Historical Correctness (Arab or Persian)

Written to John McHugo and raised below questions about his article on BBC website titled as:

"Coffee and qahwa: How a drink for Arab mystics went global"

Link to Article : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22190802

Link to Contact form : http://www.johnmchugo.com/contact/?contact-form-id=51&contact-form-sent=205&_wpnonce=a860bc5de6#contact-form-51

As per below:
=======================================================================

Hello Sir,

I came across your very well written article here about coffee:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22190802

Very good work indeed! However I mentioned a few points that in my knowledge had entered your article in error. Obviously I am not a historian but I guess it worth for these to be double checked and if you can clarify:

1) The Article mentions alcohol was first distilled in the Arab world in c800AD by Jabir Ibn Hayyan from Kufa in Iraq, and the word "alcohol" derives from the Arabic "al kuhul"...

To my understanding Alchohol was first distilled by al-Razi from the city of Ray. And shall this be the case al-Razi was incidentally a Persian.
You are correct with the name of Alcohol. As Arabic was Lingua franca of Islamic world, so al-Razi used it within that capacity.

2) Also there is no prove Al-Kharazmi and Jabir Ibn Hayyan were from Arabic background. Equally there is no prove they were from Persian background neither.  The reason we don’t know is it didn’t matter at their time so no one mentioned it! And it doesn’t really matter now.

But for correctness sake they were most likely to have been Persians. Because Hayyan was born in Tus in Khorasan (moved to Kufa in Iraq later on in his life) and Al-Kharazmi as name indicates was from Kharazm. So chances are bigger for them to have been Persians.

3) I am not sure who invented the 3 course meal concept. Not really that important but perhaps it worth checking if this was also done the same way in Sassanid or Byzantium courts prior to Muslim Empire emergence before we conclude this as an Arabic tradition.

I have a feeling this tradition could be adopted custom from Persian Sassanid or less likely the Byzantine court.

4) The word Cheque is said to be from Persian origin. From Middle Persian word ‘chek’ used for the same purpose. This word is said to have become popular during Aachamenid Empire (like 1000 years before Islam) and was borrowed by several languages including Arabic and European languages equally.

It had become “Cheque” in European Languages and “saqq” in Arabic.

Thanks for your attention and clarification.

Regards,

==============================================================
John McHugo's Reply:

Thank you for your interesting and informative email and for the nice things you say about my article on coffee.

You may be interested that in my book I refer to the sciences of the Middle East in the period from approx 750AD onwards as "Arabic", rather than "Arab". This is to acknowledge that many people wrote scientific treatises in Arabic but were not necessarily "Arabs" in an ethnic sense. As you know, it is sometimes hard to tell whether someone at that time was using Arabic as his native language. The great Razi to whom you refer wrote his treatises in Arabic, I believe. 

With regard to the word "cheque", I think you will find that the word came into European languages from the Arabic "saqq". The forms of "s" (the Arabic letter known as sad and "q" (the Arabic letter qaf) are sounds that do not occur in Indo-European languages, which suggests to me that it is probably a native Arabic word. It also fits naturally into the three radical letter pattern of Arabic philology.

Kind regards

John McHugo 

The Encounter

By: Sandbad

On last grade of high school back in Iran, when I was still considering myself a “Progressive Muslim” I was discussing with some of my devout Shia Muslim friends (some of them active members of Basij) about a controversial Shia Islam ceremony where Shia Muslims celebrate Omar’s (second caliph) death. 

I argued with them maybe caliph Omar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar) wasn’t as bad as we Shia people like to think because according to the book which I recently read about Mohammad's life (محمد پیامبری که از نو باید شناخت) once Omar who was a dominate and known figure in Mecca at the time converted to Islam this was such a significant event in social terms and such a breakthrough for the new religion of Islam that the pagan non-Muslims which were conspiring to get rid of Muhammad by killing him at the time had to phase out that option because they were afraid of Omar’s reaction.

So I was telling a bunch of Shia Muslims who were indoctrinated to hate Omar (due to his disputed role in killing Prophet’s daughter from Shia perspective) that Omar by converting to Islam saved Islam from annihilation on its early stages because otherwise the Muhammad enemies would have killed him before he had a chance to propagate his religion.

My friends reaction was one of doubt and uncertainty and so they referred me to our religious studies teacher for him as a Shia Muslim clergyman to answer my doubts and questions.  And so we went to visit him outside school hours in a ceremony organized by some of my classmates in a friend’s house in commemoration of some Shia Imam’s Martyrdom (هیات)

We attended from beginning and finally after all chest beating and mourning and crying was over in front of everyone (mostly other kids from our school) I got the chance to ask our clergyman teacher what I thought about Omar and why I thought the way I did. So I argued that if Omar hadn't converted to Islam at that very early stage of Islam the prophet’s enemies probably would have killed him and no Islam would ever come to exist that we now argue about the Sunni or Shia of it.

