your opinion of me. Everyone hates me anyway.

Do you mean "you" or "me"? I think everyone here hates ME, not you. :)

[Um Abdullah M.]

But it is STILL racist. Can you imagine going into a job interview, and there is another applicant who applies with you. He is equally qualified as you, but he is white, so they hire him instead. And then when you protest, they say "Oh, but don't worry, if you had been superior in qualifications, then we would've hired you, but since you are both equal, then whites are superior to browns."

Brother, your example shows that you did not get it.

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

The squeamishness that many of you have about this lies in your egalitarian brainwashing.

Yes the Arabs are more noble in lineage than the Ajam. This is not racism. Every nation on earth prior to the modern age has believed that such a thing as "noble lineage" existed.

The Arabs are the noblest people and the Bani Quraysh are the aristocracy of the Arabs.

Salahadeen is once again showing his modernism and allegiance to kaafir ideals.

[rasheed gonzales]

The squeamishness that many of you have about this lies in your egalitarian brainwashing.

Yes the Arabs are more noble in lineage than the Ajam. This is not racism. Every nation on earth prior to the modern age has believed that such a thing as "noble lineage" existed.

The Arabs are the noblest people and the Bani Quraysh are the aristocracy of the Arabs.
Jazakallah khaira.

[Um Abdullah M.]

The squeamishness that many of you have about this lies in your egalitarian brainwashing.

Yes the Arabs are more noble in lineage than the Ajam. This is not racism. Every nation on earth prior to the modern age has believed that such a thing as "noble lineage" existed.

The Arabs are the noblest people and the Bani Quraysh are the aristocracy of the Arabs.

jazakallahu khayran

Salahadeen is once again showing his modernism and allegiance to kaafir ideals.

That wasn't necessary akhi.

[Abu Ma'mar]

I dont think these things should be talked about in this way as they can bring alot of misunderstandings.

Islamqa have an answer on this but didnt translate it to english like all their other fatawa. That should tell us something.

And this is not from the fundamentals of 'Aqeedah no one can deviate over this issue.

[Basic Muslim]

The squeamishness that many of you have about this lies in your egalitarian brainwashing.

Yes the Arabs are more noble in lineage than the Ajam. This is not racism. Every nation on earth prior to the modern age has believed that such a thing as "noble lineage" existed.

The Arabs are the noblest people and the Bani Quraysh are the aristocracy of the Arabs.

Salahadeen is once again showing his modernism and allegiance to kaafir ideals.

But what about the way the salafi brother attacked blacks? They seem to likewise believe that blacks are automatically without any nobility whatsoever. What does this nobility mean in practice to those who are not Arab? Does it mean that we must (for example) give up our seat for them or let them enter first?

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

as salaamu alaykum

faisal is not a shaykh he is a khariji and doesnt have the credentials of a shaykh.

Abu usama is a student of knowledge. He makes mistakes however alhamdulilah he is not from the khawarij.

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

But what about the way the salafi brother attacked blacks? They seem to likewise believe that blacks are automatically without any nobility whatsoever. What does this nobility mean in practice to those who are not Arab? Does it mean that we must (for example) give up our seat for them or let them enter first?


I have seen many black Salafis. So I dont think your being just. Its not a 'salafi' thing it is just a racial thing. Some people should choose their words better.

[Brother_Mujahid]

I have seen many black Salafis. So I dont think your being just. Its not a 'salafi' thing it is just a racial thing. Some people should choose their words better.

In the US the overwhelming majority of Salafis (in the loosest sense of the word) are African-American, and all of their heads are African-American: Dawid Abid, Abu Muslimah, etc.

[Basic Muslim]

I have seen many black Salafis. So I dont think your being just. Its not a 'salafi' thing it is just a racial thing. Some people should choose their words better.

I should have been more clear. I meant those that commented on that post

[Brother_Mujahid]

The squeamishness that many of you have about this lies in your egalitarian brainwashing.

Yes the Arabs are more noble in lineage than the Ajam. This is not racism. Every nation on earth prior to the modern age has believed that such a thing as "noble lineage" existed.

The Arabs are the noblest people and the Bani Quraysh are the aristocracy of the Arabs.

Salahadeen is once again showing his modernism and allegiance to kaafir ideals.

Jazak ullah khayr for speaking the plan and simple truth.

[Mustafa al-Muhaajir]

... he is a kharijiyou sure bout that ?

[Abu wakee]

The squeamishness that many of you have about this lies in your egalitarian brainwashing.

Yes the Arabs are more noble in lineage than the Ajam. This is not racism. Every nation on earth prior to the modern age has believed that such a thing as "noble lineage" existed.

The Arabs are the noblest people and the Bani Quraysh are the aristocracy of the Arabs.

Salahadeen is once again showing his modernism and allegiance to kaafir ideals.

'abd al-haqq you see I have a problem with this understanding because this would mean that Allah 'azza wa jall created human beings as being non-equals. Secondly it also sounds incoherent from many aspects, such as the fact that for instance Allah ta'ala mentioned in the qur'an that he had favored bani isreal over others, does that mean that they were inherently better than others (as they believed)? No it was because Allah repeatedly sent Messengers and Prophets to them. Similar is the case for Arabs, they were honored because Qur'an was sent to them and Prophet (sal Allahu 'alayhi wassalam) was sent to them. It does not mean they are inherently 'superior', hence if they are neglectful muslims, which most of them are, they are in no way better than non-arabs. ahl al-bayth deserve our respect because they were Prophet's family, similarly Quraysh deserve it because it was his tribe. Not because they were arabs!

jazakallahu khayran


.

Something tells me I shouldn't be surprised ar your agreement with 'abd al-haqq. After all you're a faithful propagandist stooge of the saudis, and such a position conveniently justifies their treatment of scumbag 'hindis' and all the motely bunch of foriegn laborers in their country. In fac it justifies their xenophobia. It also justifies the historical injusticies done to non-arab muslims and their second class status as 'mawlas'. Way to go.

['Abd al-Kareem]

as salaamu alaykum

faisal is not a shaykh he is a khariji and doesnt have the credentials of a shaykh.
Really? A kharijee?

Choose your words more wisely, akhi.

[ummafnaan]

Some of the anti-black statements in the comments in defense of the Arabs are superior argument (from the Salafi brothers) was over the top and very sad. To think that many of the black American brothers and sisters accepted Islam on the premise that all races are equal to have to hear this must be disheartening

Well said brother Basic,

I thought the exact same thing.

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

faisal is a khariji. The same guy who praises umar bakri! May Allaah save us from the fitnah of faisal

[ummafnaan]

You still don't get it.

Please control yourself. Calling someone a fool simply for respectfully disagreeing with a scholar (who is not infallible), makes YOU look and sound like the fool.

