how darfur become example of conflict of interest between arab vs non-arab as opposed to ummha
But Darfur is different, since it is a slaughter of Muslims even though they are non-Arabs of African descent. Why? In order to be able to answer this question, we need to make a difference between theory and practice. In theory, Muslims aren’t allowed to slaughter other Muslims. The much-vaunted reference here is the Koranic verse stating that “ only faith and piety will make a difference between an Arab and an “Ajami” (non-Arab).” This explains to a large extent the historic animosity between Islamism and pan-Arabism. While the latter refers to the Arab nation, Islamists refer to the Islamic “Ummah,” considering Arab nationalism as a source of “fitnah” (sedition).
Rvikz, what Saudi Araboobs can do is to refuse Sudanese permission to perform Haj this season. But the truth of the matter is that if Sudanese African Muslims were white, the entire Ummah will be running to save them. I mean, look at the whining and stuff you hear about other places, over 98% of Islamic world can’t even point to Choochniya on a map, but are really concerned about them. Where’s their concern about Darfur? Hello? Similarly, Pakistanis don’t want any more Biharis stranded in Bangladesh for over 30 years. If they were white or Araboobs, they will be in Pakistan yesterday.
Here’s to put it in simple words:
Black = no good
Brown or pee color=acceptable
White=very good and highly acceptable
Madhanee, do you think, that maybe you are exaggerating a little bit?
Oye, Madhanee tuun ajj kal bahut zaida kumheriyan kha raian ai. Aram nall bay ja.
