Talk:Arabs/Archive 5

Arab people

Should this article be renamed to "Arab people" or "Arabs" to match other articles about people? FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

related peoples

it says arabs can be indentified on linguistic AND cultural grounds. so does that mean berbers (Imazighen) and other races can be included in the related box?Historian of the arab people (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

origin of the word arab

Insomali language it means Tongue. -- 17:02, 12 November 2008 137.163.19.99

I would tend to strongly doubt whether that's the word's original or "true" etymology (the Somali language is quite distantly related to Arabic in the family tree of Afroasiatic languages...). AnonMoos (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that there is a long list of arabic words that are used far away from it's origin in north of europe. Even the word of mountain in one of these languages has similarity with somali word for mountain.The first pronoun and secound pronoun of somali language for I and you could be reduced to its arabic counterparts. -- 14:41, 25 November 2008 137.163.19.99

Why is "Other Middle Eastern peoples" listed as the related ethnic groups?

The middle east consists of everyone from the Caucasus to Turkmenistan (whose people are basically descended from Mongols). Middle Easterners aren't really related by ethnicity: unlike in Europe; Whites, Blacks, and Asians are all native to parts of the Middle East. I think "Other Middle Eastern peoples" should be removed or replaced with something else, anyone disagree (or agree)? 75.164.107.139 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be other semitic peoples instead, like jews and assyrians.--Fipplet (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

First, please capitalize proper names and proper name adjectives in accordance with usual English-language orthographic practices, or people may get the wrong idea about the meaning you're trying to convey. Second, the phrase "Semitic peoples" basically has no real meaning in a modern context (as oposed to historians referring to Semitic tribesmen of 1000 B.C.). I see nothing wrong with referring to "Other Middle Eastern peoples"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• This has already been discussed, and modern genetics support the notion that Middle Easterners are interrelated across linguistic barriers, just as in Europe. "Semitic" and "Indo-European" doesn't mean anything genetically, only linguistically. An Iraqi has more in common with an Iranian than with a Yemeni, for example. But I guess we should remove the related section entirely, since most people are unable to think past linguistic barriers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the related section. 75.164.107.139 (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

When defining the “related” concept, I guess you guys mean “genetically” ?. Iraqi person may be culturally related to an Iranian but related to an Yemeni by genetics. — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Iraqis are culturally related to Yemenis, but related closer to iranians. Genetics have shown that in general, people are closer related to the ones who live nearby, regardless of culture and language. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While geographical proximity is oftentimes an indicator of genetic relatedness, it's not a hard and fast rule. For instance, North Africans are far more related to Mediterranean European and Near Eastern populations than they are to Sub-Saharan Africans just a few miles away. Similarly, in the case of Iraqis, they really are (at least paternally) more related to their fellow Arabs in Yemen than to Persians. Causteau (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't really compare the two, proximity is irrelevant if there are other barriers such as mountains, or in the case of North Africa and the rest of Africa, the Sahara desert. Such barriers exist in the Middle East, but it's between the fertile crescent and Arabia. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To funkmonk, Iraqis are considered to be Arabs as be themselves; in this case they most be considered as Semitic, right? Iranians which are about over 70 % Persians are to be a newer versions of the ancient Persians which is a main part for the Iranians (Medean-Aryan) race. Neighbor people in this extreme condition and history even modern separation is not accurate, you may have right on this one but not on these peoples and not in this region. If we should not believe that the Iraqis are pure Arabs, let’s just say they where Arabized then it’s clear that they must be derived from the ancient Mesopotamian peoples which also was Semitic and which also originated in Yemen.

All the ancient Mesopotamian peoples where never Iranians. — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Semitic and Indo-European has no biological meaning, only linguistic. See this earlier discussion: [1] FunkMonk (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Different intro needed

I see a need for a different intro to match an understandable concept of the Arab article on Wikipedia, Not only to be understand but also a more reliable one to — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is that's objectionable about the intro. Care to elaborate? Causteau (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The current into is too long and got the wrong puzzles puzzled from the top to bottom, a new review will be need and if anyone agrees to change the intro then I will be happy to post a propose for the new intro — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And sure it got sourced all way to the top but it’s quite not understandable. — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

the map

About the "Map showing the Arab populations around the world", disagree. Where is the source showing the number of Arabs located in Spain, Italy, and Greece??? I have found nothing in your link. Did you invent the percentages??? Karanko 13:37, 22 January 2009 (CEST)

Central Asian Arabs - CONTRADICTION!!!

the current statement

The Arabs that were once in Central Asia have been either killed or have fled the Tatar invasion of the region, leaving only the locals (e.g. Kazakhs, Tajiks, Uzbeks).[24 ref to History of Ibn Khaldun].

contradicts to few other articles: : Sayyid, Siddiqui, Khoja, Khoja (Turkestan), Khoja (clan), History of Arabs in Afghanistan etc
Even more kazakhs and uzbeks apperared after Genghis Khan, even after his grandsons, as consequences of Mongloian Empire's disintegration, namely they initially appeared as citizenships of kazakh khandom and uzbek khandom, that become nationalities then ethnic identifications, during that process diffrent tribes (mainly of turkic orign, but also including local arabs and mongolian rulers) were melted to new ethnic groups. So local Central Asian Arabs have double ethic identity as locals and as arabs (more precisely: Central Asian Arabs are subethnic groups of kazakhs, uzbeks, tajics etc that remember their arabian orign... but anyway they should be mentioned in the article 'coz they identify themselves as arabs.).
Therefore the old statment

Most Arabs of Central Asia are fully assimilated with local populations, and call themselves the same as locals (e.g. Kazakhs, Tajiks, Uzbeks).[28 ref to Arabic As a Minority Language By Jonathan Owens, pg. 184] In order to notice their Arab origin they have a special term: Sayyid, Khoja or Siddiqui.[29 ref to Arabic As a Minority Language By Jonathan Owens, pg. 182] Iranian Arab communities are also found in Khorasan Province.

was much more precise than the current (Idot (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

I would support replacing the current section with the one you have here. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A section of Arab contributions to this world

Concerning their major discoveries, inventions etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattar393 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We should have all the countries known/recorded by governments that have an Arab population

Other than the listed ones, countries Like Turkey, France, Germany, UK, Canada, Australia, Chile, Pakistan, Ecuador, Singapore, Argentina, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, Liberia, Senegal, Nigeria, Venezuela, Colombia, Uruguay, New Zealand, Denmark, Cyprus, Spain, Bulgaria, Ghana, Switzerland, Greece, Jamaica, The Philippines, Dominican Republic, Trinidad & Tobago, Sweden, Honduras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattar393 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC) ÷ Can somebody add this information to "regions with significant populations"

|ref5 = |region7 = United Kingdom |pop7 = 1.0 million |ref7 = |region8 = Chile |pop8 = 0.8 million |ref8 = |region9 = Turkey |pop9 = 0.8 million |ref9 = |region10 = Australia |pop10 = 0.4 million |ref10 = |region11 = Canada |pop11 = 0.3 million |ref11 = |region12 = Germany |pop12 = 0.3 million |ref12 = |region13 = Pakistan |pop13 = 0.3 million |ref13 = |region14 = Ecuador |pop14 = 0.2 million |ref14 = |tablehdr =

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Looks like a controversial change, and one that shouldn't be added without some agreement. Ping me if there is. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing controversial about it smart pants, there are many regions with a significant arab population, WHY NOT MENTION THEM?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattar393 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove the new pictures

THIS ARTICLE KEEPS GETTING CHANGED, IT GETS WORSE AND WORSE! WHAT IS UP WITH THOSE PICTURES? THE PREVIOUS ONES WERE FINE!!§ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattar393 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Some guy keeps changing it with no consensus. I revert him each time. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the image File:FamArabs.jpg which had been placed inside the article prose. This sort of collage image only should be placed in the infobox, where File:Arab infobox.jpg currently is. I have no opinion as to which image should be in the infobox, but there should only be one, and it needs to be placed in the infobox, not in the article text. -kotra (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1.

2.

3. File:Arab infobox2.jpg

• Last image cannot be used because it doesn't feature any women, and because there is a chance Ibn Khaldun was a Berber (Amazigh). And I don't see how Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan is comparable to the others. First image has similar problems. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun is an arab because his last name was (Al-Hadrami) which mean that he was from Hadhramaut, besides Ibn Khaldun, John, Zayed bin Sultan, and King Faisal they all look like pure Arabians .. look to the straight arabian nose and the type of head.--Mohhamd (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

File:AbderramánIII.jpg File:Al-Kindi.jpg File:Shiekh Zayed.jpg

• We've only included people who were Arabs for sure to prevent edit warring, which always happens when certain nationalists show up. As for the modern persons, no one has questioned them being Arabs, only some of the ancient ones where information is scarce. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun identifies himself as Arab but had said some pretty degrading stuff so I don't care for him to be in the collage. Definitely place in Nasser. Besides the Egyptian, we need a balance of Gulf/Peninsula Arabs, some Levant Arabs, Maghreb Arabs, black African Arabs, and Andalusian Arabs. None of these collages fulfill this but I would be fine with collage number 2 --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The second collage is the best that could be done with the available images, the old discussion about it was very long and thorough. But if you can point out some specific individuals we have images of that are not in the image and are as notable as the rest, it is certainly welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of anyone right now, but I definitely consider coming up with a list sometime soon. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk)

Collage 2 consists of Mary Ziade (Levant), Khansa (Peninsula), Nasser (Egyptian), John (Levant), Phillip (Levant), Al-Kindi (Peninsula), Asmahan (Egyptian) Faisal 1 (Peninsula). I am having a hard time deciding which ones to replace. We can expand the collage, right? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Asmahan was in fact of Levantine origin too, she just lived in Egypt. The people chosen have been so on the basis of religion, profession, sex and origin, so there's a lot of balance involved. The collage can be expanded, but it shouldn't be overkill, like on the Sephardi page, I think. What we have so far is: One ancient polytheistic emperor of generic "Syrian Arab" origin, one Christian polymath from Damascus who is also a saint, one Muslim polymath allegedly of Yemeni origin hailed as "the Arab philosopher", one ancient female poet who was a convert to Islam from paganism of South Arabian origins, one modern Muslim king from what is Saudi Arabia today of great significance to modern history, one Muslim Arabist polictical leader from Egypt (most important one in fact), one famous Druze [also representing Shias) actress and singer of Syrian/Lebanese origin who also played a historical role, and one significant Maronite feminist writer of Lebanese/Palestinian origin, who also represetns the diaspora, since she lived in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, I think you did excellent work in creating this collage and making sure you represent different parts of the Arab population. Perhaps an addition of a Maghrebi, a Sudani, and and Andalusian Arab might help complete the collage. But as of now, collage 2 should stay in the article. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Arabs, Maghreb Arabs, black African Arabs, Palestine Arabs and Syrian Arabs. they all are not Arabians even if they claim to be an arab .. those people only speaking arabic. Aramaic was wans speaking in persia but that doesn't make the people of persia aramaeans. those country, Egypt, Syria, Palestin... was conquered by arabs one following another. this stupidity Banu Hilal o Banu Sulyam one or two arab tribes cant be arabized entire nation. the berber arabized themselves and claim to be an arab. as well the egyptian people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.78.143 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter that they were Arabized, they are Arabs. I have little idea as to what kind of point you are trying to make here. The ones who identify as Arabs were Arabized or have Arab ancestry, and those who don't identify as Arab (such as those who identify as Berber) were not Arabized. Obviously, Arab tribes (and not just one or two) did widespread Arabization of certain nations as indicated by the hundreds of million of people throughout the Middle East and North Africa who call themselves Arabs. Is it possible that the majority of the population of Arab Nations like Morocco today can have Arab ancestry? Yes, if most of the people of Mexico, a population of 110 million, have European ancestry then it is possible that most of the people of Morocco (a population of a mere 34 million) can have Arab ancestry. Also, what was the population of Imazighen and how much of North Africa did they occupy in the seventh century (shortly after the black death shrunk their population)? Perhaps Arabs immigrants outnumber them at one point. It is possible. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how 84.228.78.143 proposes to distinguish pure-blooded Arabs and pure-blooded Berbers from among the majority of the population who probably aren't either one. Anyway, I think you mean the plague of Justinian, and the majority of the inland areas of the Maghrib (as opposed to the major coastal cities) seem to have been fairly solidly Berber until the catastrophic Banu Hilal invasions (which 84.228.78.143 alluded to). AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Those damn Arabs, they are just so evil aren't they? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how that remark is supposed to contribute to constructive discussion for collaborative article improvement, but it's a fact that a number of today's Arab countries did not have a solid Arab-speaking Muslim majority until several centuries after 631 A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe 'majority' is irrelevant when discussing pictures. You can safely say (w/ refs of course) that Averroes or Idris I were arabs. You can safely say that Tarek ibn Ziyad, Abd El-Krim and Zinedine Zidane are berbers. The pure-blood discussion should not be the problem as long as reliable sources are not contraditory. We are surely not going to find out whether Gamal Abdel Nasar got a pure Arab blood or not. What is important is that reliable sources define him as an Arab. Nobody argues about the fact that Tecumseh was a native American as nobody is arguing that George Washington was not of European origins. Can we prove that Pedro Almodovar is not of a pure Spanish blood? No, we just consider him Spanish and not someone of mixed groups. In case of doubt, don't include the picture and that's all! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You can distinguish them easily in many particular cases in the Maghreb. I just want to remind 84.228.78.143 of hundreds of families in Fès, Tétouan, Tlemcen, Oran, Tunis, Salé, Safi, Chefchaouen have their genealogy tree traced back to centuries ago. Some of them Arabs who came with the appearence of Islam and the rest from the Iberian Peninsula after the Reconquista. Not only that but most of them are easily identified by their traditions (cuisine, music, literature, architecture, etc...). Note also the different Berber and Arabs dynasties who ruled the area. So, yes, you can still be able to distinguish. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to say the majority of 22 Arab country inhabitance are descending from Mawali peoples (Berbers, Egyptians, Persians, Aramaeans, Turks, Himyars, black Africans, and non-Arab tribal groups speaking Arabic..) Mawali is name given by Arabs to non-Arab groups ,and the word Mawali in arabic mean slaves... the anthropological characteristics of the physical component of the Arab element is very different from the Berbers, Egyptians, Syrians.. and another thing Qahtan and Adnan is only myth.. it is impossible that all the population of Yemen are descending from one man !.. -- 12:40, 7 April 2009 User:Mohhamd