[alkathiri]

Any scholar opinion can be ignored or smashed against the wall. I thought what Prophet Muhammad Sallah walihi Wasalam was very clear. Why is it so difficult to take from the Prophet Muhammad Sallah walihi Wasalam and ignore the scholars

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

'abd al-haqq you see I have a problem with this understanding because this would mean that Allah 'azza wa jall created human beings as being non-equals.

You're attempting to apply the modern western concept of egalitarianism to Islam.

Something tells me I shouldn't be surprised ar your agreement with 'abd al-haqq. After all you're a faithful propagandist stooge of the saudis, and such a position conveniently justifies their treatment of scumbag 'hindis' and all the motely bunch of foriegn laborers in their country. In fac it justifies their xenophobia. It also justifies the historical injusticies done to non-arab muslims and their second class status as 'mawlas'. Way to go.

This is not a Sa'udi thing or a Salafi thing, it is a Sunni thing, believed by Sunni Muslims in general throughout time. The Shi'ah and the Khwaraj are the only people who deny the nobility of the Arabs.

Answer me this, O egalitarian modernists:

When Abu Sufyan told Heraclius that Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) was of noble lineage, what did he mean by that?

When descriptions of Rasulullah by Sahabis describe him as "the most noble in lineage", what does this mean?

As I have said before: the Arabs are more noble in lineage than the Ajam, and the Bani Quraysh are the aristocracy of the Arabs.

[ummafnaan]

Jazaakallahu khairan all.

What I have noticed is a contradiction even within the group who are of the opinion that the Arabs are 'Superior' to non Arabs. On the one hand one group says its because of the lineage, ie by blood. Hence every single Arab today has inherited this nobility. On the other hand, another group says no its not lineage its their characteristics, ie deeds that makes them superior and Ibn Taimiyyah was of this opinion. So which is it? My problem is with those who say that it is an issue of 'aqeedah and hence anyone who does not accept this notion is in every sense of the word a deviant.
In any case it is an issue which the du'aat have to be vary careful in the way they propogate the matter because from experience I know that a lot of Arabs including the non-muslim arabs, take this issue literaly and hence DO in reality feel they are better than all the other muslims, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE ARAB. As Brother Abu wakee pointed out this is evident in their treatment of blacks, pakistanis, etc in their countries and also evident in their making it against the law for any non Arab to marry their women or men for that matter. Now this is clearly unislamic.

Brother Salahudeen I absolutely agree with you when you say your question was not answered by the du'aat on the other thread. It was like they just kept going around in circles without actually reaching any understandable conclusion in my humble opinion.
In any case alhmadulillah for Islam and Alhamdulillah for our One and True Ilah who IS Infallible, Just, Wise and Full of Mercy.

[ummafnaan]

The Shi'ah and the Khwaraj are the only people who deny the nobility of the Arabs.

You see that is where I have a problem. Now we start labelling brothers and sisters Khawaaarij because they have a problem grasping this idea. It is absolutely unfair to make that statement. We are all trying to learn here brother. So instead of callin people names, bring evidence from Qur'an and Sunnah and enlighten we 'egalitarians modernists' as you chose to 'wisely' put it.

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

You see that is where I have a problem. Now we start labelling brothers and sisters Khawaaarij because they have a problem grasping this idea. It is absolutely unfair to make that statement. We are all trying to learn here brother. So instead of callin people names, bring evidence from Qur'an and Sunnah and enlighten we 'egalitarians modernists' as you chose to 'wisely' put it.

I did not call anyone a shi'i or a khariji. I was pointing out that historically, Ahl as-Sunnah has ijmaa on the nobility of the Arabs and that the Shi'ah and the Khwaraj were the ones who denied this.

I am speaking of the facts of history.

[Intoodeep]

Ahl as-Sunnah has ijmaa on the nobility of the Arabs and that the Shi'ah and the Khwaraj were the ones who denied this.

Can you prove the above statement.

The saudis do use this as an excuse to be xenophobic.

It doesnt mean anything anyways. the best of us is the one who is the best in taqwa.

[Brother_Mujahid]

I assume when we use the word Arab we are referring to those indigenous Arab tribes of the Arabian peninsula and not those Arabized people of the rest of the Middle East (for example, the "Arabs" of Morocco and Algeria are mostly ethnic Berbers that accepted the Arabic language, or those in Lebanon being descended from Phoenician stock, but having adopted over time the Arabic language).

[rasheed gonzales]

I guess everyone ignored the verses I quoted above proving that Allah has preferred some over others (including among the Prophets themselves).

[Salahadeen]

Brother, your example shows that you did not get it.

Please explain how I did not get it?

My analogy means that if there are two equally pious people, then the Arab would be superior to the non-Arab. Correct?

You guys keep saying that a pious non-Arab is superior to a impious Arab. Fine. But what about two EQUALLY pious people, one who is Arab and one who is non-Arab. Which is superior?

And dear sister, you said this:

jazakallahu khayran

So it seems like I understand you since you agree with Abd al-Haqq...

The squeamishness that many of you have about this lies in your egalitarian brainwashing.

Umm no. It comes from my "brainwashing" from the Quran, which clearly says that people do not differ except in piety. It comes from my 'brainwashing' from the authentic ahadeeth, in which the Prophet [s] repeatedly rejects assabiyyah, forcefully. It comes from the hadeeths in which the Prophet [s] EXPLICITLY says that no Arab is superior to a non-Arab.

You only conjecture when you say that it has to do with my 'modernism'. Isn't it strange that I believe that hijab and niqab is wajib, even though this goes against 'modernism'? Why do I believe that men are superior in authority to women? Surely, modernism would say that this is sexism! Do you see me spouting the rhetoric that men and women are equal in Islam?

So shut your mouth, you ignorant madhab-hopping fool. You abuse Islam just like a white skin-head abuses his race. You joined Islam and immediately joined various sects, because you crave novelty...you like being opposed to people, and the thing you like the MOST is to bash others over the head with your version of Islam, whichever it is for that particular month.

Yes the Arabs are more noble in lineage than the Ajam. This is not racism.

If I said "whites are more noble in lineage than blacks," would you see this as racist or not?

If you are going to insist that this is a part of Islam, then do so, but admit that it is racism and that you are saying that Islam accepts racism.


Salahadeen is once again showing his modernism and allegiance to kaafir ideals.

I only seek the truth, from the Quran and the authentic ahadeeth.

I'm not even saying I'm right. I am saying that as of yet nobody has provided me with solid evidence from the Quran or the ahadeeth, especially in light of the multiple Quranic ayahs and ahadeeth I can show which prove to the contrary.

[y-mughal]

faisal is a khariji.

Insha'Allah you can now show us where he does Takfir on Muslims for committing major sins such as drinking alcohol, zina, dealing in usury etc. and where he has rebelled against a legitimate Islamic authority, where he has killed Muslims and left alone the pagans.

[Salahadeen]

Jazak ullah khayr for speaking the plan and simple truth.

