>really is an arab because he is fluent in the language?
>
>That makes no sense.
>
sure it does...hispanic=a race not at all, but you are about to answer your own question anyway.
>Where is this definition coming from?

thats their definition and what definition if what they are is better than how they describe it....the foundation of the arabic language was developed with the quran (arabic was scattered and arabs had no nuified identity before that..they were described by their tribes...some dark some light...remember our queen sheba (whateva) had a dual kingdom there..why would we destract ourselves from the enemy in the 3 piece suit for some dirt poor arabs? but here you go you are about to answer your own question.

>Certainly not from the American English standard. Here's
>what Webster's has to say:

ok read...

>Main Entry: Ar·ab
>Pronunciation: 'ar-&b, 'er-; dial also 'A-"rab
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Middle English, from Latin Arabus, Arabs, from
>Greek Arab-, Araps
>Date: 14th century
>1 a : a member of the Semitic people of the Arabian
>peninsula b : a member of an Arabic-speaking people
>2 : ARABIAN HORSE

definition B.....B....B
b : a member of an Arabic-speaking people

*(dont read this if you get bored easy)*
i know the whole afrikhun thing is all about hating islam bt at whos expense? we are making a shift toward giving people more power than they had...the arabs must be the smartest "master race" of them all...look at what they did...they conquered the world...they went into west africa and enslaved a primitive stone age people who's only credit seems to be that they were "spiritual"...it seems that no one could defend themselves from these arabs who within 50 years of their reign of terror...subdued entire continents...sounds interesting..they seem to shift from the portugese and spaniards and the english being the slave holders owners, exporters and for the most part (the latter 2/3rds of the history) the catchers...these mighty arabs who didnt have centralized leadership (by the time slave exports were happening) seem to be responsible for every problem in africa now...its great that no one wants you to believe this..its great that harvard, and the locations of the worlds great think tanks..arent mass producing "african scholors" with the proposed mission to debunk the "myth' of the great white slave owner...and better yet, mystify the entire process of the capture and pillage of west africa in general..we all understand the difference between slavery in america and slavery in iron and bronze age cultures...(slave from slav blah blah blah)..the idea that prisoners of war couldnt be jailed because technology for large scale building wasnt available to some cultures (africans in general, arabs, ect) other stone age cultures developed means of desposing their loosers by means of death in some ritual to not shock the human being by all the carnage (like killing your opponents in hopes that their souls would make you stronger, keeping the scalps, or trophies in general ect)...the west in moving us away from any understanding of WORLD history and culture...and not the fact that things happened but why..eg.. the hause didnt become muslim because they were slaves they were a smaller tribe seeking protection from larger tribes so they allied themselves...slavery still occurs in muslim and non muslim africa....the congo, like it was before..but i dont judge hinduism by the actions of hindus..i judge it based on their intent..the caste system may seem deplorable to the novice in history, but it served a purpose...look it up i am dead tired..slavery in egypt wasnt a means of demeaning individuals, in fact slaves in egypt were a class of individuals who held the right to strike (sometimes at the mercy of the army..lol read it for those who dont know about it its inchrestin')...become a student of human history and the big picture shows itself...muslims are here..so you will have to deal with them....the wisest thing to do is to objectively (and this goes for the muslims also) take a look at the history of all those you can...you will find the deplorable, the beautiful, and the hopeful...objectively. for all the good i learned of ghandi when i was young i learned his views of women, and non indians (his non generalizations), and i switched my view haistily..only to realize after further study, this is the human dilema...this isnt platos world of forms people..this is the real world...and people are just that..people, being ameturish is never the way to build wisdom, and in all of islams beauty and destruction, the wisdom behind it is social order...with some formula..this may not work for you, but it does for some..and didnt for others. the wiser say that the novice believes that everyone will choose his way...i hope to be under their feet someday..so in emulation of their way...i can understand that "others" exist..i just like some of you need to accept that...emulation of the rasool (saw) is not in dress only or talk of the qalb...its in inward adab reflecting itself as outward behavior. he accepted them all. i cant expect this from all the muslims, muchless everyone...i hope "we" get this someday.


>*****
>
>So this must be the basis of your definition "a member of an
>Arabic-speaking people."
>
>If that is the case than being an Arab DOES NOT mean someone
>who simply speak Arabic. (yes it is)

arabs for you viewing pleasure in sudan..those arabs. darn arabs. "no one cried for us when we were being killed"-someone

http://shopping.corbis.com/prodconfig/imagedetails/AL015776.html?bt=http%3A%2F%2Fshopping%2Ecorbis%2Ecom%2Fsearch%2Fproductsearch%2Easp%3Fsearch%3Dsudan%26pf%3D%26sp%3D1%26npp%3D18&search=sudan&navid=top25/sudan&imageid=10188591