In response by totally ignoring the historical context I was giving him he carried on with emphasizing on why Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali) was a more important figure in history of Islam by mentioning some of the great things he had achieved in service of Islam.

I already knew what he was saying about Ali and obviously the importance of Ali wasn't a reason to convince me why Omar wasn't important “enough” to be appreciated or at least not hated by Shiites. So I acknowledged what he said about the significance of Ali but I also asked that maybe Omar doesn't deserve the hatred we are meant to give him as Shia Muslims because of his role in saving Prophet Mohammed’s life in early days of Islam.

I could read from the clergyman’s face that he already had enough. He tried to stay calm and he attempted again to convince me by emphasizing on Ali’s importance (totally ignoring my question was concerning Omar’s role)

This time he made a totally irrelevant example about when Mohammed paid to compensate Abu Bakr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr) when he helped him to flee Mecca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(Islam) ) while he didn't pay Ali at all even though during the same escape Ali also helped him (by sleeping in his bed made the besiegers think Mohammad was still at home and bought time for him to escape) he argued this was because Ali was meant to be a part of Islam so therefore Prophet didn't have to pay him while Abu Bakr wasn't meant to be a part of Islam so the Prophet had to pay him off for his help!!!

To this I first acknowledged that Ali was meant to be successor of Prophet and part of Islam as he was saying but in addition argued that Ali was Mohammad’s cousin and still very young and Mohammad was also like a father to him but Abu Bakr was a mature man who had family and a few wives to feed. Maybe that was why Abu Bakr was paid and Ali wasn’t?

This was the last straw. He looked back at me completely frustrated and angry and shouted that:

“Omar has taken the ‘Light’ from us. Don’t you understand?” 

From the ‘Light’ I knew he means prophet’s daughter Fatima which Shia believe was unjustly killed by caliph Omar.  He then continued by urging the attendants to say ‘Salavat’ multiple times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_be_upon_him_(Islam)) while I was so daunted by the possible consequences of the mess I stupidly put myself in that I blended in with the ‘Salavat’ frenzy and shouted ‘Salavats’ as loud as everyone else.  And I made sure my angry clergyman teacher saw me while I was responding to his call for ‘Salavat’

When ‘Salavat’ session was over, deep down I was still not convinced with insignificance of Caliph Omar in Islamic history and that I needed to hate him as a historical figure from a Shia perspective.  But fearing the clergyman’s worst reaction if I continued questioning I pretended that I was convinced with his “has taken the light” argument and walked out as soon as I could without offending anyone.

This encounter didn't make me to leave Islam. It didn't even make me to stop calling myself a Shia Muslim. At the time I didn't even know enough about fallacies to understand the teacher was avoiding my question about Caliph Omar by emphasizing Ali’s role all the time. But I could feel there was something wrong.

That night when I was walking back home I explained it to myself that the clergyman was a backwardly Muslim and I was a progressive one so that was why he couldn't understand all the progressive things I had to say! And in my thoughts I blamed him and people like him for putting others off from "Progressive Islam"

The progression which in my opinion now will inevitably ends in Atheism ...

Ice Lettuce

By: Sandbad Ex Muslim

It was after work, just end of another pointless day in Wigan. As usual on my way back I went to town center to shop for some groceries to prepare dinner. At that time of day Wigan town center offers two types of shopping. First is a massive Morrisons super market selling all different sort of things and second a local market with many small shops in it.

I walked past the Morrisons and made my way into local market and went straight to where a green grocery ran by a group of bearded and mustache-less men is located right opposite a chip shop which sells fried half chickens. Didn't feel like chicken that day as it was what I had for last several days so went straight to greengrocers to buy some salad veggies.

Asked for prices, cucumber was 70p each, ice lettuce 69p each and tomato 1.70 per kilo. Couldn't help not saying something to the greengrocer with his distinctive bearded and mustache-less appearance so I joked:

You planning to bankrupt Morrisons or what? You are selling ice lettuce much cheaper!

He asked in response:

How much is ice lettuce in Morrisons?

“One pound” I said and while I was picking the tomatoes and putting them inside a plastic bag I said:

You would expect Morrisons to sell ice lettuce much cheaper! Isn't it? If you as a small shop can sell them 69p each and still make a profit we can assume Morrisons should be able to sell them even cheaper as it owns an established chain of supply and a massive economy of scale.

Then I passed the bag full of tomatoes to greengrocer to weigh and looked at him unsure of his reaction to the comment I just made. I was more expecting him to remain silent and say nothing in response but he looked back at me and to my surprise threw his shoulders up and while he was holding the bag full of tomatoes in his left hand  he raised his right hand in the air as if he was giving a speech to a whole crowd and with a feeling of relief and enthusiasm said:

“Yahood*”!  They are “Yahood*”!!!

I couldn't hold myself from laughing after seeing his reaction and hearing his response. So while I was laughing I tried to sound disappointed and unsure and I told him:

You are stereotyping man! Its not right! I know Jewish people who are not greedy like that.