We ask for the proof, and when you cannot provide it, you resort to personal attacks. Pathetic. And you praising someone just because they insulted me. Doubly pathetic.

If you want to do personal attacks, then at least come with some proof while you do it. Show us the strong proof to validate your claims! Then name call all you want. But without that, you are just being like the blind Sufis who do things because their forefathers said so.

[Salahadeen]

I guess everyone ignored the verses I quoted above proving that Allah has preferred some over others (including among the Prophets themselves).

And I guess YOU are ignoring the multaqa thread which was posted, where we answered this fully.

[Brother_Mujahid]

We ask for the proof, and when you cannot provide it, you resort to personal attacks. Pathetic. And you praising someone just because they insulted me. Doubly pathetic.

If you want to do personal attacks, then at least come with some proof while you do it. Show us the strong proof to validate your claims! Then name call all you want. But without that, you are just being like the blind Sufis who do things because their forefathers said so.

I didn't make any personal attacks here on you or anyone else. I merely praised the comments of brother 'Abd al-Haq for not approaching this issue with a defeatist, Westernized mindset. Though his criticism against you are true, that wasn't my primary point of agreement I had with his comment. But then again, what do I know, I'm just a silly, old, condescending intellectual.

[KnowledgeSeeker]

I too would like to know if an arab and a non-arab are equal in terms of righteous deeds, is the Arab still considered better in the sight of Allah?

Furthermore, what is the virtue that the Arab enjoys in his "dhat" (i.e. essence) that Ibn Taimiyyah (rh) was speaking of? Is it intelligence? Inclination towards good deeds? Beauty?

Lastly, we should also note that Ibn Taimiyyah (rh), to the best of my knowledge, was not an Arab, but an ethnic Kurd, so his holding of the opinion was, insha'allh, due to nothing other than his sincere study and analysis of the evidences on the issue.

[KnowledgeSeeker]

...In fact, plenty of evidences were provided, but it makes no difference to you. It's so rare to find people who care about the truth, and the truth alone; people like you just follow their prejudices and their ahwa, and whatever you say to them doesn't benefit them at all. Both of you have *clearly* misunderstood the concept being discussed, and on top of that you continue to debate without any 'ilm at all. Give me negative rep, I don't care, you people need to be cut down to size.



Where can one find the thread wherein these evidences were provided?

I would like to view the thread myself insha'allah.

[Suhaib Jobst]

As Salaam Alaykum,

I am horrified at the eagerness at which certain brothers and sisters express the belief that "Arabs are more noble", a generalized statement which ignores the fact that Muslims are to be judged solely on their Iman and how they practice Islam. I don't see how objecting to this potentially dangerous statement can be compared with either "egalitarianism" or any modernist fallacy.

I say dangerous since it judges Muslims according to other than their Iman or practice of Islam. It places all Arabs above criticism solely due to their lineage, just as it may instill in the non-Arab an inferiority complex, especially the youth and reverts. Is this the way of da'wa?

Indeed there is no such thing as "egalitarianism" in our Din, since it is a kaffir concept based upon a materialist conception of life, just as materialist as its alleged opposite that says race is everything. But where is the claim everyone is "equal"? All I have read is merely that everyone should be judged according to their level of Iman and practice of Islam, no other considerations.

If this is the "manhaj of the Salaf", then you seriously wonder why there are many Muslims repulsed by the Salafi movement? I say this because most of the proponents of this assertion are self-professed Salafis, whom I would argue are doing a bad job of representing their group with such 'Asabiyya.

Rather, I propose that this assertion takes from certain truths but then makes a general statement based on a limited reading of what certain scholars have said. If the Arabs are naturally more noble, then would that include the Arabs of Jahiliyya? Were they still more noble than those virtuous Sahaba who were non-Arab? And what about the hadith where the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) rebuked some of his companions for ridiculing the non-Arab parentage of other Sahaba?

Related to this fact is that the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) made vigorous efforts to spread Islam beyond the borders of the Arabs and some of the virtuous Sahaba were non-Arabs. The Qur'an addressed itself to "O mankind", not just the Arabs. The prophecy that Allah (Azza wa Jall) would spread this Din amongst all peoples have been fulfilled. I would also ask what statement is more clear than the well-known saying of our Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) during his Farewell Hajj?

Some of the greatest scholars and illustrious figures in the history of this Umma were either non-Arabs or from non-Arab origin. Who can deny the role of many Turkic and Persian scholars in early Islamic history, for example? This is not to deny the essential role of Arab scholars or in fact the Arabic language in our Din, but why do others still insist on claiming Arabs are naturally more "noble"?

Finally, how can the undisputed Islamic belief that the prophets are superior to the rest of mankind be used to justify this assertion? Prophets were sent to every nation (see the Qur'an, Yunus 10:47, Fatir 35:24, Ghafir 40:78). An authentic hadith says that the prophets who spoke Arabic were Isma'il, Hud, Salih, Shu'ayb, and Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) be upon them all.

Another problem with this notion comes straight from the Qur'an. We know that Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) favored the Banu Isra'il (Al-Baqara 2:47) and the family of Adam, Nuh, Ibrahim and Imran (alaihim sallam) (Al-'Imran 3:33), but the Israelites strayed from the message and became those upon whom is Divine Anger.

The second prophecy was fulfilled with the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), but this had to do with prophethood and the noble lineage which came through this specific line, not about being Arab. If it had anything to do with other than this, then once again I ask how would you consider the Arabs of Jahiliyya? Would you seriously consider them more noble than the non-Arab Muslims? Sorry, but there is no other way around this argument.

Wa Allahu A'lam.

[rasheed gonzales]

And I guess YOU are ignoring the multaqa thread which was posted, where we answered this fully.
Not at all. Reading through the first few posts by Haitham Hamdan in that thread, he's basically expressing the opinion that Abu Usamah was trying to express in his article, the opinion being expressed here by myself, as well as others (like Abd al-Haqq).

Obviously, you haven't read the first post I wrote to this thread. Otherwise you would have read that I said,
Despite all this , Allah says, «O people, surely, We created you from a male and a female. We made you races and tribes so that you become acquainted with one another. Surely, the noblest of you with Allah are your godliest. Surely, Allah is knowing [and] aware» 13:49. Allah tells us in this verse that the godliest amongst us, i.e., the ones with the most taqwâ, are the noblest in His eyes. So in the end, [I]this is all that matters.

Just before the verse in which He said He men are "superior" to women, Allah says, «Do not desire what Allah preferred (faddala) some of you over others with. For the men is a share of what they earned and for the women is a share of what they earned. Ask Allah of His bounty. Surely, Allah is knowledgeable of everything» (4:32).