Interesting choices for the Yemen/Oman gallery. I didn't know that there were Southern Arabs in the Bathurst Island.(end of sarcasm) I know why you chose that image and part of your motive has to do with ignorance. There is no one look to any group. You will find variety among all the groups including Yemenis and I have not see a Yemeni who looks like the people in the images you provided. I have Yemeni cousins with dark skin, curly black hair, and dark eyes and then on my other side, I have cousins with straight brownish hair, white skin with freckles, and light brown eyes, and can pass off as Eastern Europeans. This variety occurs with most ethnic groups, and variety should be reflected in the gallery of Arab people. With all that said, I am really not interested in continuing this conversation, it seems you want to redefine the word Arab and that is not what the purpose of the thread is and you're not in position to do so. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The word mawali does not mean "slaves" -- in some contexts, the word can actually mean "lords", or "masters", and the singular of the same word gives maulana! -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

mawali not means slave it means who serve the leader that other word mean all citizens--Salem F (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Arab

Who changed the actual definition of Arab? A person is considered Arab by either, linguistics, ethnically, culturally and genealogically. The word culture is much too broad and even within certain "Arab" countries whom share the same ethnicity the cultures vary. The definition is very misleading thus throwing too many people into one single category when we are much more complex than that. I would really appreciate it if someone edited that. Because many of todays "Arabs" are not culturally Arab like the Sudanis. And some Arabs are ethnically & genealogically Arab like the people of the Khalij aka Gulf States. And most Arab countries in the Levant are not genealogically Arab nor "culturally" Arab because their cultures are so influenced by other cultures.

ethnicity (n) a term which represents social groups with a shared history, sense of identity, geography and cultural roots which may occur despite racial difference

Many of our countries have shared history and cultural roots and many of ours do not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.119.213 (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but large portion of Sudanis "could be the largest" are geneticaly ethinicly Semitic ARABS, with Semitic Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) 21% + in them.' 213.130.109.242 (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, not again. Before we have another revert war on this page, let me just say that Goyim means non-Jew, so how can one be a Jew and non-Jew? Stop placing emphasis on Nazi in Ashkinazi, that is stupid since the Ashkinazi were victims of Nazis and not Nazis themselves. If you keep posting comments like that, I will get you blocked instead of engaging in long revert war with you like a previous editor. You can talk about Haplogroup J1(Y-DNA), it is not nonsense gibberish, but stop making prejudice remarks, or you will be blocked soon enough. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also kind of stupid, considering that the word "Ashkenazi" has a real zay / zayin consonant ז ز, while the Latin letter 'z" in "Nazi" has a [ts] affricate pronunciation (similar to that of Hebrew tsade which corresponds to Arabic sad ص צ). You really have to be a complete ignoramus or an unrepentant hater to try to connect the two words... AnonMoos (talk)

P.S. Can we just get this talk page "semi-protected" to block anonymous IP's? I would ask on WP:RFP, except that my past experience has been that my requests are never answered unless the page is right in the middle of experiencing a huge vandalism attack (maybe others will have better luck). AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sudanis, Egyptians, Syrians and others are not arabs .. the real arabs are only Haplogroup J1e 1 -- 00:54, 27 April 2009 87.68.116.43

That's nice; is there any evidence that this genetic purity test has any particular cultural relevance, or is it just your own personal speculation? AnonMoos (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Arab ethnic group. If your father was a arab does not inevitably make you also an arab if you cant speak the language. The country of Saudi Arabia can call themselves arab because it is a place that speaks arab but if a citizen of that country didnt speak arab he wouldnt be an arab. But alas there are people who are trying to change the truth of things and sell a load of crap to the unawares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.242.151 (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

حقائق تاريخية - قبائل اليمن قحطانيين أم سبئيين

حقائق عربية أضواء على أنساب العرب

نبيـل الكرخي

أضواء على أنساب العرب (Highlights of the Arab Studies )

الفصل الأول المقدمة :

يتلخص الموروث لدى النسابين إن العرب يقسمون إلى ثلاثة أقسام هم العرب البائـدة ومنهم طسم وجديس والعماليـق واميم ووبار ، والعرب العاربة وهم السبئيون ( القحطانيون ) ، والعـرب المسـتعربة وهم النزاريون ( العدنانيون ) ، وزعموا أن القسم الأول قد أنقرض وباد ـ بنفس مفهوم أنقـراض الديناصورات ـ وأن العرب اليوم لابد وان يعود أصلهم إلى أحد هذين الجدين : عدنان وقحطان ، ولم يذكر أحد سبب مقنع ومنطقي لأنقراض قبائل وشعوب العرب البائدة ولا سبب أنحصار الأقوام التي عاشت في شبه الجزيرة العربية بذرية نزار وسبأ .

ولأن هذا كله وهم من أوهام النسابين فقد عمدنا ـ بتوفيق الله عز وجل ـ إلى تسليط الأضواء على بعض حقائق أجدادنا العرب من حيث بيان عدم أنقراض قبائل طسم وجديس وجرهم وغيرهم وان العرب لا ينحصرون بذرية نزار وسبأ فحسب ، تاركين باب الحوار والنقاش مفتوحاً لمن يرغب به بصورة علمية بعيدة عن التقليد الفكري الموروث بأخطائه الفادحة .

سبئيون أم قحطانيون ؟

ايهما أصح من الناحية التأريخية أن نطلق على قبائل اليمن أسم القحطانيين أم السبئيين ؟

تكمن اهمية هذا السؤال في جوانب عديدة منها معرفة جانب من التفكير الانساني لجماعة من الناس أصحاب حضارة عريقة ـ بالاضافة لكونهم أجدادنا ـ فمن حقنا ان نعرف كيف كانوا يفكرون وبمن كانوا يعتزون ، ويضاف لذلك الحق الطبيعي لكل أنسان بالانتساب الى أي جدٍ من أجداده يشاء ويرى انه الافضل بالانتساب اليه ، وبذلك نعلم من هو الافضل والاشهر من وجهة نظر الاجداد اذ انهم كانوا الاقرب منّا الى زمن أجدادهم وهم الاعرف بمن هو صاحب التأثير الاكبر في مجتمعهم والذي استحق ان ينسبوا أنفسهم اليه.

وقد وجدنا بعد التعمق في دراسة أحوال أهل اليمن أنهم كانوا ينسبون انفسهم الى سبأ بن يشجب ويكادون لا يذكرون قحطان الا ما ندر ، وأنهم رغم أعتزازهم بقبائلهم المتفرعة عن سبأ بن يشجب الا انهم كانوا ينتسبون في كثير من الاحيان الى سبأ نفسه واليك بعضاً من الادلة على هذا :

أولاً. في الحديث الشريف نجد ان فروة بن مسيك المرادي يسأل رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله عن سبأ ما هو ( هل هو رجل أم جبل أم وادي )[1] ؟ وسؤاله عن سبأ له عدة مؤشرات منها انه لو كان يعلم بأنتسابه الى قحطان لعلم ان سبأ من ذريته ولكن حيث كان أمر قحطان خافياً عليه وهو يعلم أنه سبئي فقد سأل عن سبأ الذي يحمل لقبه هل هو أسم رجل أم أرض ، مع العلم أنه توجد في اليمن مدينة بهذا الاسم بينها وبين صنعاء ثلاثة أيام بناها سبأ بن يشجب نفسه[2].

ثانياً. هناك العديد من الصحابة والفقهاء ورواة الاحاديث وغيرهم في الاسلام وفي القرنين الاول والثاني على وجه الخصوص ممن حملوا لقب "السبئي" رغم انهم ينتسبون الى قبائل يمانية معروفة لكنهم كانوا يفضلون اتخاذ لقب "السبئي" ، ولا ننسى امرين في هذا الخصوص أولهما اننا عثرنا على بعضٍ ممن حملوا لقب السبئي في مجالي الصحابة والفقهاء ورواة الحديث الشريف ولو حفظ لنا التاريخ اسماء ذوي المهن المختلفة في تلك الفترة لوجدنا الكثير ممن حملوا هذا اللقب أيضاً ، والثاني ان كل واحد ممن عثرنا عليه وهو يتخذ من لقب السبئي لقباً له فانه يمثل عائلة او عشيرة تشاركه في اتخاذ هذا اللقب لقباً لها أيضاً .

فأذا اوردنا أسماء أربعين شخصاً ممن حملوا هذا اللقب فهذا لا يدل على قلة عدد من حمل هذا اللقب بل على العكس لما ذكرناه انفاً .

واليـك أسماء من عثرنا عليهـم من الصحابة وررواة الحديـث ممن حملوا لقب السبئي :

أولاً. الصحابة :

أبيض بن حمال السبئي المأربي ، من قبيلة الازد وهو ممن أقام بمأرب[3].

روح بن زنباع السبئي ، من قبيلة جذام ، وهو مختلف في صحبته[4].

سعد السبئي[5].

عمارة بن شبيب السبئي[6]، مختلف في صحبته[7].

عمرو بن عمرو السبئي[8].

مالك بن هبيرة السبئي ، وهو مالك بن هبيرة بن خالد بن مسلم بن الحارث بن الحصيب بن مالك بن الحارث بن بكير بن ثعلبة بن عصية بن السكون السبئي الكندي[9].

معيقيب السبئي[10].

هبيرة بن أسعد بن كهلان السبئي[11].

يحنس بن وبرة السبئي ، من قبيلة الأزد[12].

ثانياً.التابعين وتابع التابعين ورواة الحديث الشريف

ابراهيم بن نصر السبئي ، من رواة الحديث[13].

اسميفع بن وعلة السبئي ، وهو من التابعين وكان اخر ملوك سبأ في اليمن ونسبه هو اسميفع بن وعلة بن يعفر بن سلامة بن شرحبيل بن علقمة السبئي[14]الحميري[15]، وكان له من الابناء ممن رووا الحديث عبد الرحمن[16]وشرحبيل وعلقمة[17] وهم من التابعين.

أبوابراهيم السبئي[18]، من تابعي التابعين.

أزهر بن عبد الله بن يزيد السبئي ، من رواة الحديث توفي سنة 205هـ[19].

أيوب بن ابراهيم السبئي[20]، من تابعي التابعين.

أسد بن عبد الرحمن السبئي الاندلسي ، يروي عن مكحول والاوزاعي[21].

أبو بشر بن جبلة بن سحيم السبئي الكوفي[22]، من التابعين.

حنش بن عبد الله السبئي الصنعاني[23]، من التابعين ، ونسبه هو حنش بن عبد الله أبن عمرو بن حنظلة بن فهد بن قنان بن ثعلبة بن عبد الله بن ثامر السبئي[24].

أبو حفص السبئي الطرابلسي ، وأسمه عمر بن عبد العزيز بن عبيد ، من رواة الحديث توفي سنة 518هـ[25].

أبو ذر السبئي ، يروي عن ابي أسحاق السبيعي[26].

زكريا بن يحيى السبئي[27]، من رواة الحديث.

أبن الزبير السبئي[28]، من تابعي التابعين.

سهل بن علقمة السبئي[29]، من التابعين أو تابعي التابعين.

سليمان بن أبي زينب السبئي[30]، من رواة الحديث.

سعيد بن أبيض بن حمال السبئي[31]، من التابعين.

سعيد بن أبي شمر السبئي[32]، من التابعين.

سلمة بن سعيد بن منصور بن حنش السبئي[33]، من رواة الحديث.

سليمان بن بكار بن سليمان بن ابي زينب السبئي[34]، من رواة الحديث توفي سنة 226هـ.

صالح بن خيوان السبئي الخولاني[35]، من التابعين.

علي بن وعلة السبئي[36]، من التابعين.

عبد الرحمن بن مالك السبئي[37]، من التابعين أو تابعي التابعين.

عبيد الله بن المغيرة بن معيقيب السبئي[38]، من تابعي التابعين توفي سنة 131هـ.

عبد الله بن هبيرة السبئي ، وهو عبد الله بن هبيرة بن اسعد بن كهلان السبئي الحضرمي[39]، من تابعي التابعين[40]، توفي سنة 120هـ[41].

عبد الله بن يحيى بن معاوية بن عزيز بن ذي هجران السبئي المصري ، من رواة الحديث[42].

عمرو بن بحري السبئي[43]، من تابعي التابعين ، كان حياً سنة 180هـ[44].

أبو عبد الله السبئي ، من رواة الحديث[45].

فرج بن سعيد السبئي المرادي ، وهو فرج بن سعيد بن علقمة بن سعيد بن أبيض بن حمال السبئي المأربي[46]المرادي[47].

فطيس السبئي ، من التابعين[48].

القاسم بن ابي القاسم قزمان السبئي[49]، من التابعين أو تابعي التابعين.

موسى بن عثمان السبئي ، من التابعين[50].

نعيم بن سلامة السبئي ، ويقال ان لقبه هو الشيباني ويقال الغساني ويقال الحميري مولاهم الازدي ! وقيل عنه في موضع اخر : ( مولى لأهل اليمن )[51]، لذلك رجَّحنا كون الأصل في لقبه هو السبئي ، وهو من التابعين.

هزان بن سعيد السبئي[52]، من رواة الحديث.

يحيى بن قيس السبئي الحميري اليماني[53]المأربي[54]، من تابعي التابعين ، وابنه محمد بن يحيى بن قيس السبئي المأربي[55] من رواة الحديث ايضاً.

ثالثاً. الفقهاء وغيرهم ممن ذُكِروا في التاريخ :

أبو أسحاق الفقيه ابراهيم بن أحمد السبئي ، توفي سنة 356هـ[56].

أبو أسحاق ابراهيم بن هلال السبئي[57].

أبو الحسن سليمان بن محمد بن طراوة السبئي المالقي النحوي ، توفي سنة 528هـ[58].

عبد الله بن وهب السبئي ، راس الخوارج[59] ، قتل في حربه مع الامام علي عليه السلام ، وكان يلقب بالراسبي حيث انه من بني راسب السبئيين وكان الامام علي عليه السلام يناديه بلقب " أبن السوداء "[60].

فيتضح من هذا ان أتخاذ أهل اليمن للقب السبئي وانتسابهم الى سبأ مما كان شائعاً عندهم قبل الأسلام وبعده ، وهناك البعض ممن وجدناهم يحملون لقب القحطاني ولكن هذه الظاهرة بدأت منذ القرن الثالث الهجري اما قبل ذلك فلم يوجد دليل قطعي على وجود من يحمل هذا اللقب.

أولاً. من حمل لقب القحطاني هم :

أ. في القرن الثالث الهجري :

عبيد الله بن محمد بن نعيم القحطاني[61].

محمد بن محمد بن يعقوب القحطاني[62].

محمد بن الحسن بن دريد بن عتاهية الازدي القحطاني البصري ، توفـي سنة 321 هـ[63].

ب. في القرن الرابع الهجري :

علي التنوخي القحطاني ، ( 370 – 447 ) هـ[64].

أبو عبد الله بن صالح بن السمح بن صالح بن هاشم بن غريب القحطاني الاندلسي المالكي ، توفي سنة 379 هـ[65].

محمد بن صالح بن محمد بن سعد بن نزار بن عمر بن ثعلبة القحطاني المعافري الاندلسي المالكي ، توفي سنة 383 هـ[66].