He looked back at me with all his doubts clear on his face. Then he turned around and got busy with weighing and preparing my bags leaving me to stand there by myself. I didn't say no more, only my hand reached and touched my face just to remind me that I hadn't shaved for a whole week and that I massively look and sound middle-eastern at the same time.

After a while he turned back and handed over my bags. I paid the money and when he was giving back my change, in order to thank me for shopping from his shop he said:

Thank you “brother”!

And I walked away with my ice lettuce, cucumber and tomatoes thinking of the new friend I just made.

*Yahood = Jewish

Righteousness in Islam and BNP

By: Sandbad Ex Muslim

Member of CEMB, Founder and Organizer of Northern Ex-Muslim meet up group

I was reading through Alistair Barbour’s 'anti-nationailst' Weblog here where I came across this leaflet http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/ybnp_keepsafe.pdf

Apparently published to warn younger BNP members from falling victim to child groomers!

Being an ex-Muslim this really attracted my attention due to its heavy use of race and appearance (stereotypic Islamic appearance in this case) as a factor to identify child groomers.

Being from Iran and having lived a majority of my life under an Islamic theocracy which follows the same populist approach in its propaganda against the west (heavy use of stereotypic images and indirect brainwashing) and as an atheist and ex-Muslim; seeing this leaflet I found myself stuck between two extremes of which neither I can relate to.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anti-US_Tehran.jpghttp://www.flickr.com/photos/herwigphoto/2325197354/

(Examples of Iranian stereotypic images and Propaganda)

I have rejected Islam 'and religion in general' and 'as an atheist' I obviously can’t join the extreme Islamic side of the dispute since non-questioning believe in Islam and its official political perspective is the basic requirement of joining the Islamic league. 

On the other hand I can’t become a white British person neither in order to join the BNP side so looking at this leaflet and being from Islamic “race” but no longer a Muslim I feel as being stuck in no man’s land with bullets flying over my head fired from one side by Islamic extremists and on the other side by BNP.

This leaflet is supposed to be a guideline to keep the youth from falling victim to child groomers but in my perspective it fails to do so for several reasons.

Firstly; its emphasis is mostly on the foreign roots of some child grooming cases that have happened in the recent past here in the UK, rather than the more obvious and universal signs of child grooming. 

It is racially based to a level that if the offending paedophile “to be” will be a person from white British background this leaflet almost entirely fails to provide any hint or protection to a potential victim. So in my view by referring to a few well known cases of Muslim child grooming cases the subject of child grooming is being used as a tool to publish racially motivated propaganda by BNP.

Second; this leaflet has a very simplistic approach to a whole complicated social problem. It depicts a certain group of people as the cause of the problem and totally ignores underlying issues behind it. Just as Nazi regime blamed Jews; Iranian Islamic theocracy blames America and Israel, now BNP is indiscriminately blaming brown and bearded Muslims for being the people who are solely responsible for child grooming in order to build up support around the BNP’s racist agenda.  

As if resolution of this problem is a natural consequence of getting rid of all brown and bearded Muslims.

Going back to the subject of Muslim child grooming gangs, during my schooling years in Iran I was introduced to Islam’s “Islamo-centric” point of view which commonly causes Muslims to accept they are superior to everyone else as a result of being Muslims. To me this introduction happened during what I now call a systematic government sponsored brainwashing as a part of normal schooling program in Iran – I later on rejected these ideas and the superficial feeling of superiority which came with it, but I can imagine these men committed and then justified their outrageous acts of child abuse as a result of a similar “Islamo- centric” mind-set.

I think the false feeling of superiority that they had over their victims on ideological and maybe a lesser extend racial bases made them able to commit these acts and then to justify their behaviour for their own consciences. I think as Muslims they saw themselves as legitimately having the “right” to act the way they did towards their victims and saw their victims as deserving no better treatment. 

So in conclusion with their racist point of view, “them and us” point of view, the Muslim child grooming gangs depicted in BNP’s leaflet saw the white victims of theirs as worthless subjects for their sick sexual fantasies who didn’t deserve any better treatment, and so they justified themselves on racial/ideological grounds for inflicting the suffering and abuse they caused to their victims.

While in retaliation with their racist point of view, “them and us” point of view, the BNP is distracting people attention from the real extent of child grooming/human trafficking/child abuse and the real issues behind it concentrating on few incidents of child grooming committed by Muslims to present a simplistic racist propaganda against brown skinned and bearded Muslims.

So this is more like a clash of two racist/extremist ideas to me. On both sides they are unrealistic, ignorant and have simplistic approach to issues. Both sides are hollow and I don’t expect them to do anything for the good of the mankind.

And I leave the reader with a question. Perhaps the most popular case of child abuse/grooming during last and this year was the one from Jimmy Saville – if his victims had known about this leaflet – and followed it line by line – how could this protect them from a paedophile predator who was going to receive a knighthood later on in his life? 

Or perhaps Saville’s case isn’t too bad from a BNP perspective because Saville was a white British person?