Racism is the "hostile attitude or behaviour to members of other races, based on a belief in the innate superiority of one's own race" (Collins Gem Canadian English Dictionary). Even on Dictionary.com, all the definitions for racism include hatred, intolerance, discrimination and prejudice of other races. Stating that one race or peoples is more virtuous or "superior" than others for whatever reasons in and of itself is not racism. It becomes racism when this virtue or superiority leads to discrimination and prejudice against others; which is something prohibited in Islam as proven by numerous texts.

[Basic Muslim]

such a position conveniently justifies their treatment of scumbag 'hindis' and all the motely bunch of foriegn laborers in their country. In fac it justifies their xenophobia. It also justifies the historical injusticies done to non-arab muslims and their second class status as 'mawlas'. Way to go.

The fact is that David Duke makes the exact same arguments when he says that whites are "superior" and he is (rightly) condemned as a racist. Now we have people bringing such beliefs into Islam.

As Abu Wakee says above, this type of "anti-egalitarian" thinking justifies the mistreatment of others.

What does this superiority MEAN? Does it mean that non-Arabs must let an Arab have his/her seat? Does an ajamee need the permission of an Arab to let his daughter marry? Given two equal Qarrees, should the Arab always lead the salaah? Is it then permissible to make black slaves into eunuchs as was done in the past?

Treating all Muslims with respect is "egalitarian". Now we are told that this is "Western" and unislamic??

[Abu Sabaya]

First of all, I am horrified by many posts on this thread that remind me of the modernists who consider it unfair that women have to cover up while men don't, that Islam allows men numerous spouses while women are limited to one, etc. - 'mental colonization,' as a dear brother put it.

Second of all, people are completely misunderstanding the concept of tafdil al-'urubah and interpreting it in light of the inherited remnants of racism that still remain in society today.

The concept of certain groups being virtuous over others in the general sense is something that is confirmed in the Sunnah. From 'as-Silsilah as-Sahihah' (302): "Indeed, Allah preferred Kinanah from the descendants of Isma'il, and He preferred Quraysh from Kinanah, and He preferred Bani Hashim from Quraysh, and He preferred me from Bani Hashim."

From at-Tirmidhi's and Ahmad's collections (3532 and 1791 respectively, declared hasan by at-Tirmidhi as well as Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut): "Indeed, Allah Created the Creation and made me amongst the best of them. He then made them into two groups and put me in the best group. He then made them into tribes and made me from the best tribe. He then made them into households and made me from the best household and the best of them in person."

What is the nature of this preference that is given? Is it due to their genetic makeup, the color of their skin, their physical features? The preference for a group in such a context is given due to certain characteristics they display, for example when the Prophet exalted Qurayshi women by saying: "The best women who rode camels are the righteous women of Quraysh, because they are the most tender to their children in their early years and they are the most protective of their husbands' possessions." So, the Prophet was not being racist or displaying tribalism in this statement. Rather, he was exalting the status of Quraysh's women based on certain praiseworthy characteristics they - being from Quraysh - were famous for. Likewise, when he said: "The man from Quraysh has twice the strength of a man not from Quraysh," and this is explained to mean strength of comprehension.

So, when we say that the Arabs as a race have exalted status over other races, it is not any different. There has to be a reason why Allah chose the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) from the Arabs of all other groups on Earth at the time, as in the verse: {"Allah Knows best where He places His Message."} It wasn't something haphazard. Allah chose the Arabs to be the initial carriers of this Shari'ah, He chose the Qur'an to be revealed in their language, and He chose them for this amanah for a reason. Ibn 'Ashur said ('Maqasid ash-Shari'ah al-Islamiyyah'; p. 93) that they were chosen "because at the time, they stood out from the rest of the nations of the world by combining four characteristics that were not combined in any other nation in history. They are:

i) their intellect,
ii) their exceptional memorization abilities,
iii) their basic, simple lifestyle, and
iv) their distance from the other nations of the world and their lack of mixing with them

The first characteristic made them the right people to receive and understand the Religion. The second characteristic made them the right people to memorize it and not mix up that they received. The third characteristic made them the right people to quickly adopt its mannerisms due to their closeness to the fitrah, and they were not upon any specific previous shari'ah that they would insist to remain upon. The fourth characteristic made them the right people to interact with the other nations as there were no historical conflicts between they and the other nations, and this was because the conflicts of the Arabs were only between themselves as opposed to the Roman conflict with the Persians, or the Coptic conflict with the Israelites."

Similarly, Ibn Taymiyyah said ('Iqtida' as-Sirat al-Mustaqim'; 1/141):

"The reason for this virtue - and Allah Knows best - is due to the what they possessed of intellect, eloquence, manners, and deeds. This is because virtue is attained by having beneficial knowledge or righteous deeds. Knowledge has a starting point, and that is strong intellect which is manifested in the ability to memorize and understand. The perfection of this is the power of logic which is the ability to express oneself, and the Arabs had a better ability to comprehend than anyone else, and they were better at memorization than anyone else, and they were better at expressing themselves than anyone else, and they tongue was the best of tongues in eloquence and distinguishing between different meanings...

...As for their deeds, they are based on their behavior, which is the manners that are ingrained in a person. Their manners contained more good than others, as they are closer to kindness and generosity, bravery, trustworthiness, etc. from these praiseworthy traits..."

So, the virtue of the Arabs over other nations is because of praiseworthy traits they had acquired. The distinguishing factor is the adherence to these traits, and since the Arabs as a whole happened to possess these traits, they as a whole were preferred by Allah. This means that those Arabs who do not possess these good traits do not fall under this tafdil, as Ibn Taymiyyah said elsewhere ('Majmu' al-Fatawa'; 19/29):

"The virtue of a group as a whole over another group as a whole does not mean that every individual from that group is better than every individual from the other group, as there are many people non-Arabs who are better than most of the Arabs, and there are non-Qurashis fom the Muhajirin and Ansar who are better than most of Quraysh, and there are people who aren't from Bani Hashim in Quraysh and outside of Quraysh who are better than most of Bani Hashim."

So, this preference and virtue of the Arabs in general is tied to the good traits that they happened to combine within themselves that led Allah to choose them out of all people to carry His Religion to the world - not in the sense of what we who live in the wasteland of the West are used to, in that such a virtue implies that others are to be treated differently in any way.

Can this be made any clearer, or are people still going to stubbornly stick to their own misunderstanding of this concept?

[Salahadeen]

Racism is the "hostile attitude or behaviour to members of other races, based on a belief in the innate superiority of one's own race" (Collins Gem Canadian English Dictionary). Even on Dictionary.com, all the definitions for racism include hatred, intolerance, discrimination and prejudice of other races. Stating that one race or peoples is more virtuous or "superior" than others for whatever reasons in and of itself is not racism. It becomes racism when this virtue or superiority leads to discrimination and prejudice against others; which is something prohibited in Islam as proven by numerous texts.

As for hatred, intolerance, and discrimination, NONE of the definitions below mention this (all taken from dictionary.com):

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

(I don't see any hatred in that definition, do you?)

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Do you see any hatred in this definition?

. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

None of these definitions include hatred.

In fact, there were whites during the slavery times in America who used to feel that they should help blacks, but they believed that blacks were a weak race that needed helping. THIS BELIEF IS RACIST, even though it entailed that white people should HELP black people. Why is it racist? Because it is based on the premise that blacks are inferior, which is a degrading concept.

[Basic Muslim]

Why is it racist? Because it is based on the premise that blacks are inferior, which is a degrading concept.

I always find it strange that when one race thinks that it is superior, they always dump on and degrade blacks and consider them to be the lowest of the low. The comments on that board reflect that thinking to the fullest

[Mustafa al-Muhaajir]

Basic, why are you always out to make it seem like people here have something against blacks.
It's getting annoying.

[Salahadeen]

Dear Abu Sabaya, is it possible we discuss this calmly instead of accusing people of modernism, etc?

Please?

If you notice on the multaqa thread, the adab was so good. Even though I disagreed with Shaykh Haitham and Shaykh Ayman, did you see how beautifully they responded back to me, and how beautifully I responded back to them?

So can we do that?

You have mentioned two ahadeeth. I would like to discuss them with you, if that is ok with you? I ask you to respond back with kindness, instead of disgust.

1. "Indeed, Allah preferred Kinanah from the descendants of Isma'il, and He preferred Quraysh from Kinanah, and He preferred Bani Hashim from Quraysh, and He preferred me from Bani Hashim."

The Quran itself says that Allah [swt] "preferred" Bani Israeel. Yet, they are described as a wretched race, one that constantly disobeyed Allah's Commands. So when Allah [swt] prefers a race, then this does not mean that they are superior. Rather, it means that Allah [swt] sent His Prophet(s) to them; He [swt] preferred them with a line of prophets. This is a blessing, and a test as well.

And we know that Allah [swt] sent a prophet to every nation, so in this way, at one time or the other, every nation was "preferred" with Prophets.

2. "Indeed, Allah Created the Creation and made me amongst the best of them. He then made them into two groups and put me in the best group. He then made them into tribes and made me from the best tribe. He then made them into households and made me from the best household and the best of them in person."

Admittedly, this is a stronger hadeeth that you bring up.

Firstly, can I ask you honestly: have all the scholars considered it authentic? It seems like not all did, and that is the reason they had to say: "hasan by at-Tirmidhi as well as Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut".

I hope you can answer this honestly, instead of just trying to prove your point. It might be authentic, I have no idea. I'm asking you since you are superior in knowledge.

If *it* is hasan or sahih, then I will discuss it in a bit, after you confirm this.

[rasheed gonzales]

As for hatred, intolerance, and discrimination, NONE of the definitions below mention this (all taken from dictionary.com)
You misunderstand my statement, which isn't suprising. Under Dictionary.com's own entry, see no. 3. Under what they have as American Heritage's entry, see no. 2. Under what they have for WordNet's entry, see no. 2. All of the definitions for the word racism include hatred, intolerance, discrimination and prejudice.

If you want another definition, you can check here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism): "Racism, by its simplest definition, is discrimination based on the racial groups to which people belong."

The article also states (emphasis added):
While the term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice, violence, discrimination, or oppression, the term can also have varying and hotly contested definitions. Racialism is a related term, sometimes intended to avoid these negative meanings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief.

The opinion expressed by Abu Usamah, Hamdan (in his early posts to that thread), myself and others (not to mention the various scholars mentioned who also hold this opinion), is that these preferences/virtues/superiorities are general; they do not apply to all of those who belong to these groups. When it is said men are "superior" to women, this does not mean that no woman can ever surpass a man. Similarly when it is said Arabs are "superior" to non-Arabs, this does not mean that no non-Arab can ever suprass an Arab.

As for this:
In fact, there were whites during the slavery times in America who used to feel that they should help blacks, but they believed that blacks were a weak race that needed helping. THIS BELIEF IS RACIST, even though it entailed that white people should HELP black people. Why is it racist? Because it is based on the premise that blacks are inferior, which is a degrading concept.
Again, this belief you point out contains discrimination and prejudice, i.e., that blacks are a weaker race needing help.

And again, regardless of the virtues or superiority Allah has given to any particular group (whether it be race, gender, or whatever), the only thing that matters to Allah is one's godliness (taqwâ). This is what we'll be judged upon and what we'll be rewarded for.

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

as salaamu alaykum

faisal is not a shaykh he is a khariji and doesnt have the credentials of a shaykh.

Abu usama is a student of knowledge. He makes mistakes however alhamdulilah he is not from the khawarij.

first of all shaikh faisal is not a khariji and he unlike usamah did study under various ulema for example shaikh ibn jibreen and others.

abu usamah was kicked out and never finished any studies so dont try to be smart now also if you knew what abu usamah said about shaikh umar abdurrahman you wouldnt be so humble in your defense of abu usamah

[Salahadeen]

You misunderstand my statement, which isn't suprising. Under Dictionary.com's own entry, see no. 3. Under what they have as American Heritage's entry, see no. 2. Under what they have for WordNet's entry, see no. 2. All of the definitions for the word racism include hatred, intolerance, discrimination and prejudice.

If you want another definition, you can check here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism): "Racism, by its simplest definition, is discrimination based on the racial groups to which people belong."

The article also states (emphasis added):


The opinion expressed by Abu Usamah, Hamdan (in his early posts to that thread), myself and others (not to mention the various scholars mentioned who also hold this opinion), is that these preferences/virtues/superiorities are general; they do not apply to all of those who belong to these groups. When it is said men are "superior" to women, this does not mean that no woman can ever surpass a man. Similarly when it is said Arabs are "superior" to non-Arabs, this does not mean that no non-Arab can ever suprass an Arab.

As for this:

Again, this belief you point out contains discrimination and prejudice, i.e., that blacks are a weaker race needing help.

And again, regardless of the virtues or superiority Allah has given to any particular group (whether it be race, gender, or whatever), the only thing that matters to Allah is one's godliness (taqwâ). This is what we'll be judged upon and what we'll be rewarded for.

You don't understand how dictionaries work. They list MULTIPLE and ALTERNATE definitions. I showed you plenty of definitions that refuted what you said. You tried to "counter-refute" this by showing ALTERNATE definitions, albeit from the same dictionary. In order for the word to fit, it only has to fit ONE of the meanings.

If you really think it's not racist to say that one race is superior to the other, well, that's laughable.