الحاجب المنصور الوزير أبن ابي عامر القحطاني وزير الخليفة الحكم الاموي في الاندلس ، توفي سنة 393 هـ[67]، والمتتبع لحياته يعرف انه أتخذ لقب القحطاني لأسباب سياسية.

الشاعر أبو العلاء المعري ، وأسمه أحمد بن عبد الله بن سليمان بن محمد القحطاني التنوخي المعري ، ولد سنة 363 هـ[68]، على انه لم يشتهر كما هو معلوم بلقب القحطاني بل المعري ، وكأن لقب القحطاني قد أطلق عليه من قبل المؤرخين لكون قبيلته تنتمي في اصلها الى القبائل السبئية اليمنية.

ج. القرن الخامس الهجري :

حيدرة بن علي بن محمد بن ابراهيم بن الحسين القحطاني الانطاكي[69]، توفي سنة 469 هـ[70].

د. القرن السادس الهجري :

موسى بن عبـد الله بن ابراهيـم القحطاني الأغماتي المغربـي ، توفـي بعد سنـة 516 هـ[71].

ثانياً. زعم أبو الحجاج المزي ( 654 – 742 ) هـ صاحب كتاب " تهذيب الكمال في اسماء الرجال " ان هناك صحابياً حمل لقب القحطاني هو الصحابي سعد بن الاطول فقال في كتابه مانصه : ( سعد بن الاطول بن عبيد الله بن خالد بن واهب الجهني ، وقيل : سعد بن الاطول بن عبد الله بن خلف القحطاني )[72]، وقد وجدنا الاتي :

ان المزي لم يجزم بأن لقبه هو القحطاني بل ذكره فيما قيل.

ان الصحابي سعد بن الاطول يعود في نسبه الى قبيلة جهينة القضاعية حيث انه قد حمل لقب الجهني كما ذكره المزي ـ كما مرَّ انفاً ـ وكما ذكره غيره أيضاً[73]، وكذلك كان أخوه الصحابي يسار بن الاطول يحمل لقب الجهني[74]، ولم يذكر أحد اخر انه تلقب بالقحطاني ، وحتى عندما ذكروا ابنه عبد الله بن سعد بن الاطول[75]فانهم لم يذكروا له هذا اللقب.

ان قبيلة قضاعة مختلف في نسبها الى سبأ بن يشجب أو الى نزار بن معد أو الى غيرهما كما سيمر عليك في الصفحة ( 20 ) من هذا الكتاب ، بل ان نسبهم في النزاريين أرجح منه في السبئيين لقول رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله لأم المؤمنين عائشة وقد نذرت ان تعتق قوماً من بني اسماعيل فسُبي قوم من بني العنبر فقال صلى الله عليه واله لها : ( ان سركِ ان تعتقي الصميم من ولد اسماعيل فاعتقي هؤلاء ) وبنو العنبر من قضاعة[76].

ذكر ابن الاثير نقلاً عن ابن منده ان أحد رواة الحديث الشريف من ذرية الصحابي سعد بن الاطول قد حمل لقـب القحطاني فقال : ( روى واصل بن عبد الله بن بدر أبو الحسين القشيري حدثني أبي عبد الله بن بـدر بن واصل بن عبد الله بن سعـد بن خالد ( الاطول ) القحطاني )[77]، لكنه عاد فذكر نفس الحديث بنفس السند عن أبن منده عن ابي نعيم عن واصل بن عبد الله بن بدر… وذكر نفس النسب والحديث لكن بدون ذكر لقب القحطاني فمن هذا نستدل على :

ان عبد الله بن بدر بفرض حمله للقب القحطاني فان ذلك لا ينافي ما توصلنا اليه لأنه عاش في حوالي القرن الثالث الهجري.

عدم ثبوت لقب القحطاني لعبد الله بن بدر من حيث ان جميع الذين ذكروه لم ينسبوه سوى الى الجهني عدا رواية واحدة التي ذكرناها انفاً والتي عاد ابن الاثير فذكرها بدون لفظ القحطاني ، مما يدل على ان ذكر ذلك اللقب في ذلك الموضع كان أجتهاداً من أحد المؤرخين وليس لقباً حقيقياً لعبد الله بن بدر ، ومما يعاضد ذلك ان أبنه واصل كان متلقباً بالقشيري وليس القحطاني.

ثالثاً. قال ابن أبي الحديد : ( الا ترى ان العدناني يفاخر القحطاني فيقول له : انا ابن عم رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله )[78]، فاستعمل لفظ القحطاني بدلاً من السبئي الذي نقول ان العرب قديماً كانت تستعملـه ، وهذا لا يخالف ما ذكرناه من حيث ان أبن أبي الحديد ( 586 – 656 ) هـ قد عاش في القرن السابع الهجري وهذا اللفظ ( القحطاني ) بدأ استعماله منذ القرن الثالث الهجري كما ذكرنا ، في حين أنهم في القرنين الاول والثاني كانوا يستعملون لفظ ( السبئي ).

رابعاً. ان أقدم من عثرنا عليه وقد استعمل لفظ ( القحطاني ) لقباً للسبئيين هو زيد الشهيد عليه السلام حين خاطب واحداً من ذرية الانصار بقوله : ( أيها القحطاني )[79] وذلك بعد ان تعرض ذلك الرجل له بشتمه هو وابائه الاطهار عليهم السلام ، فاجابه زيد عليه السلام وكان بداية قوله له : ( أيها القحطاني ) مما يشعر ان أستعمال زيد عليه السلام لهذا اللفظ كان من باب الاهانة والتصغير ، فلم يقل له ايها السبئي لأن القبائل السبئية ـ ومنهم الانصار ـ كانت معروفة بولائها وتشيعها لال البيت عليهم السلام ، فأشعره بأنحرافه عن مسيرة اباءه من الانصار وذلك بأن خاطبه بلفظ غير مألوف في المجتمع في ذلك الحين وهو لفظ القحطاني ، وهذا يدعم ما توصلنا اليه.

فمن ذلك كله نستنتج بما لايقبل الشك ان استعمال لقب السبئيين بدأ منذ عصر ما قبل الاسلام واستمر بصورة شائعة في القرنين الاول والثاني الهجريين ، بل بعد ذلك أيضاُ وان كان ذلك على نطاق أقل بين السبئيين ، لأسباب سياسية.

عصري سبأ و قحطان :

قال الهمداني : قالوا : وكان حمير بن سبأ في درجة أبراهيم عليه السلام في النسب الى عابر[80]، وقال أيضاً : فأما عصر أبراهيم عليه السلام وعصر سبأ فمتقارب جداً [81].

وذكر الدكتور أحمد سوسة ان ابراهيـم الخليـل عليه السلام قد عاش في القرن التاسع عشر قبل الميلاد[82] ، وبفرض صحة النسب المزعـوم لحميـر بن سبأ وهو حمير بن سبأ بن يشجب بن يعرب بن قحطـان[83]، فيكـون قحطـان قـد عـاش في القـرن الواحد والعشرين قبل الميلاد بحسـب قاعـدة ابن خلـدون التي تجعـل لكـل قـرن ثلاثة ابـاء ، واذا أفترضنا سقوط أسماء من النسب بين حمير وقحطان بسبب تقادم الزمن ـ وهو الصواب ـ فأن قحطان يكون قد ظهر في القرن الثاني والعشرين قبل الميلاد أو أكثر من ذلك .

الممالك العربية في اليمن

أولاً. مملكة معين :

وهي من الممالك العربية القديمة في اليمن ، الا ان النسابين العرب لم يذكروا هذه المملكة ولا احد من ملوكها ولا أسم الملك معين وصلته مع سبأ بل طوى كل ذلك النسيان إلى ان كشفت عن هذه المملكة العريقة الاثار المكتشفة في القرن العشرين الميلادي !!

فأين هم النسابون العرب الذين يزعمون انهم يحفظون تاريخ الامة وأنسابها !!؟ ، عموماً فقد ظهرت مملكة معين في القرن العشرين قبل الميلاد أو القرن الثلاثين قبل الميلاد ! رغم إن ازدهارها كان في حدود القرن الثالث عشر قبل الميلاد الى القرن السابع عشر قبل الميلاد[84] .

ثانياً. مملكة سبأ :

وهي مملكة نشأت بعد مملكة المعينيين ، وورث السبئيون مملكة معين وسلطانها[85]، وكان الملوك السبئيون الاوائل يعاصرون المتاخرين من ملوك معين[86].

وأقـدم ذكر للسبئـيين في المصادر المسمارية ورد في أخبـار الملك الاشوري ( تجلات بلاشر ) الثالث ( 745 – 727 ) ق.م حيث يذكر انه في سنة 732 ق.م اخذ الجزية من الملكة شمسي ملكة العرب التي حنثت بيمين طاعتها ولكن رجع قومها السبئيون الى الطاعة[87].

والتقليد الموروث عند النسابين يذكر نسب سبأ كالاتي : سبأ بن يشجب بن يعرب بن قحطان[88]، وان سبأ كان ملكاً على اليمن وكذلك كان ولداه حمير وكهلان[89].

وكما ذكرنا انفاً فان سبأ كان معاصراً للنبي ابراهيم الخليل عليه السلام ، أي انه عاش في القرن التاسع عشر الهجري قبل الميلاد .

ثالثاً. مملكة حمير :

ظهـرت دولة حمير فـي اواخر القـرن الثاني قبـل الميلاد واستمرت حتى قـرب ظهور الاسلام[90]فـي القرن السـادس الميلادي ، وكان اخر ملوكهـا يوسف ذي نؤاس ( 520 – 530 ) م الـذي قضى عليـه نجاشي الحبشة وأحتل دولته التي دامت حوالي

650 سنة[91].

ممالك بلا شعب !

ان الشعب هو اول عنصر من عناصر أنشاء وقيام اية مملكة اذ لايمكن ان نتصور قيام دولة وملوكاً بدون شعب يدير أولئك الملوك شؤونه ، ويحاول النسابون العرب مخالفة ذلك الواقع بزعمهم ان قحطان وسبأ وابناءهما كانوا ملوكاً وان عرب اليمن يعودون جميعاً في نسبهم الى سبا بن يشجب بن يعرب بن قحطان ( أي انهم ظهروا الى الوجود بعد قرون من ولادة اجدادهم الملوك ) وان العرب البائدة قد انقرضوا ، ولكنهم لم يذكروا لنا اسماء الشعوب والقبائل التي حكمها سبأ وبنوه ملوك اليمن ، فهل يمكن ان نتخيل ملوكاً بلا شعب ! وهل ان قبائل اليمن هي من نسل سبأ حقاً أم انها من نسل تلك القبائل المنسية التي حكمها سبأ وبنوه ؟

عصر عدنان

قال النسابون العرب بان عدنان هو من نسل النبي اسماعيل عليه السلام بلا شك في ذلك[92]، وقد اختلفوا في عدد الآباء بين عدنان واسماعيل عليه السلام اختلافاً كبيراً بين سبعة اباء الى أربعين أباً[93].

وقال الهمداني في الاكليل ان عدنان كان معاصراً للملك الكلداني بخت نصر ( نبوخذ نصر )[94]، الا اننا نعرف ان النسب النبوي الشريف الذي لايرقى اليه الشك مطلقاً هو :

النبي محمد صلى الله عليه واله ( ولد عام 570 م) بن عبد الله ( ولد عام 545 م ) بن عبد المطلب ( ولد عام 497 م ) بن هاشم ( ولد عام 464 م ) بن عبد مناف ( ولد عام 430 م ) بن قصي ( ولد عام 400 م )[95] بن كلاب بن مرة بن كعب بن لؤي بن غالب بن فهر بن مالك بن النضر بن كنانة بن خزيمة بن مدركة بن الياس بن مضر بن نزار.

ونلاحظ من خلال تواريخ ولادات اباء النبي صلى الله عليه واله انها موافقة لقاعدة ابن خلدون التي تجعل لكل ثلاثة اباء قرناً واحداً ، فيكون عدنان قد عاش في حوالي القرن الثاني قبل الميلاد ـ بفرض صحة قول النسابين : نزار بن معد بن عدنان وان كان الدليل بخلافه[96] ـ في حين ان نبوخذ نصر الذي سبـى اليهود قد حكم في الفترة ( 605 – 565 ) ق. م[97]، وهذا يدعم ما ذهبنا اليه من ان معد بن عدنان ليس أباً مباشراً لنزار بل هو على الأرجح أحد أجداده.

نسب قحطان :

ذكر النسابون العرب انه قحطان بن عابر بن شالخ بن ارفخشذ بن سام بن النبي نوح عليه السلام[98]، وزعموا ان قحطان مذكور في التوراة بأسم يقطان ونسبه هو : يقطان بن عابر بن شالخ بن أرفكشاد بن سام بن النبي نوح عليه السلام[99]، فأتضح لنا ان النسب الذي يزعمه النسابون انما نقلوه من التوراة مع تصحيف قليل ، ومع الأسف ليس عندنا دليل يثبت صحة نقل التوراة للأنساب . ومن النسابين من يرجع في نسب قحطان الى النبي اسماعيل عليه السلام وقال اخرون بخطأ هذا النسب لأن النبي إسماعيل عليه السلام كان معاصراً لقبيلة جرهم السبئية وقد تزوج فتاة منهم[100]، فيكون ظهور قحطان سابقاً على ظهور النبي إسماعيـل عليه السلام. وفي الحقيقة فأن أحداً من النسابين أو المؤرخين لايمكن ان يجزم بنسب قحطان او أن يقترح نسباً له مستنداً فيه الى دليل نقلي معتبر.

أين القبائل بين عصري إسماعيل وعدنان ؟

ذكرنا ان إسماعيل وأباه إبراهيم الخليل عليهما السلام قد عاشا في حوالي القرن التاسع عشر قبل الميلاد وان عدنان قد عاش في حوالي القرن الثاني قبل الميلاد[101] ، أي إن بينهما فاصلة زمنية مقدارها ( 17 ) قرن ، وقد كان لإسماعيل ( 12 ) ولد[102]تناسلوا وتكاثروا وكونوا قبائل عديدة عاشت في شبه الجزيرة العربية ومنهم قبيلة قيدار المنسوبة إلى قيدار بن النبي إسماعيـل عليه السلام ، وعدنـان ينتهي نسبه عبر ( 17 ) قرن إلى قيدار هذا[103]، وقبيلة قيدار ورد ذكرها في الكتاب المقدس[104]،إلا إن أحداً من النسابين العرب لم يذكر أي قبيلة من القبائل الإسماعيلية[105] قبل ظهور عدنان أو حتى من القبائل غير الإسماعيلية ( غير البائدة )[106]، ولم يتطرق أحد إلى عائلة عدنان نفسه أخوته وعمومته إلى غير ذلك ، لم يذكروا سوى إن نسبه يرجع إلى قيدار بن إسماعيل عليه السلام وان جميع العرب المستعربة كما أطلقوا عليهم يعودون في نسبهم إليه كما زعموا من قبل ان جميع العرب العاربة يعودون بنسبهم إلى سبأ بن يشجب ! فمن ذلك علمنا ان هناك الكثير من القبائل العربية والتي تعود بنسبها إلى أصول قديمة سامية وارامية وإسماعيلية قد طُمِسَ نسبها الحقيقي وأصابه النسيان واستعيض عنه بنسب جديد إلى عدنان وسبأ وظهورهم كان قبل عدنان وسبأ بزمن طويل .