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

arabs are not superior over non arabs end discussion
(those too humble arabs on the forum that try to show their nationalist/pride tendencies) better stay silent in this thread

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

[QUOTE=Salahadeen;124102]

But what about two EQUALLY pious people, one who is Arab and one who is non-Arab. Which is superior?






both are equal then , this silly discussion must come to an end

[Abdullah Ali al Hanafi]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

As I was doing my usual evening blog troll, I came acroos this very disturbing article:

http://singularvoice.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/salafi-imam-we-must-believe-arabs-are-master-race/

In my whole adult life, I have never, ever heard that the Arabs are supeior to non Arabs until today. Please someone help cause I am actually troubled about this find at the moment. Is it true? Are we non Arabs truly just 'Ajamees'(At leats I think thats what the word is). There are also quotes confirming this belief by the likes of Ibn Taimiyyah and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in the article. Forgive me if this is a thread that has been started before. If yes can someone please post the link.

Jazaakallahu khairan

honestly sister i wouldnt be bothered by the foolish fatawa and comments made by abu usamah/taymiyya regarding this issue.

Quran and Sunnah are a withness against the claims of taymiyya/abu usamah

[Salahadeen]

honestly sister i wouldnt be bothered by the foolish fatawa and comments made by abu usamah/taymiyya regarding this issue.

How can you say such stuff? Astagfur-Allah. I don't know who Abu Usamah is, but how dare you say that to Ibn Taymiyyah [ra]? Have some respect, bro. We can disagree with scholars without bashing them! Insha-Allah no matter what, he will get one reward.

[Abu Sabaya]

The Quran itself says that Allah [swt] "preferred" Bani Israeel. Yet, they are described as a wretched race, one that constantly disobeyed Allah's Commands.The tafdil was given to the forefathers of that wretched race that disobeyed Allah's commands, before they changed for the worse.

Firstly, can I ask you honestly: have all the scholars considered it authentic? It seems like not all did, and that is the reason they had to say: "hasan by at-Tirmidhi as well as Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut".I don't know if all of them did, and not all of them have to. at-Tirmidhi (the author of his own collection) did, al-Arna'ut (the verifier of Ahmad's collection) did, al-Haythami did, and al-Albani did. I just mentioned those two since they were the authors/verifiers of the collections referenced.

[ummafnaan]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Brothers and sisters, I didn't open this thread so that people could find a reason to call each other names. I visited another forum that had this same discussion this morning and suffice to say no body was calling anybody a fool, idiot, modernist, etc. Why cant it be the same on this forum for goodness sake. Are we not all here to learn. Some have more knowledge than others and that is one of the reasons why I started the thread so that someone could clarify the issue WITH HIKMAH. I think a lot of us are lacking this quality. Someone called Mujahid el Khalifa even sent me a PM this morning calling me a self-hating nigerian negro for starting such a thread. What? Because I said I had never heard that Arabs are a superior race? Is that a crime Mujahid el khalifa or whatever you call yourself. Infact scrap that name for yourself and replace it with bigot because a true mujahid would never use such filthy language especially towards a sister. I have no idea who he is but suffice to say I am very angry at this type of behaviour. However the upside of it is that it just goes to prove my point of how bigoted many so called Arab muslims have become to the point that using rascist terminology has become secong nature to them. And this is not the methodology of the Rasul saw. Anyway enuf has been said and if this is going to continue in this manner then please can I get a moderator to close the thread?

[Skillganon]

Who's Mujahid el Khalifa on this forum?

Sis please do report it to the Mods with the content of the message.

I had a feeling this thread going to get emotional than any constructive discussion.

[ummafnaan]

Jazaakallahu khairan brother skillganon,

I have opted to leave him to be judged by Allah for his harsh comments towards me(not to say i didnt give him a befitting reply). It is a sad state of affairs the Ummah is in today. Since we cannot even have civilised discussions anymore amongst ourselves. Infact, unless the moderators feel there was something wrong with the thread i opened then to hell with what anybody else thinks. I change my mind about closing the thread for I will not give jerks like Mujahod el Khalifa the satisfaction of stifling a healthy discussion. GO JOIN AIPAC if you want to stifle any debate against your race. This is a MUSLIM forum and all ISLAMIC comments are welcome.

[Abu wakee]

It's funny to see the 'defenders of faith' on here keep changing their reasons for superiority of 'arabs'. Jzak Allah abu sabaya for your contribution, however I have a few questions for you:

a) Are arabs inherently superior?

b) If not then if they are made superior due to certain attributes of theirs which are most likely defined by their society, culture and environment, then these traits could change couldn't they? If this is the case then does not this imply that arabs can also become inferior due to their actions? If not then why?

c) Can you honestly claim that arabs have NOT misused this concept?


I personally believe after my personal interaction and living among the arabs, that they are the most racist, discriminatory and condscending people I've ever met. I felt I should relate something an 'arab sudanese friend of mine told me once. He told me that in Sudan there is a clear division between 'arab' sudanese and african sudanese and that african sudanese are considered inferior and old arabs find it totally unacceptable to actually marry off their children into african arabs. They also have a lower social status just because they are african, and he admitted this is also at the root of the conflict in Darfur.

Another thing he mentioned, which I found funny, was that many Arab countries initially opposed Sudan when it first wanted to join arab league because they didn't consider Sudanese as a whole an 'Arab' nation. Also, according to him there's a growing sentiment among Sudanese both arab and non-arab that they need to be closer to their african roots than their arab roots, the major factor for this fall out being arab racism and 'asabbiyah. Just thought I would mention a relevant current example.

:)

[alghayb]

Didn't the Prophet SAW say:

"... an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood." [1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farewell_Sermon)]

[Abu Sabaya]

b) If not then if they are made superior due to certain attributes of theirs which are most likely defined by their society, culture and environment, then these traits could change couldn't they? If this is the case then does not this imply that arabs can also become inferior due to their actions?See Ibn Taymiyyah's statement that I included near the end of my post where he says exactly that.

c) Can you honestly claim that arabs have NOT misused this concept?I'm sure they have, but their racism is completely different from the status of the Arabs for their good qualities that we are referring to, and I think a major cause of the confusion on this thread is that people are mixing between the two.

[Abu Dawud]

As-salâmu 'alaikum wa rahmatullâhi wa barakâtuh,

I once had my step dad's Arab friend ask why I wear the niqaab? He said it was only for Arab women cause they were too 'beautiful' and so needed to be 'protected'. As for me, I am black so I don't need to wear the niqab and proceeded to tell my step dad to discourage me from wearing it. Suffice to say i was very annoyed by that statement.

Lâ hawla wa lâ quwwata illâ billâh...

Unfortunately this misconception widely held by uneducated (or just plain stupid) people from some Arab countries. I have learnt that some light skinned Palestinians will even call dark skinned Palestinians "'abd" (slave).

I had a friend once who had an African father and White mother. The brother (brother A.) was very handsome to the extent that girls would bother him or chase him all the time - all the brothers back then would agree that the brother had been blessed (or tested) with exceptionally good looks, masha'Allah. The brother grew up with a light skinned Palestinian as his friend and they would visit each other's houses etc. One day the Palestinian brother was walking down the street with his mother (who of course knew brother A.) as they saw brother A.'s half brother (who was mixed Pakistani/White and looked like a light skinned Arab). The brother told his mother, "that is brother A.'s brother K." to which she replied, "Oh! But he is SO MUCH MORE HANDSOME than his brother!"

So in ash-Shâm / the Middle East light skinned = beautiful and dark skinned = ugly regardless of the race.

Yes the Arabs are more noble in lineage than the Ajam. This is not racism. Every nation on earth prior to the modern age has believed that such a thing as "noble lineage" existed.

The Arabs are the noblest people and the Bani Quraysh are the aristocracy of the Arabs.

Yes. Noble in lineage.

It should be noted that most of the Arabs today are not pure Arabs. Most the "Arab World" was not Arab before those lands were opened (they were Egyptians, Berbers, Assyrians etc.) and consequently a lot of the inhabitants of the "Arab countries" are Arabs in tongue but not lineage or at least only a small percentage of them are ethnically Arabs.

[Basic Muslim]

If one is a "modernist" and a "deviant" for not believing that Arabs are superior, then we need to correct people when they read the "deviant" autobiography of Malcolm X in which he was led to believe that there was "egalitarian" treatment in Islam.

Wonder what he would have thought had someone told him "Hey Malcolm, I read your book and that part on Hajj is all wrong. We actually do not believe in the equality of all humans (with taqwa being the determining factor) we believe that blood lineage of the Arabs makes them superior.

I bet non-Muslims would line up to accept that belief if promoted openly

[Basic Muslim]

The opinion expressed by Abu Usamah, Hamdan (in his early posts to that thread), myself and others (not to mention the various scholars mentioned who also hold this opinion), is that these preferences/virtues/superiorities are general;

Rasheed

What are the ramifications of this belief? How do we implement it? Do we treat them better than anyone else? True enough that Malcolm X was a new Muslim, but was he wrong in what he wrote during Hajj?

[Anikaa]

First of all, I am horrified by many posts on this thread that remind me of the modernists who consider it unfair that women have to cover up while men don't, that Islam allows men numerous spouses while women are limited to one, etc. - 'mental colonization,' as a dear brother put it.

Second of all, people are completely misunderstanding the concept of tafdil al-'urubah and interpreting it in light of the inherited remnants of racism that still remain in society today.

The concept of certain groups being virtuous over others in the general sense is something that is confirmed in the Sunnah. From 'as-Silsilah as-Sahihah' (302): "Indeed, Allah preferred Kinanah from the descendants of Isma'il, and He preferred Quraysh from Kinanah, and He preferred Bani Hashim from Quraysh, and He preferred me from Bani Hashim."

From at-Tirmidhi's and Ahmad's collections (3532 and 1791 respectively, declared hasan by at-Tirmidhi as well as Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut): "Indeed, Allah Created the Creation and made me amongst the best of them. He then made them into two groups and put me in the best group. He then made them into tribes and made me from the best tribe. He then made them into households and made me from the best household and the best of them in person."

What is the nature of this preference that is given? Is it due to their genetic makeup, the color of their skin, their physical features? The preference for a group in such a context is given due to certain characteristics they display, for example when the Prophet exalted Qurayshi women by saying: "The best women who rode camels are the righteous women of Quraysh, because they are the most tender to their children in their early years and they are the most protective of their husbands' possessions." So, the Prophet was not being racist or displaying tribalism in this statement. Rather, he was exalting the status of Quraysh's women based on certain praiseworthy characteristics they - being from Quraysh - were famous for. Likewise, when he said: "The man from Quraysh has twice the strength of a man not from Quraysh," and this is explained to mean strength of comprehension.

So, when we say that the Arabs as a race have exalted status over other races, it is not any different. There has to be a reason why Allah chose the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) from the Arabs of all other groups on Earth at the time, as in the verse: {"Allah Knows best where He places His Message."} It wasn't something haphazard. Allah chose the Arabs to be the initial carriers of this Shari'ah, He chose the Qur'an to be revealed in their language, and He chose them for this amanah for a reason. Ibn 'Ashur said ('Maqasid ash-Shari'ah al-Islamiyyah'; p. 93) that they were chosen "because at the time, they stood out from the rest of the nations of the world by combining four characteristics that were not combined in any other nation in history. They are:

i) their intellect,
ii) their exceptional memorization abilities,
iii) their basic, simple lifestyle, and
iv) their distance from the other nations of the world and their lack of mixing with them

The first characteristic made them the right people to receive and understand the Religion. The second characteristic made them the right people to memorize it and not mix up that they received. The third characteristic made them the right people to quickly adopt its mannerisms due to their closeness to the fitrah, and they were not upon any specific previous shari'ah that they would insist to remain upon. The fourth characteristic made them the right people to interact with the other nations as there were no historical conflicts between they and the other nations, and this was because the conflicts of the Arabs were only between themselves as opposed to the Roman conflict with the Persians, or the Coptic conflict with the Israelites."

Similarly, Ibn Taymiyyah said ('Iqtida' as-Sirat al-Mustaqim'; 1/141):

"The reason for this virtue - and Allah Knows best - is due to the what they possessed of intellect, eloquence, manners, and deeds. This is because virtue is attained by having beneficial knowledge or righteous deeds. Knowledge has a starting point, and that is strong intellect which is manifested in the ability to memorize and understand. The perfection of this is the power of logic which is the ability to express oneself, and the Arabs had a better ability to comprehend than anyone else, and they were better at memorization than anyone else, and they were better at expressing themselves than anyone else, and they tongue was the best of tongues in eloquence and distinguishing between different meanings...

...As for their deeds, they are based on their behavior, which is the manners that are ingrained in a person. Their manners contained more good than others, as they are closer to kindness and generosity, bravery, trustworthiness, etc. from these praiseworthy traits..."

So, the virtue of the Arabs over other nations is because of praiseworthy traits they had acquired. The distinguishing factor is the adherence to these traits, and since the Arabs as a whole happened to possess these traits, they as a whole were preferred by Allah. This means that those Arabs who do not possess these good traits do not fall under this tafdil, as Ibn Taymiyyah said elsewhere ('Majmu' al-Fatawa'; 19/29):

"The virtue of a group as a whole over another group as a whole does not mean that every individual from that group is better than every individual from the other group, as there are many people non-Arabs who are better than most of the Arabs, and there are non-Qurashis fom the Muhajirin and Ansar who are better than most of Quraysh, and there are people who aren't from Bani Hashim in Quraysh and outside of Quraysh who are better than most of Bani Hashim."

So, this preference and virtue of the Arabs in general is tied to the good traits that they happened to combine within themselves that led Allah to choose them out of all people to carry His Religion to the world - not in the sense of what we who live in the wasteland of the West are used to, in that such a virtue implies that others are to be treated differently in any way.

Can this be made any clearer, or are people still going to stubbornly stick to their own misunderstanding of this concept?

Beautiful!!!