أين القبائل العدنانية غير النزارية ؟!

قال اليعقوبي في تأريخه ان عدنان كان له أربعة أبناء هم عك والديث والنعمان ومعد ، وكان لمعد من الاولاد عشرة هم نزار وقضاعة[107] وعبيد الرماح وقنص وقناصة وجنادة وعوف وأود وسلهم وجنب[108]، وذكر السمعاني أخ اخر لهم هو القحم بن معد ولكن لم يشتهر منهم الا أولاد نزار بن معد ، وأما أخوته وعمومته فلم يعرف عنهم شيء سوى نتف يسرة جداً في التواريخ هي :

الحيقار بن الحيق بن عمير بن قنص بن معد بن عدنان[109].

غنث بن أفيان بن القحم بن معد بن عدنان[110].

خربة بنت قنص بن معد بن عدنان تزوجت من أبن عمها ربيعة بن نزار بن معد وأنجبت له أبنته بكر بنت ربيعة.

وانت ترى ان هذا لايشكل الا جزءاً ضئيلاً جداً من الذرية المفترضة لعدنان من أبناءه الأربعة ولمعد من أبناءه العشرة ، فأين ياترى ذهبت تلك الأنساب وهـل هناك من يستطيع ان يعلل لنـا سبب أختفاءهم جميعاً وبقاء ذرية نزار بن معد بن عدنان وحده بل واختفاء اخبارهم أيضاً من جميع التواريخ على كثرتها ؟

نحن نقول انه قد دلَّ الدليل على ان معد بن عدنان ليس أباً لنزار ، وان ذرية معد وذرية عدنان قد عاشت في زمن سابق لظهور نزار وأختفت اخبارها مع أخبار بقية الأسماعيليين بعد ان عاشت ذريتهما في بلاد العرب بأسماء جديدة وأنساب جديدة ، مختلطة وداخلة في نسب قبائل نزار وان هذا يرجح ما توصلنا اليه من ان جميع انساب العدنانيين ـ عدا النسب النبوي الشريف ـ هي واقعة في مجال التشكيك بصحتها ورفضها لعدم مصداقيتها ، ومن لا يتفق معنا في الرأي عليه ان يجيبنا عن هذا السؤال الذي طرحناه انفاً.

وأما دليلنا على هذا فهو الحديث النبـوي الشريف الذي رواه السمعاني في أنسابه ( ج1 ص25 ) ينتسب فيه رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله الى نزار ويقف عنده ، وقال محمد بن سعد في طبقاته ( ج1 ص56 ) ما نصه : ( قال وأخبرنا هشام قال أخبرني أبي عن أبي صالح عن أبن عباس ان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان اذا انتسب لم يجاوز في نسبه معد بن عدنان بن أدد ثم يمسك ويقول كذب النسابون قال الله وقروناً بين ذلك كثيراً ، قال واخبرنا هشام بن محمد عن أبيه قال بين معد وأسماعيل صلى الله عليه وسلم نيف وثلاثون أباً وكان لا يسميهم ولا ينفذهم ولعله ترك ذلك حيث سمع حديث أبي صالح عن أبن عباس عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه كان اذا بلغ معد بن عدنان أمسك ) ، من هذا نجد ان النبي صلى الله عليه واله كان يتوقف في نسبه الشريف عند ذكره لنزار ويترك ذكر معد بن عدنان ، وفي ذلك اشارة الى وجود خلل في كون معد أباً لنزار.

ويضاف لذلك ما قيل من ان معد كان مع الملك الكلداني بخت نصر ( نبو خذ نصر ) في غزوه لحصون اليمن[111] ، أي انه عاش في حوالي القرن السادس قبل الميلاد[112]، في حين نجد نزاراً ـ وتبعاً للنسب النبوي الثابت الصحة ـ قد عاش في القرن الأول قبل الميلاد أي ان بينه وبين معد حوالي خمسة قرون ، والله أعلم .

لذلك فقد رجَّحنا ان نطلق على ذرية عدنان أسم النزاريين بدلاً من العدنانيين ، مع ملاحظة ان تسمية " النزاريين " مقبولة عند علماء الانساب !

---

[1] التاريخ الكبير ـ ج7 ص126.

[2] طرائف المقال ـ ج2 ص178.

[3] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج2 ص274.

[4] تاريخ دمشق ـ ج18 ص246.

[5] الاصابة ـ ج3 ص211.

[6] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج16 ص316 و التاريخ الكبير ـ ج6 ص495.

[7] السنن الكبرى للنسائي ـ ج6 ص149 و سنن الترمذي ـ ج5 ص544 و تهذيب التهذيب ـ ج7 ص 366.

[8] الاصابة ـ ج6 ص524.

[9] الجرح والتعديل ـ ج8 ص217 و صحيح مسلم ـ ج2 ص299 و تهذيب التهذيب ـ ج10 ص22.

[10] الجرح والتعديل ـ ج5 ص333.

[11] الاصابة ـ ج6 ص445.

[12] الاصابة ـ ج6 ص 470 و 503.

[13] السنن الكبرى للبيهقي ـ ج10 ص75 و حلية الاولياء ج4 ص318.

[14] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج17 ص479.

[15] فتح الباري ـ ج8 ص76.

[16] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج17 ص478.

[17] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج3 ص210.

[18] التاريخ الكبير ـ ج2 ص177.

[19] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج3 ص211.

[20] الاكمال ـ ج7 ص378.

[21] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج3 ص211.

[22] المصدر السابق ـ ج3 ص209.

[23] الجرح والتعديل ـ ج3 ص291 و520.

[24] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج3 ص211

[25] تاريخ دمشق ـ ج45 ص125 و 126.

[26] الثقات لأبن حبان ـ ج7 ص657.

[27] تاريخ دمشق ـ ج51 ص420.

[28] جامع البيان للطبري ـ ج2 ص360.

[29] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج7 ص 555 و ج34 ص249 و تهذيب التهذيب ـ ج10 ص128 و ج12 ص249.

[30] التاريخ الكبير ـ ج4 ص14.

[31] التاريخ الكبير ـ ج3 ص 459.

[32] التاريخ الكبير ـ ج3 ص482 و المعجم الكبير للطبراني ـ ج7 ص72.

[33] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج3 ص209.

[34] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج3 ص209

[35] تقريب التهذيب ـ ج1 ص271 و تهذيب التهذيب ـ ج4 ص339 و التاريخ الكبير ـ ج4 ص 274.

[36] صحيح مسلم ـ ج1 ص278 و السنن الكبرى للبيهقي ـ ج1 ص24.

[37] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج28 ص164.

[38] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج19 ص 113 و 161.

[39] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج16 ص242 و ج15 ص488.

[40] سنن الترمذي ـ ج4 ص354 و صحيح أبن حبان ـ ج2 ص509.

[41] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج3 ص209.

[42] الاكمال ـ ج7 ص6.

[43] تاريخ دمشق ـ ج29 ص321.

[44] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج3 ص210.

[45] المنفردات والوحدان ـ ص175.

[46] المعجم الكبيرللطبراني ـ ج1 ص277 و التاريخ الكبير ـ ج7 ص134 و الجرح والتعديل ج2 ص 466 و 533.

[47] الاحاد والمثاني ـ ج4 ص419.

[48] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج3 ص389.

[49] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج21 ص353 و تعجيل المنفعة ـ ج1 ص340.

[50] تاريخ دمشق ـ ج21 ص 358 و 364.

[51] المصدر السابق ـ ج62 ص 171 و 173.

[52] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج8 ص373.

[53] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج31 ص498 و الجرح والتعديل ـ ج9 ص182.

[54] الجرح والتعديل ـ ج2 ص466.

[55] الجرح والتعديل ـ ج9 ص182 و تهذيب الكمال ـ ج24 ص22 و التاريخ الكبير ـ ج1 ص265.

[56] سير أعلام النبلاء ـ ج15 ص155.

[57] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج3 ص347.

[58] المصدر السابق ـ ج1 ص112 ( الهامش ).

[59] المصدر السابق ـ ج3 ص209.

[60] الكافية ـ ص32 و رجال أبن داود ـ ص255.

[61] ذيل تاريخ بغداد ـ ج2 ص98.

[62] لسان الميزان ـ ج5 ص371.

[63] الامالي للشيخ المفيد ـ ص224 ( الهامش ).

[64] الفوائد الرجالية ـ ج4 ص111 ( الهامش ).

[65] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج4 ص 455 و 456.

[66] المصدر السابق ـ ج4 ص456.

[67] سير أعلام النبلاء ـ ج8 ص271 و ج17 ص16.

[68] المصدر السابق ـ ج17 ص23 و 24.

[69] تاريخ دمشق ـ ج15 ص381.

[70] سير أعلام النبلاء ـ ج18 ص405 و 410.

[71] الانساب للسمعاني ـ ج1 ص194 و 195.

[72] تهذيب الكمال ـ ج10 ص250.

[73] الاصابة في تمييز الصحابة ـ ج3 ص40.

[74] المصدر السابق ـ ج6 ص533.

[75] المصدر السابق ـ ج5 ص147.

[76] الممتع في علم الشعر وعمله ـ ص242.

[77] أسد الغابة ـ ج2 ص285.

[78] شرح نهج البلاغة ـ ج6 ص375.

[79] المصدر السابق ـ ج3 ص286.

[80] الأكليل ـ ج1 ص99و100.

[81] المصدر السابق ـ ج1 ص102.

[82] العرب واليهود في التاريخ ـ ص250و415.

[83] سبائك الذهب ـ ص17.

[84] العرب واليهود في التأريخ ـ ص496.

[85] المصدر السابق .

[86] المصدر السابق .

[87] المصدر السابق – ص 497.

[88] سبائك الذهب – ص 17.

[89] المصدر السابق .

[90] العرب واليهود في التاريخ – ص 469.

[91] المصدر السابق .

[92] جمهرة انساب العرب

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.74.71 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia and not every reader of this talk page can read Arabic. Please remember to keep discussion in English. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there such thing as an Arab race ?

It is common usage to refer to all speakers of Arabic as "Arabs". But does an definite ethnic group really matches with at least a majority of the speakers of that language ? According to my observations, people living in Morocco bear little resemblance to those living in Egypt, who also bear little resemblance to those living in Saudi Arabia.

In the 7th and 8th centuries, the inhabitants of the Arabic peninsula invaded the whole Middle East, North Africa then in the following centuries also central Asia and other parts of the world to spread Islam.

These jihadi warriors became the rulers of the Muslim world from Spain to the Middle East. But they did not massacre and replace the ethnic groups living there before them. Egypt is now the most populous Arabic-speaking country (80m inhabitants), and it was already one of the most populous part of the world in the Antiquity. When the Arabs invaded Egypt in the 7th century, they were vastly outnumbered by the local population. I could imagine that the invadors made less than 1% of the total population. Of course that proportion may have increased with time, as the Arabs in power may have procreated more thanks to Islam's allowance of multiple wives and concubines for rich and powerful men. Neverthelless, we can hardly consider the rather round-faced and short-nosed Egyptians to be the same ethnic group as the elungated face, and long, aquiline nosed Arabs of Saudi Arabia.

I watch a documentary on Algeria a few weeks ago, and they mentioned that Algeria was made of 4 distinct ethnic groups : the Arabs, the Jews, the Berbers (itself of mix of various closer ethnic groups) and the descendent from the Roman empire's inhabitants (mixed Latin and Phoenician blood). Add to that the infusion of Aryan blood from the 5th and 6th century invasions of Alans (an Aryano-Iranian nomadic group originally from the Caucasus) and Vandals (an Eastern Germanic tribe), which explains the occurence of blue eyes among a tiny minority of the Maghreban population. Genetic tests have shown that most northwest Africans are predominantly of Berber origin.

--- Maghreban blood

DNA analysis of the Berbers have indicated that the Y chromosomes (paternal line) is 75% of North-West African with older origins in Eastern Africa, 8% of recent sub-Saharan African, 13% of North-West African origin (maybe originally from the Near or Middle East) and 4% historic European gene.

The maternal line shows 1/3 of Near East ancestry (dating from about 50,000 years ago), 1/8 from subsaharan ancestry, and the rest (about 40%) mainly from Europe (probably Iberian, Celtic, Roman and Germanic).

This gives us a maternal line mostly European and Near Eastern (e.g. Phoenicia, aka Lebanon), and a paternal line mostly (subsaharan) African. There is fairly little presence of recent Arabic blood from the 7th-century invasion. Maghrebans are thus mostly Berbers (African paternal line and Euro-Phoenician maternal line) ---

The Syrians and Iraqi also look quite different from the Saudi, as they inherited more of the original Assyrian and Babylonian blood.

Conclusion, there is an Arab race, but it is mostly limited to the Arabic peninsula, with just traces of blood found throughout the Arabic-speaking world. Within the Arabic peninsula, I noticed that the Omani had much darker skin than the Saudi. Could this be due to a blood influx from (southern) India, with which it has been trading for milllenia ? --Maciamo (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, in the 19th century and early 20th century, people would casually toss off references to the "Italian race" or the "Dutch race", and not mean much more by it than the Italian or Dutch ethnic nationality. That meaning of the word "race" is effectively obsolete in current English.

Second, the more scientists have examined supposed biological "races" using modern scientific techniques, the less they have been able to assign any clear precise definite scientifically-verifiable meaning to the word "race". AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Arabs and etymology of Arab.

1/Ancient Arabs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qedarite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Arabian_alphabet

2/Etymology of Arabs=western(neighbors of babylonians) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe#Etymology

Another theory suggests that it is actually based on a Semitic word such as the Akkadian erebu meaning "to go down, set" (cf. Occident),[17] cognate to Phoenician 'ereb "evening; west" and Arabic Maghreb, Hebrew ma'ariv (see also Erebus, PIE *h1regʷos, "darkness"). Humanbyrace (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the word `Arab has a voiced pharyngeal `ayn consonant (ع), while the root for the "to set" / "West" meanings has a non-pharyngeal ghayn consonant (غ), which makes the idea of an etymological connection between the two quite problematic (without some very specific further attested evidence). Furthermore, the Arabs were not "the western neighbors of Babylon" in any meaningful sense until the rise of the Lakhmids, and the Arabs had extremely few contacts with Europeans until rather late in the first millennium B.C.