Jazaakumullaahu khairan!

[Abu Dharr Al Kashmiri]

JazakAllah Khair bro Abu Sabaya


إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ

[Abuz Zubair]

Dear Abu Sabaya, is it possible we discuss this calmly instead of accusing people of modernism, etc?

Please?


If modernism and defeatist mindset is so clearly visible to so many people, don't you think you may have a genuine problem?

1. "Indeed, Allah preferred Kinanah from the descendants of Isma'il, and He preferred Quraysh from Kinanah, and He preferred Bani Hashim from Quraysh, and He preferred me from Bani Hashim."

The Quran itself says that Allah [swt] "preferred" Bani Israeel. Yet, they are described as a wretched race, one that constantly disobeyed Allah's Commands. So when Allah [swt] prefers a race, then this does not mean that they are superior. Rather, it means that Allah [swt] sent His Prophet(s) to them; He [swt] preferred them with a line of prophets. This is a blessing, and a test as well.

And we know that Allah [swt] sent a prophet to every nation, so in this way, at one time or the other, every nation was "preferred" with Prophets.

So if Allah sent a prophet to every nation making every nation preferred, then how can the Banu Israel ever be preferred? Your assumption that Banu Israel were preferred only for being bestowed with a line of prophets is absurd and is of your own making. A typical modernist thing to do to make up explanations for things that do not sit well with a Western mindset. How about the times when there was no Prophet amongst Banu Israel? Were they demoted from this tafdeel?

2. "Indeed, Allah Created the Creation and made me amongst the best of them. He then made them into two groups and put me in the best group. He then made them into tribes and made me from the best tribe. He then made them into households and made me from the best household and the best of them in person."

Admittedly, this is a stronger hadeeth that you bring up.

Firstly, can I ask you honestly: have all the scholars considered it authentic? It seems like not all did, and that is the reason they had to say: "hasan by at-Tirmidhi as well as Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut".

I hope you can answer this honestly, instead of just trying to prove your point. It might be authentic, I have no idea.

SubhanAllah... typical modernist thing to do to question ahadeeth on the basis of what is or isn't palatable to a mentality subdued to the Western civilisation.

The problem with those who object to this is that they think of tafdil in terms of superiority and I don't think the two words match at all. The same problem happens with respect to tafdil of man over woman.

[rasheed gonzales]

You don't understand how dictionaries work.
I know how dictionaries "work" just fine. Each dictionary will have an entry for any given word. This entry may or may not include any number of "definitions". All these "separate" definitions are included in that particular dictionary's "definition" of that word.

What's "laughable" is that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the word racism, regardless of the definition you chose to go by, carries a connotation of (i.e., implies) discrimination and prejudice.

If you really think it's not racist to say that one race is superior to the other, well, that's laughable.
Again, saying that one race is "superior" to another, in and of itself, is not racism. Laugh at that all you want, it's a fact.

Rasheed

What are the ramifications of this belief? How do we implement it? Do we treat them better than anyone else? True enough that Malcolm X was a new Muslim, but was he wrong in what he wrote during Hajj?
The ramifications of this belief are mainly worldly and do not affect one's Afterlife, and Allah is more knowledgeable.

For examples, we usually treat our people of knowledge with respect and honour, because of the virtue knowledge gives them. Likewise, we usually treat people of noble lineage with honour and respect, because of their noble lineage. This is something common to most religions and cultures.

Does this mean that we do not treat those who do not possess this virtue or superiority with honour and respect? Of course not. We're commanded in many texts to treat others with justice and fairness, kindness and gentleness.

Does this mean that if any of these "more virtuous" or "superior" people fall into error or into crimes that they are automatically let off the hook and given immunity? Of course not. They are to be advised, corrected, and/or punished; whichever the situation calls for (and there are texts that prove this as well, e.g., the hadith in which the Prophet says if his daughter stole her hand would be cut off just like anyone else's).

Another example of the ramifications of this belief is with respect to Banu Hashim. There is an opinion that Hashimis are prohibited from taking zakah as there is a hadith(s) that indicate such.

We are prohibited, as is proven by numerous texts, from discriminating against other races, tribes, or peoples (the story in which another Companion insulted Bilal for being black, may Allah be pleased with all of them, comes to mind). Allah also says, we have been made to differ, in race and in status (black, white, rich, poor, etc., etc.) in order to become acquainted with one another and we are advised (by Allah) to not wish for or desire what others have been given in terms of virtues and superiority. So to make these virtues or superiorities a cause or reason for belittling others (whether the belittling is done by those who have the virtue or those who don't) is blameworthy.

As I've mentioned several times now, all that matters is our godliness (taqwa) as Allah tells us the noblest among us are the godliest among us. So in the end, we are rewarded because of what we do, not because of who or what we are.

[Um Abdullah M.]

The problem with those who object to this is that they think of tafdil in terms of superiority and I don't think the two words match at all. The same problem happens with respect to tafdil of man over woman.

That is what many people who replied to this thread aren't getting, the problem is with translating the word "tafdil" to "superiority", thus the confusion and anger.

This issue has nothing to do with hell and heaven or righteousness.

Our lineage, race, color, size will not be counted on day of judgement, only our deeds will.

The name calling and bad akhlaq in this thread will count (be written in your book which you will recieve in the day of judgement either by your right hand or left) while your color and race/ethnicity won't.

[WM]

Is it considered valid for a father to refuse marriage (of his daughter) to a non-Sayyid?

[Um Abdullah M.]

What Have You Prepared For This Day ?



http://www.2and2.net/files/487367a663382.jpg



http://www.2and2.net/files/487368028a0cb.jpg

http://www.2and2.net/files/4873684274cc7.jpg

[Skillganon]

Is it considered valid for a father to refuse marriage (of his daughter) to a non-Sayyid?

Is it? I won't be suprised.

[WM]

Is it? I won't be suprised.

Meaning what?

[Skillganon]

Meaning what?

Wheter it is considered valid or not.

[leo]

Social traditions apart, I don't think wise on the part of father to refuse, unless he has other reasons behind such refusal.

Being syed or non-syed hardly makes any difference.

[William Wurkmun Fosterr]

I believe the issue to be a yin and yang. On one hand we and our group are better than any other. On the other hand we are no better and no worse than any other. Everyone must get to the 'other hand' to be really happy, but it is really important for the individual to put themselves first. Soon the individual understands that it is in their best interest for everyone to put themselves first...for many reasons: one, we are all equal and each person has the same right to put themselves first; two, the subject cannot really service an object. Ultimately, we are each responsible for our own happiness. Certainly we are not alone in that pursuit. Allaah wishes for us to be happy. Our ideal future selves wish for us to be happy. Everyone on the planet wishes for us to be happy.

Put yourself first and encourage everyone to put themselves first. That means honor yourself first, too, and encourage everyone else to honor themselves first. Each person can find many good reasons to be proud of themselves.