The classical 19th-century etymological explanation was that there might have been an early Semitic root `ayn-ra-ba which meant something like "to be arid, dry" (cf. Wadi Arabah)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Usually people dont name himself but is named by his neighbors,same as you probably didnt name yourself but was named by your parents. For example Turks were named so(Tukue=Smith in Chinese)by their Chinese neighbors. The same occured for Arabs and were named erebu(=westerners in Babylonian)by their eastern Babylonian neighbors. The ayn-ra-ba etymology is simply funny,being an agglutinative word and beyond all with ridiculous&absurd etymology. Humanbyrace (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- the word "agglutinative" as you used it was complete and utter gibberish, which achieved very little other than to reveal your compehensive ignorance of the relevant linguistics. In fact, etymologies in Semitic language generally proceed by abstract consonantal roots (usually of three consonants). Your proposed connection between the word "Arab" and words meaning "sunset"/"west" is very problematic both on phonological grounds (the discrepancy between ع and غ previously mentioned) and historical grounds (since Arabs were not really the "western neighbors of Babylon" until a historical period when Aramaic was displacing Akkadian as the spoken language of southern Mesopotamia). Furthermore, if `Arab effectively means "arid region dweller" (as commonly proposed in the 19th century), that would also be an exonym... AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Gamal abdel nassir photo???

Could we put the photo of Mussolini in Italians article? Of course yes because he is Italian,but there are thousands of peoples that are more politically correct than "Gamal abdnasser" Example of possible Arab state leaders whose photo could be added:

Nuri maliki

Rafiq hariri

-- No, not these two!!! Actually, all of the three are not the best examples of Arabs.

I prefer SHARIF HUSSEIN BIN RAHMA AL-ZAABI!!! СЛУЖБА (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like Nasser too much either, and even some of his supporters would admit that he left behind a mixed legacy -- but on the other hand, he was pretty much the most prominent Arab political leader of the whole 20th century. I really don't think that we're somehow endorsing every single one of Nasser's actions by including his photograph along with half-a-dozen others in a "montage" type image... AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Jew infobox has Golda Meir, so what's the problem? Nasser was probably the only Arab president ever that all Arabs, in spite of religion, respect today. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

King Faisal.

King Faisal's name is spelled "Faisal bin Abdulaziz As-Saud". СЛУЖБА (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Hello,

I think this article would benefit from the placement of some photographs of modern Arab peoples. Although an educated person will be aware that the current pictures represent ancient attire, to the general public this may perpetuate stereotypes.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.84.16 (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please suggest some. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack Shaheen maybe. Izzedine (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Does he really compare with the persons already there? I've never heard of him. We don't seem to have a free picture of him in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the best modern Arabs imo. He's probably done the most to combat anti-Arabism in the media. Check out his books. [2] Izzedine (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems cool. But we still don't have a free picture of him. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a pity, I don't know where to get one from. Izzedine (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Title

I want to change the title to Arab people to match similar articles, such as Persian people. Is this reasonable? Izzedine (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving the page is restricted to admins, is it possible for an admin to comment on this? Izzedine (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think I asked about moving the article some time back, but I don't remember what the reply was. I'm fine with a move, "Arab" seems a bit too general. If you want to move an article, try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_moving FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll do that. Izzedine (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind making the move as long as there is consensus on it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks alright, proposed a week ago and there's three of us for it. Izzedine (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Move performed. Cleaning up links to old page now. -kotra (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou kotra. Izzedine (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Population section

I am removing the sectarian reference in this section where it says "Shi'ite Arab" to match other entries. I am also removing the picture of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia as its placement here is strange. Izzedine (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole section needs to be reformed. How about we model it on the Population centres section of the Jew article? --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very good idea. Izzedine (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I think it makes sense to list the countries of the Arab world as well the diaspora. We could use the CIA World Fact Book to determine the percentage of Arabs in the individual states. Also why was North Africa removed from the lead? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it should include all countries - native and diaspora, I've made a start with it. A question at this point is whether to have two tables (one for the majority Arab states and one for the diaspora), or to have one table, the former seems best, or a third option could be to have one table combining the two, with the former presented first. I suggest we just use the most up-to-date sources whichever. The other day I changed "Middle East" in the lead to "Western Asia" and "North Africa", this was then edit-warred by a user and led to us both being blocked. I don't know if you were referring to that? Izzedine (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the former: two tables. I don't really care if it's "Middle East" or "Southwestern Asia", but North Africa certainly has a pretty large Arab population (if not the majority). I don't see how one could argue that it shouldn't be mentioned. The Middle East is not entirely Arab (what about the tens of millions of Iranian and Turkic peoples in the region). --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll use two tables then. Exactly, that was part of my point in changing "Middle East" to "Western Asia" and "North Africa. Izzedine (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I salute your great work in making these tables. However, much of their information was incorrect. I corrected some of it. I will be revisiting the issue of Egypt in the table soon. Clearly Egyptians are ethnically non-Arab, and that number (99.6%) that figures in the table is based on a 2006 census wherein 99.6% of Egyptians said they were Egyptians (NOT Arabs - review the source). --Lanternix (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The same can be said for most "Arabs" outside of Arabia. The fact is simply that if your native language is Arabic - then you are a native Arabophone, and native Arabophones are referred to as "Arabs" whether or not they are genealogically Arab. Of course "Arab" isn't a race... you only need to compare Syrians wth Sudanese to figure that out. The same way that Latinos are not a race, and Anglophones are not a race. Not all Latinos have Iberian ancestry, but they speak Spanish or Portuguese. Izzedine (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Egyptians are Not Arabs?

99.6% of egyptians said they were not arabs? who told u that? im egyptian and most of pepole i know say that they are arabs.. When arabs conquered north africa more than 60% of arabs in that time go to live there .. especially in egypt and when fall of Al-Andalus(Spain) and muslim arabs were Expelled, most of them go to live in egypt,... btw i dont say all egyptians are arabs .. but most of them yes.(196.205.131.133 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)).

They're linguistically Arab yes, but ethnically Egyptian.. neither can be denied. Izzedine (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, "ethnically" Egyptian (or Arab for that matter) depends on whether one identifies as such or not, so yes, it can be denied. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean if an Egyptian identifies as Egyptian.. you can't deny them of it. But yeah it's their choice. Izzedine (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

World Factbook on Ethnicities

In the population table, a note on Egypt's Arab population says "According to the The World Factbook [20], 99.6% are ethnically Egyptians, not Arabs (2006 census)." I don't think the WF is saying 99.6% are not Arab (and they don't explicitly say that by the way). By "Egyptians" they mean the indigenous inhabitants of Egypt versus say the Greek, Armenian, and non-native Arab (migrant workers and the like) minorities. For Bahrain they list the ethnicity as "Bahraini 62.4%%". For the UAE, it is "Emirati 19%" and for Kuwait it's "Kuwaiti 45%". Are we going to say those people are ethnically Bahrainis, Emiratis, and Kuwaitis and not Arabs? The WF is probably ust using the censuses taken by those individual countries who don't feel a need to say "Arab" outright. I'm not saying indigenous (and by indigenous, I don't mean just the Pharoanic era, but the last 150-200 years) Egyptians are all Arabs, but there's no way we could falsely interpret the WF by listing 99.6% as not being Arabs. All we could put in the note that's factual is "Few/Some/Many/Most Egyptians do not identify as Arabs" with a reliable source to back it. If there is indeed a reliable study that says ??% of Egyptians do not identify as Arabs, then we could put that instead. For now, however, I'm keeping the first sentence, but with a fact tag until a source is provided. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If WF is saying 99.6% are EGYPTIANS, then it's unethical to put it in the article as 99.6% are ARABS! Big difference here! I removed this percentage and the accompanying related population number until some official source calculating the number of ARABS vs. EGYPTIANS is provided. I also provided citations for the source tag you added and thereby removed the latter. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 13:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I clearly did not say that we should state "99.6% are Arabs." Please re-read what I said above for more clarification. Also, it's good you added sources. With those sources you wrote "Egyptians do not identify as Arabs" as if no Egyptian identifies as Arab. However, we cannot deny that during the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century until the present day, Egyptians did not just become a part, but a leader of Arabic culture, language, politics, and nationalism. Again, I'm not saying Egyptians are Arabs by ancestry just like I don't believe I myself (a Palestinian) am from "Arab" ancestry. Perhaps, everyone outside the Peninsula and the Syrian Desert is not Arab ancestrally (but of course we know that Arab tribes migrated and mixed with many of the local populations of the region during the Islamic Caliphate era), this does not disqualify them from being Arabs. Being Arab is mostly based on linguistic heritage and self-identification. We know Egyptians speak Arabic and there are many Egyptians that proudly identify as Arabs without abandoning their Egyptian pride whether it be from the days of the Pharaohs, the Fatimids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, and Muhammad Ali. Therefore, we could not make such a false definite statement that "Egyptians don't identify as Arabs" as that is very misleading to the reader and offensive to Egyptians who do identify as Arabs. Nonetheless, you provided sources, so I too will try to find some today or in the coming days. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple solution to this bullshit - the table is documenting Arabic language, not ethnicity. Arab ethnicity varies on an individual level but Arabic speakers are Arabic speakers - whether they like it or not. Izzedine (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If the table is documenting people who SPEAK ARABIC as opposed to those who ARE ARABS, then I suggest moving the table to this article and giving its percentages as % Arabic language speakers and NOT % Arabs. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I did originally write in "% Arabic" but it got changed to "% Arab". Yes I agree the former is better, but the table is fine in this article aswell as the Arabic language article. Izzedine (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why French,Polish,Pashtun,Turk,English,Bask,Gallish,X'ish peoples are listened as such despite that majority of them are not Frecnh,Polish etc.. by ancestry.

Whereas peoples such Egyptians(who are culturally and linguistically Arabs+All Egyptians have at least 1 Arab ancestor+40%of Egyptian share the Arab haplogroup J)are not included as Arabs?

Do you have a source saying 40% of Egyptians share the Arab haplogroup J and all Egyptians have at least 1 Arab ancestor? --Al Ameer son (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heard about statistics?

So according to statistics every Egyptian must have at least one arab ancestor because nearly half of egyptians have arab roots and the other half would also have one throughout intermarriages.

For haplotypes,here is a link(39,4% and not 40% though)

http://wysinger.homestead.com/haplotypes_in_egypt.pdf

you can read in the first page the following:HAPLOTYPE V IS A CHARACTERISTIC ARAB HAPLOTYPE WITH A NORTHERN GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION IN EGYPT IN THE NILE RIVER VALLEY.

Besides all,it's well known that the closest language family to Egyptian is the Semitic language family.

Please look at the link below(from encyclopaedia Britannica)

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/8488/Afro-Asiatic-languages

Finally as the case of ALL PEOPLES IN THIS WORLD.,IT IS THE CULTURE AND THE NATIVE LANGUAGE WHICH HAS THE UPPER HAND IN THE FORMATION OF ETHNICITY.

SO SAME AS NEARLY 90% OF PEOPLE OF FRANCE ARE FRENCH DESPITE THE FACT THAT GENETICALLY SPEAKING FRENCH PEOPLE ARE MOST LIKELY VASCONIANS CELTICIZED BY SOME THOUSANDS OF CELTIC TRIBES THEN LATINIZED BY A COUPLE OF LATIN SPEAKING ROMAN OFFICIALS;I THINK WE COULD ARGUE THAT A MAJORITY OF EGYPTIANS ARE ARABS(HAVING ARABIC AS MOTHER TONGUE WITH ARABIC NAMES,ARAB CULTURE,ARAB RELIGION[ISLAM] ETC...)

Humanbyrace (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Most modern Egyptians, be it Muslims or Christians, do NOT consider themselves Arab. Some do on a linguistic and/or political basis. The percentage of those who do is IMPOSSIBLE to determine. However, almost ALL Egyptians would aknowledge that they are are ETHNICALLY Egyptians and not Arabs. regarding the claim that Muslim Egyptians consider themselves Arabs, here you go:

Some contemporary prominent Egyptians who oppose Arab nationalism or the idea that Egyptians are Arabs include Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities Zahi Hawass, popular writer Osama Anwar Okasha, Egyptian-born Harvard University Professor Leila Ahmed, Member of Parliament Suzie Greiss, in addition to different local groups and intellectuals. This understanding is also expressed in other contexts, such as Neil DeRosa's novel Joseph's Seed in his depiction of an Egyptian character "who declares that Egyptians are not Arabs and never will be.""

This is of course in addition to the fact that almost all the proponents of Egyptian identity were Muslims, and include Taha Hussein, Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed, Saad Zaghloul, Bayoumy Andil and many many more. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 16:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The ethnic composition of Egypt is relatively homogenous. Ninety percent of the population are Eastern Hannitic Arabs, and 94% are Muslims, mainly of the Sunni rite. The term "Egyptian" indicated nationality, not ethnicity or religion and What is more, the two large comminities in the country - Arab Muslims and Christian Copts, who speak the same Arabic dialect - share the feeling of belonging to the same Egyptian nation and more can be provided. nableezy - 16:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A BABY knows that Arabs are Semites and that Eastern Hamites (and not Hannites as you wrote) CANNOT be Arabs!!! I will remove this source.

The second source, which I will also remove, just says "the Arab Muslims". It does NOT say how and why these Muslims are Arabs, and what percentage of these Muslims are actually Arabs. This sentence is completely taken out of context. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 16:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You cant just remove a reliable source that you do not like, it clearly says that they are Arabs. But thanks for spotting my transcription error. That has been corrected nableezy - 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is well known that early Egyptian nationalists rejected Arab identity, but later Egyptian Arab nationalists embraced it. For example, in Simpson, 2008, p. 17 it states that early 'territorial' nationalists in Egypt attempted to promote local Egyptian colloquial dialect of Arabic as a distinctive Egyptian national language or else denied the link betwen language and national identity. Later Egyptian Arab nationalists openly embraced Classical and Modern Standard Arabic as a marker of a shared national identity with Arabs, while emphasizing the centrality of Egypt and its cultural contributions to the Arab world. Lanternix, you keep using outdated and cherry-picked sources to support your (clearly expressed) POV on this issue, and the addition you are making was rejected previously. Please stop ignoring other editors' concerns. Tiamut^talk 16:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A recent DNA study by Cruciani that focused on the Y chromosome E-M78 revealed that it was ’born’ in North East Africa , not East Africa as previously thought. This means, that an Egyptian with an m78 Y chromosome has had a male line ancestry reaching back to the Pleistocene inhabitants of Egypt; as far back as the Halfan culture about 24,000 years ago. Southern Egyptians Y Chromomses are mainly native to Africa, both sub and supra Saharan. This makes a grand total of 80.3% definitively African non-Arab ancestry in the upper Egypt region. Y chromosomes possibly attributable to Arab males are very much in the minority in this area. A rough estimate (since no women invaded Egypt) is that about 5% or less of this population are from non dynastic Egyptian peoples, and not all of these would be Arabs. Northern Egyptians are a bit more cosmopolitan in their ancestry 64.8% indigenous African. About 20% of the Y chrom0somes are near Eastern in origin, and 10.5 % are R Y chromosomes. However, some of these near eastern and European Y chromosomes show an ancient entry to Africa (G, K2, R1, R1b are 8,000 BP and older) and any historical contribution from foreign men is more likely to be in the 15% area. Divided by two (no recent female contribution to speak of). This makes non-dynastic Egyptian population around the 7% mark in Lower Egypt; and only some of this is Arab. As for the maternal inheritance; this is more varied. From a study at Gurna (of modern upper Egyptians). H 14.7%, I 5.9%, J 5.9%, L1a 11.7%, L1e 5.9%, L2a 2.9%, M1 17.6%, N1b 8.8%, T 5.9%, U 8.8% U3 2.9%, U4 5.9% ,L3*(a) 5.9%, L3*(b) 2.9%, Other 2.9%. Of these, the L haplotypes are typically sub Saharan (23.7%), M1 and U are ancient Eurasian, present at least 30,000 years and many of the other Eurasian haplotypes have been found in 12,000 year old bones in Morocco. The N an I are possibly attributable to Arab ancestry, about 15% non-Arab in upper Egypt. But still, most of that would easily be attributable to the Neolithic input from Asia- and very little of this would be attributable to Arabs To sum up, there doesn’t seem to be majority ‘Arab’ genetic component to the Egyptian DNA pool, 20% absolute maximum. And a lot of the non African DNA is traceable to the Neolithic farming expansion that swept across North Africa, so it would be a lot lower in reality. In upper Egypt a maximum of 20% of the Y chromosomes are non African (the Mt DNA has been shown to be the same since dynastic times from Nubian mummy studies).. so how these people are supposed to have magically changed appearance in the past few thousand years with so little foreign input I’d like to know. Egyptians are Egyptian, not Arab. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 16:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Post all the blogs you want to, countless reliable sources can be provided that say unequivocally that most Egyptians are Arabs. nableezy - 16:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, it's NOT about my concern or yours. It's about whether Egyptians are really Arabs or not, and whether they consider themselves Arabs or do not. To claim that modern Egyptian nationalists are now embracing Arab nationalism is laughable. Refer to my previous note and see what modern Egyptians like Osama Anwar Okasha, Bayoumy Andil, Leila Ahmed - all of whom are contemporary and Muslims say about Egyptian identity. As for the POV, everybody here has a POV, including yourself. What matters is whether your POV is founded and real or not. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 16:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Its good to see we agree that my POV or yours is not important here. What is important is what reliable sources have to say. This is an excellent source that describes the interplay between the Egyptian and Arab identities among Egyptians over the last century. Please read it. I think representing some of this information in our article would be a good thing to do. Please note that Arab and Egyptian identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive (much as Palestinian and Arab identities are not either). Some of the nuances of the particular case as regards Egypt are lacking in our article, but your additions insisting that no Egyptians identify as Arab are just plain false. Tiamut^talk 16:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the article. I will read it. I want to be very clear here: I am NOT saying that no Egyptian identifies as Arab. There are clearly some Egyptians who identify as Arabs. In my opinion these are divided into (and I will be very blatant and politically incorrect here): 1. Ignorants who have no idea what they are talking about, who can hardly read, and who say they are Arabs because the country's biased pro-Arabist media is saying so, and because some guy suddenly decided to change the name of their country to "Arab Republic of Egypt"; these -in my opinion - represent the majority of those who claim to be Arab. 2. People who identify as Arabs on a linguistic basis, while completely realizing that they are ethnically Egyptians. 3. People who identify as Arabs on a geo-political basis, also while fully recognizing that they are ethnically Egyptians. 4. Those who are truly of Arab descent (mostly in Sinai) and who represent a very small percentage of the Egyptian population (7% according to the historian Gamal Hamdan). So now I am not saying that no Egyptian identify as Arab would be foolish. But to say that all Muslim Egyptians are Arabs, or that most Egyptians identify as Arabs and start putting numbers and percentages is incorrect, inaccurate, biased, and laughable. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 17:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that there is a fringe movement in Egypt that believes that Egyptians are not Arabs as explained here. I think the fact that Egypt is defined as Arab in the country's constitution is significant evidence that this reflects a majority position in Egypt. I am not against holding off on appending percentages until more definitive sources regarding identity affiliations can be found. I will not however abide by the highlighting of fringe viewpoints in a way that gives them WP:UNDUE weight. I hope you understand. Tiamut^talk 17:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

To make such statement as "Egyptians are not Arabs" you need to prove that:

1/The language spoken by Egyptians is not related to Arabic.

2/All(or at least the figure of 96% given by you)Egyptians had already answered:"YES I'M NOT ARAB" to "ARE YOU NOT ARAB?" question.

3/The 39,4% of Egyptian Arabs sharing Arab haplotype V are not Egyptians.

4/The 90% Egyptians=Egyptians-10%copts(even if some copts have Arab christian or even muslim[due to mixed copt-muslim intermarriages]ancestry)that have at least 1 Arab ancestor are not Egyptians.

5/There is no Arab influence at all on Egyptian culture,music,names,religion... Humanbyrace (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/egyptians-are-not-arabs-they-are-egyptians/

This an amateur blog and can not be taken seriously.

At the same time it gives a percentage of 51,9% of Arab haplotype V in lower Egypt.

The other haplotypes Are not only Egyptians but there are also Nubian,Caucasian,Black-African and Berber haplotypes.

Besides all there is NO PARTICULAR EGYPTIAN HAPLOTYPE MARKER!

Humanbyrace (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to Humanbyrace, while extremely interesting, identity is usually not determined by genetics anyway. We should not be making conclusions about a given group's identity based on DNA results.

Another source discussing Egyptian identity states: A second constant that shaped Egypt's foreign policy was Arab-Islamic identity. To be sure, Egyptian's national identity was never merged in an undifferentiated Arabism; Egypt's long pre-Islamic heritage and its partially isolated Nile Valley-centered civilization combined with its ethnic homogeneity have given it a distinct and assured identity [... But for the vast majority of Egyptians, the context of Egyptian identity was Arab-Islamic. Egyptians speak Arabic and 90 percent are Muslim. Egypt is te largest Arabic-speaking country and the intellectual and political center to which the whole Arab world has looked in modern times. [...] As mass politicization advanced after the 1930s, the content of Egyptian identity became ever more Arab-Islamic.] There is more of value there too to the article on Egypt more so than this one, but I thought it might help others see what's at issue here. Egyptian identity is not exclusive of Arab identity at all. Tiamut^talk 17:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, the movement is not a fringe one. This is the mainstream movement of Egyptian self-identity, which has been suppressed by the dictator Nasser who unilaterally imposed pan-Arabism on Egyptians. When you visit Egypt, you will realize that Egyptians refer to themselves as Egyptians, while referring to those others from the Arabian Gulf as the Arabs. When you visit touristic destinations, you will find 3 different tariffs for Egyptians, Arabs, and others. Clearly Arabs get some preference in terms of treatment in Egypt compared to other foreigners, but the distinction between us, Egyptians, and them, Arabs, is very clear. In a recent interview on Al-Jazeera (I can find it for you if you're interested), Mustafa Al-Fiqi said that many Egyptians - both Muslims and Christians - do NOT consider themselves Arabs. And like I showed you, many public figures in Egypt who happen to be Muslims reject pan-Arabism and say they are not Arabs. So now to put the percentage of Muslims in the country (which is debatable to begin with) as the percentage of Arabs is nonsense. We all know that the vast majority of Egyptian Muslims were Egyptian Christians who converted to Islam. They did not come from Arabia, and they are very aware of this fact. I changed the statement in the table to "unknown" and added a statement mentioning that No statistics are available with regard to the number or percentage of Arabs in Egypt. See Egyptian identity for more information, that is until someone provides some data to the exact number of Egyptians who are Arabs or those who are not Arabs but identify as such. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 13:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Humanbyrace:

1. The language spoken by Egyptians today is related to Arabic, but no one in the whole world self-identifies based on language, otherwise we will start calling the Austrians Germans, the Senegalese French, and the Americans English!!!! Egyptians may speak Arabic but they are not Arabs. 2. No comment. I will leave that to you to reconsider when you're a little more sober. 3. Haplotype V is NOT an Arab haplotype. DNA study by Cruciani that focused on the Y chromosome E-M78 revealed that it was ’born’ in North East Africa, not East Africa as previously thought. Plus, considering that Arabs are descendents of Ismail (an Iraqi) and Hajar (an Egyptian) - if you actually believe the story - this will explain some of the similar genetics between the two groups: Egyptians poured their genes into the Arab stock, not the other way around! So if anything, Egyptians (whose numbers always amounted to millions compared to the many fewer inhabitants of Arabia) are the source of many genes that migrated eastward, and most similarities in terms of DNA sequences between the group is most likely attributable to Egyptian genes. Dr. Moamena Kamel, an immunologist at Cairo University, conducted a study on the mummies of pyramid builders buried in Giza, and concluded that they were genetically identical to the modern Egyptians. 4. Of course anybody in the entire world today must have had at least 1 Arab, 1 Egyptian, 1 Russian, 1 Polish, 1 Jewish, 1 Scandinavian ancestor etc etc etc. This is basic statistics. But you don't say you're Jewish or israeli, or that Palestinians are Israelis for instance. Do you? 5. There is way more Egyptian influence on the culture, religion, and music of the Arabs than the other way around. Let's now start calling you Egyptian! But as per your logic, Egyptians are NOT Arabs. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 13:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've restored Nableezy's edit here. The source does provide a clear statement on the percentage of Arabs among Egypt's populace. If you have other sources that dispute this figure, please present them. Tiamut^talk 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

HOW CAN EASTERN HAMITES BE ARABS????????? Arabs are Semites, NOT Hamites!!!!! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 16:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the Wiki articles on Semitic (which includes Arabs) and Hamitic (which includes Egyptians). Yes, we Egyptians are of the Eastern Hamitic stock, but how can Eastern Hamites be Arabs???? --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 16:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Lanterniz, we write using what WP:RS's say, not what we think they should say. The author is David Levinson. The book is Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook (1998) Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 126. ISBN 9781573560191. It says: "The ethnic composition of Egypt is relatively homogenous. Ninety percent of the population are Eastern Hamitic Arabs, and 94% are Muslims, mainly of the Sunni rite. The term "Egyptian" indicated nationality, not ethnicity or religion." That's a high quality RS making a definitive statement that Egypt's population is 90% Arab. If you have a source that says otherwise, please provide it. Using ,logical deduction to assume other meanings from the author's text is WP:OR. Tiamut^talk 16:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, how did the author, David Levinson, come up with this number? based on what studies? And again, HOW CAN ARABS BE HAMITES?????? It's like saying a book wrote the sky is green, so let's say the sky is green because a book about the sky said so!!!! The simple fact that this person says that Arabs are Hamites makes me wonder what sort of knowledge he has, and makes me question anything he writes!!! All the other sources about ethnic composition of Egypt say that the country's ethnic composition is between 98% and 99% Egyptian. Here are some of these sources: [3], [4]. The Encyclopedia of World Geography, Volume 15 by Peter Haggett says the ethnic composition of Egypt is 99.8% Egyptian! The Current history encyclopedia of developing nations‎ - Page 136 - says that the ethnic composition of Egypt is made exclusively of Egyptians, and although it does not give any percentages, it does not mention anything about Arabs! The New York Times guide to essential knowledge - page 1074 - under ethnic groups puts forward the percentage of Egyptians as 98% while that of Nubians, Bedouins, Berbers and beja combined is 1%!!! There are thousands of other books that state that ethnically Egyptians are Egyptians NOT Arabs. Why do you think we should use 1 reference that is so weak as to claim that Arabs and Hamites are the same thing. while completely ignoring all these other sources?!!! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 17:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring any sources. Instead of deleting what is there and replacing it with what I do or don't like, I let the different sources speak for themselves. Things can always be further refined, but we have to respect the different viewpoints on this subject. Tiamut^talk 18:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You say we should respect all sources, but I did not hear you object to Nableezy removing the sources I had previously added! I am restoring them since we are providing all points of view here. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About this edit resinserting the same material rejected time again, retaining information from outdated historical sources or providing too much detailed discussion on the historical development of the interplay between Egyptian and Arab identities is beyond the scope of this page. That's what the link to Egyptians#Identity, prefaced with the sentence "For more information..." is for. Please self-revert. Tiamut^talk 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are in no position to state what is outdated and what is not. Nothing on Wikipedia states that sources from 40 or 50 or 60 years ago are outdated. And since you are bringing references from more than a decade ago, I too have the right to put sources from decades ago. As long as they are pertinent to the topic, which they are. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 18:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You said a source from 1998 is too old, but you are inserting a statement from 1931 and another from 1946. Both those sources predate the revolution which saw an emergence of Arab nationalism in Egypt and a corresponding rise in identification as Arabs. They predate the naming of the state as "The Arab Republic of Egypt". I suppose there could be a dating system in which 1998 is before 1946 which is before 1931, but unfortunately for you the Gregorian calendar does not use such a system. nableezy - 18:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lanternix, if you are familiar with Egyptian history (and I'm sure you are), you know that using sources from decades ago when Egyptian nationalist narratives favoured a Pharoanic rather Arab identity without contextualizing the content is misleading. It is use of a primary source, rather than a scholarly source discussing Egyptian identity and the ethnic makeup of Egypt. Its not NPOV to present it as fact, unattributed. And there is no space in this article for an extended discussion of Egypt's identity narratives over the last century. We should quote a few sources that mention percentage figures with brief definitions of terms in footnotes if possible and a link to Egyptian#Identity. Your last edit is WP:UNDUE. Please self-revert. Tiamut^talk 18:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I said a source from 1996 is old by your logic, since you want to remove sources that contradict your point of view, not because you believe they are old, but because you disagree with their content. If you want to use this logic, then I am removing sources that are older than 2002 and only my sources will remain. I am only using your logic here. This is a 2 way road. Either provide everything or only provide the most recent sources. Tiamut, your argument is completely POV. We are not talking here about whose opinion is pan-Arabist and whose opinion is Egyptian nationalistic. Not to mention that ALL the sources I am providing here are written by non-Egyptians, so to claim that they wrote what they wrote because they were Egyptian nationalists is unbelievable and inaccurate. If you want just want to mention a few sources that put forward numbers, as you claimed in your previous paragraph, then remove that sentence saying that in general Egyptians Muslims are considered Arabs, because they are NOT and you have no way to prove that most of them do. Like I told you before, many many Muslim Egyptians do NOT believe they are Arabs, and I already gave you many names. So just provide numbers and remove that statement. That being said, I will stop editing this page since Mr. Nableezy is warning me of 3RR!!! Funny considered both of you are sticking up against me. Of course it would be very easy for me to use your tactic and ask for some of my friends' help, in which case you will find tens of users reverting your edits, and you will feel overwhelmed, as I do right now. But before I do this, I am offering to settle this dispute in a civilized manner on the talk page. It's your call. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 18:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont "ask for some of my friends' help", is just so happens that two different users feel that the use of sources from 60-80 years ago gives us no information on Arab identity among Egyptians. They give useful information on the history of Arab identity among Egyptians, but they do not say anything as to how it is now. Many, many Egyptians consider themselves Arab, and a recent source has been provided that says 90% and another that says that the 2 major groups in Egypt are "Arab Muslims" and "Coptic Christians". A source from 1931 provides absolutely nothing of any value in saying how many Egyptians are Arabs. Nor does a source from 1946. 10 years old is not comparable to 60 or 80 years old. nableezy - 19:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Lanternix, you seem to be misunderstanding Nableezy's "logic". 1996 and 2002 are obviously after 1952, while 1931 and 1946 are before. Also, I don't think Tiamut is saying those who wrote your sources are Egyptian nationalists (al-Husri is actually a forefather of Arab nationalism), but that when those sources were written, a stricter Egyptian nationalism (and pan-Islamism) dominated Egyptian politics and society. After the 1948 War and the revolution, identifcation with the Arabs was on the rise and almost eclipsed regional nationalism. Egypt till this day is more or less the de facto leader of the Arab world in many aspects including cultural. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Al Ameer Son, the fact that Egyptians are the region's leaders in many respect does NOT make Egyptians Arabs! Americans are by far the leaders of English language culture in the world today, but no one dares calling Americans English, does one?! And many many people in Egypt today reject the Arab label, and say they are only Egyptians not Arabs. Refer to the sources I just added for more. Pan-Arabism was never the mainstream in Egypt. It was always a foreign ideology imposed by the government on the people. And today it is weaker than ever. We have peace with Israel and we care mostly about our domestic concerns (watch the Egyptian foreign minister's interview with Amr Adib from a year ago). To claim that Egyptians are Arabs or that Egyptians self-identify as Arabs is erroneous and easily refutable! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 19:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Al Ameer son for understanding the points raised and clarifying them. Lanterniz, while I appreciate your effort to find more contemporary sources per this edit here, there is still the issue of WP:UNDUE. There are too many bytes devoted to (one side) of a subject that is related to this article but are better covered in depth at Egyptians#Identity. Perhaps you could move some of it there and find a way to summarize it here? Otherwise it will have to be balanced with at least as many bytes expressing the opposite viewpoint and others in between. This subject is certainly not straightforward but I think we can find an inoffensive way to summarize it and lead people to read in more detail at Egyptians#Identity without reprinting half of that section here. Tiamut^talk 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok Tiamut, what do you suggest we say? --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 19:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)What kind of sources are these? They don't prove anything. I don't understand how these two sources are relevant at all: the first is a welcome page for Canada's Foreign Affairs Institue-the words Arabs and Egyptians are not mentioned anywhere. This one is a page for Arab singles. Another source quoting Zahi Hawass is about him saying that King Tut is not African. Hawass then says 'Egyptians are not Arabs...". He's saying the Egyptians are not ancestrally Arabs or Africans. He doesn't talk about the status of Egyptians today. And the Arabic news source says there is one political party in Egypt that wants to isolate Egyptians from Arab identification. The article then states "However, there are in Egypt some 18 political parties with the majority are margined and some of them are frozen over differences among their leaders, but there is no one party among them that denies Egypt's Arabization or raises doubt on this issue despite the fact many of them call in its programs to revive the values of the ancient Egyptian civilizations." Also, I'm not saying just because Egypt leads the Arabs (more or less) its people are "Arabs". That's just another reason to add to the growing list presented to you above that you keep trying to disprove with unreliable, outdated, and misinterpreted sources or blogs. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok Tiamut, I'm waiting for your suggestions. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 20:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Before there are any suggestions, some clear, reliable sources need to be provided saying "Egyptians are not Arabs". I'm not saying all Egyptians identify as Arabs, but most Egyptian Muslims indeed do according to the reliable sources provided. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Zahi Hawas: Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa
2. Mohesen Lutfi el-Sayed: We are Egyptians and not Arabs. The Arabs are our friends and neighbors and we have common destiny. But we are not Arabs
3. Egyptians had to be made, often forcefully, into "Arabs" [during the Nasser era] because they did not historically identify themselves as such. Haeri, Niloofar. Sacred language, Ordinary People: Dilemmas of Culture and Politics in Egypt. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2003, pp. 47, 136.
4. Ethnic groups [in Egypt]: 98% Egyptian, Berber, Nubian, Bedouin, Beja 1%, Greek, Armenian, other European 1%. Safire, William (2004). The New York Times guide to essential knowledge. pp. 1074. ISBN 0-312-37659-6.
5. Ethnic composition [of Egypt]: Egyptian 99.8%, others 2%. Encyclopedia of World Geography - North Africa. 2002. pp. 2179. ISBN 0-7614-7289-4.

--Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 20:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Lanternix, source #1 is not a reliable source for this. Its a passing comment made the antiquities chief is an odd context.

Source #2 notes that this is a minority movement.

Source #3 is discussing the historical shift towards Arabism as exemplified by the rise of Nasser.

Source 4 is William Safire, who is not an RS on this subject as far as I can tell and may be using a racial/gene based definition of identity.

Source 5 is true. 99.8% of people in Egypt identify as Egyptian. But we have other sources that show that many of them identify as Arab too. Those sources are the ones you keep deleting or downplaying in the article by restoring your version (which was also repeatedly restored by an anon IP, leading to this page's protection against anon edits. Strangely, right after that, you edited to restore it again. Are you socking?) Tiamut^talk 22:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Lanternix, why is it that you insist on saying "Many" Egyptian Muslims reject the idea that Egyptians are Arabs? None of your sources actually support that, they only support that "some" Egyptian Muslims feel that way. And which source supports the wording "other state that neither Muslim nor Christians in Egypt are Arabs and that neither of them consider themselves Arabs." when discussing Egyptian identity today, not 60 or 80 years ago? Which sources actually support what you and your ip pals are shoving into this article? nableezy - 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am overlooking the "socking" allegations. I've been there before with Nableezy and I'm sure he remembers what the end result of that was. The fact that many people disagree with you does not imply socking. Now:

You claim my sources are not reliable, and I can do the same with yours. Let's not go down that road. If you don't like my sources, please let me know why you don't.

The historical shift into how some Egyptians have come to believe they are Arabs is crucial to the argument at hand, especially that only 50 or 60 years ago, very very few Egyptians would have said anything like that.

Identity is overwhelmingly a "genetics" thing, whether you like it or not. Like I told you in a different section on this page, if you wake up tomorrow believing you are Russian, or if your government announces tomorrow morning on TV that all you and your compatriots are Russians, does NOT mean you have magically turned overnight into one.

I am offering for you again and again to come up with a compromise paragraph and let's discuss it. I;m not sure why you never do and then you complain about me restoring the initial version that was reached with some compromise on all sides! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 23:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If by "been there before with Nableezy" you meant this I was not at all involved with that so I have no idea what you are talking about. But this evades the issue and I too would like to get something done here. See my request above. nableezy - 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your above request has been honored. I hope you will be keeping a more compromising attitude in return. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but the next issue for me, since we are going from your version as the base, is "that neither of them consider themselves Arabs." Could you provide a source that says this is true for current Egyptian Muslims. If the source only speaks to the past it can stay but it cant imply that this is how it is now. nableezy - 00:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the current version is NOT my version. I had a quite different version, and the current one is only a compromise between the views of both sides. As for your request, there are many sources that state that both Egyptians before Nasser as well as contemporary Egyptians - regardless of religion - did NOT and do NOT consider themselves Arabs. Just as one example of many, here's a link by the famous Egyptian writer "Ahmed Ragab" in a renowned Egyptian newspaper "Al-Masry Al-Yom" about what modern Egyptians think of Arabism: [5] Let me know if you want me to translate it. There are also all these other sources by Hawas, Okasha, Qemny, Ashmawy, el-Sayed and many other "contemporary" and very well known Egyptian Muslims who say Egyptians are Egyptians not Arabs. These sources are already in the article. Let me know if you you'd like hem copied again here. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 00:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont need a translation, and there are many Egyptians who call themselves Arabs now, but they only speak for themselves just like those quoted in the article you provided. What I am asking for is a source that supports the wording that "Egyptian Muslims" as a whole do not consider themselves Arabs as the article currently says. nableezy - 00:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The article interviewed 7 Egyptians, at least 6 of whom are Muslims based on their names. ALL of them agreed that Arab nationalism is part of the past and only brought destruction to the country. Ahmed Ragab himself writes at the beginning of the article saying "Our culture is what defines our identity and our personality. When we read, we realize who we are. We then go on to write lines in a history of which we might constitute a piece. And if pan-Arabism was the culture that defined our identity in the 1960's, we know have no clue as to what it means. We don't even know who brought us that term, as we have condemned anyone living in the era of [Arab] unity to be civilizationally retarded. Pan-Arabism has become for most young people a delusion and some unrealistic dream". Here is a statement about contemporary Egyptians, made by a famous contemporary Egyptian writer, making reference to MOST young Egyptians today. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 01:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source that talks about these issues from a broader level. It is not focusing on what 7 people and one writer think, but rather discusses the various aspects that make up the cultural and ethnic identity of Egyptians. It discusses an "Egyptian Identity" which is based on a national history emphasizing the pharonic period and one which Christians were particularly drawn to. It also discusses a "Mediterranean Identity" which sought to emphasize links with Europe and the West, which again found strong support among Copts but naturally less accepted among Muslims. It then discusses an Egyptians as "African" but says that while this it is true that Egypt is "physically a part of Africa" that most Egyptians do not think of themselevs as African in the same way that they think of themselves as Arab. It then discusses Egyptians as "Arab". It says that though this way of thinking has had a great appeal to Muslim Egyptians because of the emphasis on language, it has not been accepted by many Copts since it denies them a sense of pride in their non-Arab identity. It then discusses the national identity as "Muslim". The source says that clearly, this school has held very little appeal for Copts then gives one exception of a politician saying he was "Christian in faith and Muslim in nationality". This is a complicated topic and making statement like "most Egyptian Christians and Muslims reject an Arab identity" is not what we should be doing. nableezy - 02:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your paragraph is very misleading. Firstly, I honored 2 of your requests and removed the term "most" or "many", replacing it with "some", so I'm not sure what the purpose of your last sentence is, since it makes a pretty mute point. Secondly, I brought you first hand evidence of words spoken and written by members of the Muslim Egyptian community, and prominent members thereof, declaring Egyptians are not Arabs. All you provide are 2nd hand statements written by people other than Egyptian Muslims. Which sources would bear more weight in that case, in your opinion? And nevertheless, I am still willing to present both POVs in the articles, which I believe to be rather generous. Bottom line: many Egyptian Muslims do not believe Egyptians are Arabs, and the champions of Egyptian nationalism, who were also always the fiercest opponents of pan-Arabism, have alawys been Egyptian Muslims. You have the names and the references. We'll have to work out the article with them taken into consideration. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 02:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of my last sentence was that there is a sentence in the article that reads some writers say that for both Muslims and Christians in Egypts "that neither of them consider themselves Arabs." That sentence is saying that there is a source that says that Muslims in Egypt as a whole do not see themselves as Arab. I would like a source for the sentence that a writer has said that Muslims in Egypt as a whole do not see themselves as Arabs as that is what is currently in the article. And individual statements from Egyptian Muslims calling themselves Arabs are easy to come by, if you wish I can provide some for you. nableezy - 04:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, an interesting article: Requiem for Arab Nationalism: In Egypt, in Abdel Nasser's house, with all the means utilized by the authoritarian state to implant Arab nationalism into the Egyptian psyche, Egyptian nationalism could not be erased. As late as 1963, after almost a decade of concerted Arab nationalist campaigning, Abdel Nasser voiced his doubts about the depth of the Arab loyalty of his countrymen.[20] Given the inherent strength of this feeling of "Egyptianism," it was hardly surprising that Abdel Nasser's successor, Anwar Sadat, would use it in order to escape the overbearing legacy of his towering predecessor. Sadat began by changing the name of the state from the United Arab Republic to the Arab Republic of Egypt, "where ‘Arab' is only the adjective and ‘Egypt' is the noun."[21] And Sadat's policies, especially after the October 1973 war, which culminated in the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, were motivated solely by considerations of Egypt's interests. These policies were undertaken without regard to the rest of the Arabs; indeed, they were perceived universally in the Arab world to be against the Arab will. Simultaneously, Sadat embarked on a policy of cultural reorientation toward Egypt. This was evident in subtle changes in school curricula, highlighting Egypt's long history, cultural prominence, and unique personality.[22] The government-controlled media similarly spotlighted Egypt's prestige and status in international affairs. By the end of the 1970s, Egyptian nationalism had won the day in Egypt. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 02:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Arabic most of it means Islam

arbic can't be a rec in arabic world it's something difficult ..because all of people live in this are have

shared history...and in the Islamic empire those Peoples are traveling in all this area from the east to

the west and Adversely ..some Tribes have Several distribution in too many countries ..

and most of people in the arab world accept and Pride to being arab without expense of race issue .

let take Egypt for example if u ask any normal personal on any street of egypt what your root he will answer you I'm arabian from egypt .

Islam unit this area by Persuasion. and the islam Language are arabic ..and the arabic race could not Certified for this article because the long and difficult history of this part of the world .

I know that some of Minorities in arabic world are not accept to call them arabian but most of that comes from Leaders of this Minorities to have some politic benefits .

arabic culture and sciences are comes from too many people who are not arabian in the blood but they wort their books and Theory in arabic ..and this scientists accept that because they were muslims .

we can't separate the arabian culture from the islam because the big effect of islam on this area

make them accept and amalgamation withe the other nations around them --Salem F (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

page protected

I've fully protected this article for the next 24 hours to stop the edit war. Work the problems out here before the protection expires. If this warring behavior continues after expiration, the page can be protected longer and/or violators can be blocked. Thanks in advance for everyone's cooperation. - KrakatoaKatie 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to try and reach a compromise here. In fact, I have been trying to reach a compromise all along and I accepted many of the changes made by the other editors. I also provided the information they asked for and added it to the article. I extend my request to Tiamut for the 3rd time to suggest how he would like to change things in the article he currently disagrees with. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For the 4th time, I invite all users edit waring, on both sides, to discuss things in a civil manner on this page before changing what the page says. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 22:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your presentation of sources above. I feel though that we will make little progress here. You seem to sold on presenting a minority POV in this articles and others, where an extended discussion of the historical development and complexities of Egyptian identity is not really warranted. Putting in your sources, requires the inclusion of others expressing the majority POV (that most Egyptians are Arabs), and then the article becomes the subsection Egyptians#Identity rather than about the Arab people. I don't have a one line solution that will solve this problem right now, and I don't have the patience to deal with you persistent reversions to your preferred version until a solutio can be worked out. So congratulations, you and the anon IP can enjoy the distortions that are currently in the article. I'm too exhuasted to bother. Tiamut^talk 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Egypt population and haplotypes.

This link gives the figure of 39% of christian copts carriying "arab" haplotype J1e(Copts 39%)

http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/Hassan-Sudan-2008-AJPA.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1e_(Y-DNA)

Haplotype V is not an Arab marker in fact but a somalian kushite one,sorry.

Still I think that Arabs are more than 1% in Egypt as there are many Egyptians in the north,sinai and said who reclame Arab,Bani Hilal,Bani Assad and Sharif origin.

Also,Senegalians have their own different local bantu and afrasian tongues,French being only an administrative lingua franca.

Humanbyrace (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude, cut that nonsense! Haploytpe V is NOT an Arab haplotype, and neither is J1e! 45% of Arabs have it and 39% of Copts. So what?! Did you actually read that paper you posted here:

http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/Hassan-Sudan-2008-AJPA.pdf

It says NOTHING about either of these haplotypes being Arab. If anything, it was the Arabs who took from the Egyptians (aka. Copts). Egyptians numbered millions and have always outnumbered the Arabs. This is true until today. Some of the Arabs have Egyptian origins (Hajar, Maria el Qibteya) etc, but Egyptians have NO Arab blood other than that of the few thousand Arabs who invaded Egypt in the 7th century. Any genetic similarity between the two groups are explained by the influence of the Egyptians on the Arabs, and not the other way around. Bottom line: Egyptians are NOT Arabs. Egyptians existed even before the word "Arab" did. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 23:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And identity is fluid and not genetically-based anyway and both of you are making OR conclusions not made by the sources. Not a very useful discussion as regards article improvement. Tiamut^talk 23:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Identity is not alcohol. It's NOT fluid. It is genetically determined, in the overwhelming majority of cases. If you wake up tomorrow believing you are Russian, it does not mean your identity has magically turned into a Russian one. It only means you need to see a psychiatrist. There are lots of "identity"-related disorders they deal with. Please note that this is exactly what happened in Egypt: some moron known as nasser woke up one day and decided that Egyptians are Arabs, and whoooplaaa! Magic! Egyptians became "Arabs"! Does that even make any sense? Even remotely?!!! --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Identity is constructed. How you (as in the general you) choose to identify is a product of upbringing, influenced by language, culture, and an experience of a shared history. The definition of Arab for this article, based on reliable sources, encapsulates that idea quite neatly. Tiamut^talk 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The huge amount of Arab haplotype J1e amongst Copts(39% of Egyptian Christians are J1 whereas Egytian mslims are only 26% j haplotype) is due to:

1/Very early pre Abrahamic neolitihc dated semitic migrations to Egypt who carried Afro-asian language,agriculture and also mythology(amun/atun)to Egypt and mixed with local E1b1b1 carriying population.

2/Historical Semitic migrations to Egypt(shashu,hebrews,hyksos,philistins,canaanites,bablonians..)

You could see this depcition of local Egyptians(the ones with darker skin and naked trunk)together with Semitics(the ones with fair skin and wearing clothes)

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6910/benihassanasiatiques1.jpg

3/migrations and mixing of christian Arabs with local christian Egyptians.

Whereas haplotype composition of egyptian muslims is much more complex due to foreign migrations+colonisation which will not be found amongst endogamous copts.

Here haplotype composition of Egyptian muslims:

http://thegeneticatlas.com/World_Y-DNA.htm

haplotype E1b1b1=43% of muslim Egyptians(Somal/Kushite population)

haplotype J=26% of muslim Egyptians(middle-eastern Semite populaion)

haplotype G=9% of muslim Egyptians(caucasians=mamelouk,abaza etc...)

haplogroup R=9% of muslim Egyptians(Europeans=Greeks,Anatolians,Albanians...)

haplogroup CT=7% of muslim Egyptians(cental asian Turks for C haplotype and Nubi/Ethiopians for haplotype T)

3 conclusions:

1/Egyptian population is not ethnically egyptian(as no one Egyptian has coptic as mother tongue)

2/not all Egyptian population is genetically Egyptian(as there are many haplotypes carried by various peoples arriving at different and many periods to Egypt)

3/J haplotype percentage is lower amongst Egyptian muslims than amongst Egyptian christians due to endogamy amongs Egypt's christians.

Also E1b1b1 haplotype IS NOT CONSIDERED EGYPTIAN MARKER AS ITS ORIGIN IS SINAI 25K YEARS AGO SO FAR OLDER THAN THE EMERGENCE OF EGYPTIANS AND COPTIC TONGUE AND THIS HAPLOTYPE IS ALSO SHARED B SOMALI,ETIOPIANS AND BERBERS....

perhaps haploype J is "more egyptian" than E1b1b1 haplotype.

Humanbyrace (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

kindly refrain from posting garbled nonsense to Wikipedia talkpages. If it is your opinion that 'haploype J is "more egyptian" than E1b1b1 haplotype', or similar hilarities, let the world know on your blog. --dab (𒁳) 16:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the pictures and editing

I dont think that the "Arabs" that were on the infobox should be placed here. This is because "Arab" in its purest form means from Arabian Peninsula, so thats why I think King Faisal RA of Saudi ARABIA should be in the picture instead of Gamal Abdulnasser of Egypt (a country with so much foreign and Western influence) and some other people they put there which I dont think represent Arabs well. This is because of the two main streams of Arab culture: the Arabian Gulf/Peninsula culture (with many variations itself) and the Greek and Ottoman influenced culture seen most in Sham (the Levant like Lebanon, Egypt, Syria) and I think while they have the right to call themselves Arabs (even though it may not be true) I think that Arabians (from Arabian Peninsula) represent true Arabic culture, whether they say its not as sophisticated as the Ottoman-influenced Sham is another issue, but my point is thta true Arabian culture is not represented by Ottoman-Greek influenced Levantine culture. So please dont start an edit war and undo my changes. If you can, help me by making an info box with the images and contact me if you need more. Its just that I see too much Greek and Ottoman influence in the pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdullahKhaleeji7 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's more useful to have an image specifically relevant to individual sections in those sections, rather than just a montage of decorative images in the infobox. But more importantly, please read the first paragraph of the article to see the working definition of "Arab people" for purposes of this article. You cannot base your decisions of the iconic Arab images on your interpretation or any other etymology than the one agreed for this article. DMacks (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nasser self-identified as Arab and was widely viewed as one of the most influential Arabs of his time. Arab does not mean from the Arabian peninsula, in its "purest" form or any other form. nableezy - 05:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not this again, the pictures were agreed upon after long discussions to prevent too much complaining (and we haven't had much, see the archives to see why the people were picked), and no, it does not matter whether one is a descendant of arabised Arabs or not, they're still Arabs if they identify as such. Galleries in the article text are not a good idea either, if this article is ever to be featured or similar, as these are discouraged by policy. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Galleries removed. And I agree with keeping it that way.--Xevorim (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove the gallery, it is representative of my people, the Gulf Arabs, who are the original peninsular Arabs and have a lot of influence. I will not delete other pictures so please do not delete my contribution. I want the world to see the real Arabs not the Greek, Persian, and Ottoman influenced Levantine Arabs but if you insist on leaving them I will not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdullahKhaleeji7 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not continue edit-warring something in that a number of other editors see a problem with. Your idea that Gulf Arabs are the "real" Arabs is both unfounded and irrelevant. We can include, and do include, pictures of Gulf Arabs in the article. nableezy - 16:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not edit warring I am simply adding constructive material that is absolutely essential to the representation of Arabs. We need to reach a consensus or compromise. I put the gallery at THE END of the article and I am not deleting any more of your pictures so please dont delete mine. If you think a gallery is a bad idea, which I can reluctantly accept because there is a gallery at the beginning, I can put individual pictures in different secttions. Please stop deleting because I stopped deleting and I want to discuss this instead of fight.AbdullahKhaleeji7 (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdullahKhaleeji7 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You have already been blocked once for this, you might be permanently banned if you continue that way. This article is about all Arabs, not only Gulf Arabs, so your proposed changes will never be implemented. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont want to make this only about Gulf Arabs. If this article is about all Arabs, why do I only see Levantine Arabs then? I am not edit warring or vandalizing or anything like that because a. I have stopped deleting the pictures meaning I want to compromise and b. I am trying to discuss this. So my point is, I dont want to make this only about Gulf Arabs, but it seems to me like its only about Levantine Arabs. I want to incorporate Gulf Arabs into the article. I as a Gulf Arab (Saudi) can not let my people be represented only by Levantine Arabs I have nothing to do with. AbdullahKhaleeji7 (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is not "about" Levantine Arabs just because they are overrepresented in the pictures, that's silly. If you want more images of Gulf Arabs, simply put some in, but not in a gallery, and please don't replace the images that are already there. We have three South Arabians in the infobox, and three Levantine, but many ancient Arabs were from what is now Syria, so having Syrians in the article does not necessarily mean these are arabised. Furthermore, ancient Arabic is known from places such as Jordan and Syria, not only in the Gulf region. FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• The images you add have to be free, you can't add images like this[6] where the source is unknown, they will get deleted. Search Wikimedia Commons for free images. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the gallery is a better idea because it makes the article look more organized, rather than adding the pictures scattered throughout the article. I dont know why you people are so agressive about this. How many of you are actually Arab? I as an Arab feel this page needs to be changed to better represent my people. And about the image, it is public domain it has no copyright it was taken in Qatar 60 years ago by an unknown photograper. A historic public domain photograph. AbdullahKhaleeji7 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Galleries are discouraged on Wikipedia, that's just how it is. As for the images you are adding, they will all be deleted, since none of them are free and have false licenses. Please find free images instead. The Qatar image might have been published outside Qatar, we don't know, so it can't be used. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, the gallery was provided by the user Gimmetrow as an attempt to make a compromise. I was just trying to incorporate it into the article I think its perfect. Please can we all just get along and have the gallery at the end of the article? If not, then at least keep the pictures on the article without the gallery to make it more representative of all Arabs not ONLY Levantine Arabs or ONLY Gulf Arabs, but both. I realize there may be people here from Al Sham (Levant) that have pride in their civilization, and I as a Gulf Arab have pride in mine, but lets make room for both of our people not just one or the other, please! AbdullahKhaleeji7 (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They dont have false licenses they are all free non copyrighted images. AbdullahKhaleeji7 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There will be no gallery, and none of the images had a source, so they're useless here. Add the sources, or find other images. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• In spite of my reversions of Abdullah's edits (which is on grounds of copyright, not the images themselves), I agree that more images of non-Levantine Arabs should be added to the article. If someone can think of usable images, please propose them here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's contradictory to call Egyptians non Arabs(according to non specialists like William Saphire and Anwar Okasha who are not anthropologues nor geneticians)then put the picture of an Egyptian(Gamal abdelnasser)as an Arab.

Either you consider Egyptian as Arabs or you shall delete dictator Gamal picture.

For levant and north africa Arabs ,a great part of them are both genetically Arab(haplogroup J)and culturally Arab.

There is not an ottoman or Greek influences on them but rather the opposite.

It's western semitic canaanites(same as western semitic Arabs)who gave Greeks the alphabet and gods: apollo/baal,tanit/diana.

For the religion,again it's the western semites who made greeks christians.

Same is for ottomans who have an Arab religion,and used to use Arabic script and till nowadays a great part of Turkish is made of Arabic words and litterary styles(and even some Grammatical features)I know that cos Turkish is my second mother tongue ,also I know ottoman Turkish and some Persian.

BTW,why my others suggestions for improvement of this article have been deleted? Humanbyrace (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • It is pretty clear that Nasser identified as an Arab, and that's the bottom line, and he fits the definition well. Who knows, he might have been a descendant of the Arab invaders, and even if he wasn't, all that counts is his self identification. As for deleted talk page comments, I haven't notice dit. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Long list of tribes

Is that really necessary? Those would be better off in an article about Arab tribes, but are not useful here, might be if it was severely summarised and sourced. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The founder of modern Saudi Arabia, King Abdul Aziz, converses with U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on board a ship returning from the Yalta Conference in 1945

Another problem is that the history section doesn't go past ancient times. If it did, we could have images like the one on the right. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up. The list of "tribal migrations" are distracting bits. I agree with the removal of that info which was unsourced anyway if I recall. Now as much I want to improve info on the modern history of the Arab people, the entire history section needs much more development, restructuring and reorganizing. The Arabs have a pretty long history so we'll just stick to the important stuff. I suggest we start a new section on this talk page on what needs to be added and rewritten in the section. What do you think? --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This talk page needs to be stripped of useless personal theories, by the way, seems to pop up all the time. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

arabs in egypt

arabs in egypt is only 2%?? from where u get this?? i guess an christian egyptian angry guy write this .. like the guy who write that christian are 20% in egypt while they are only 6-8%.. sorry for disappoint him .. but arabs todady in egypt are 60%-90%.. and about the arabs in UAE it's says 40%?? did he include tourists ?? .. and all countries are giving low and wrong percentage .. no idea why? .. sorry to say this Article is bullshit.. sorry of my language.. but this is an universal encyclopedia.. and they should not let any stupid one edit on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.178.99.64 (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A List of popular Arab names

I think it will be interesting to start a list of popular Arab figures in the modern world, as well as in history. mizzo (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why not start one then. Most similar articles have a "Notable X" section. But it will lead to edit wars, so I suggest [as always] that for the purposes of this article, "Arab" is anyone whose native language is Arabic. ^Izzedine 17:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a former article List_of_Arabic_names, but that was deleted for reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_given_names, and you should consider what was said there before putting a lot of work into a new article. However, for some reason List of Arabic theophoric names and the list at Arabic_name#Arabic_names_and_their_biblical_equivalent do survive... AnonMoos (talk)

I don't think he or she meant names, or a new article.. ^Izzedine 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Then it's not at all clear to me what he or she may have meant... AnonMoos (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• "a list of popular Arab figures in the modern world, as well as in history". ^Izzedine 10:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is such a lsit for Maronites and Druze, linked to at the respective pages. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)