1st century BC practices

[Ibrahim]

Yeah, that's exactly the type of stuff I'm looking for. I'll check up what moo'rah is, and find sources if I can now that I know what to look for. I'm really really bad at research, or searching in general....I'm more of a "finder", the type that stumbles into random info on said subject.

Thanks a lot, and more feedback will be even better =)

well, now that I have some time, I'll enlighten ye:

muroo'ah literally means "manliness"; its basically everything that is supposed to make the ideal ancient arab man. according to it, a man must have:

-pride in his tribe/state/king.
-absolute loyalty to said tribe and tribe's shaikh (leader), or king or state.
-extreme pride in one's self (must be justifiable pride, otherwise its vanity, and not condoned)
-must be a freewheeling spender on his tribe/women/alcohol*, etc (i.e he must have karam, or generosity)
-must be compassionate, up to a point.
-mst be honest and blunt.
-virility
-bravery in combat.
-devotion to the old social order and religion. this is tied into tribal loyalty.
-help those who ask for it, even if they are bad. this is known as ighathatu ulmalhoof.


and that's just a few examples of what a man must be like. much of pre-islamic poetry talks about all of these in varying details; men boasted of fighting for a woman, killing a man who slights the tribe/family, etc, drinking, spending, and generosit. hati' at-ta'i could be considered the ideal pre islamic arab: generous, loyal, and kind to everybody.

wait, did I just describe European romantic chivalry?

*Arabs did put a limit on how much you could drink. drink too much, and you could become a "mufrad", or tribally expelled.

[Moros]

well, now that I have some time, I'll enlighten ye:

muroo'ah literally means "manliness"; its basically everything that is supposed to make the ideal ancient arab man. according to it, a man must have:

-pride in his tribe/state/king.
-absolute loyalty to said tribe and tribe's shaikh (leader), or king or state.
-extreme pride in one's self (must be justifiable pride, otherwise its vanity, and not condoned)
-must be a freewheeling spender on his tribe/women/alcohol*, etc (i.e he must have karam, or generosity)
-must be compassionate, up to a point.
-mst be honest and blunt.
-virility
-bravery in combat.
-devotion to the old social order and religion. this is tied into tribal loyalty.
-help those who ask for it, even if they are bad. this is known as ighathatu ulmalhoof.


and that's just a few examples of what a man must be like. much of pre-islamic poetry talks about all of these in varying details; men boasted of fighting for a woman, killing a man who slights the tribe/family, etc, drinking, spending, and generosit. hati' at-ta'i could be considered the ideal pre islamic arab: generous, loyal, and kind to everybody.

wait, did I just describe European romantic chivalry?

*Arabs did put a limit on how much you could drink. drink too much, and you could become a "mufrad", or tribally expelled.

Yep an Arab shouldn't drink more than 11 of cups of wine back then IIRC.

I'd say a lot would vary from culture at this time though. In Saba by the first century BC the clan was everything. The king was... well usefull when foreigners attacked. While the Nabataean in the north were making gods of their kings. Though in general they appear to have been men who tought one should be proud on what he has done, yet be humble at the same time. Making fincancial losses was a crime. And they are described to being very devout and faithfull when it comes to pledges, religion, or king/tribe.

[A Very Super Market]

Guns require little skill, and kill at long range. Dishonourable.

[Watchman]

Not that this kept diverse warrior elites from embracing them with gusto, of course. And by all accounts the things are damn scary.

Anyways, methinks modern sensibilities would have some issues with the bygone times' unproblematic attitude to rape, pillage and torture...

[Moros]

Anyways, methinks modern sensibilities would have some issues with the bygone times' unproblematic attitude to rape, pillage and torture...

Ah those were the days.

[Ibrahim]

Yep an Arab shouldn't drink more than 11 of cups of wine back then IIRC.

I'd say a lot would vary from culture at this time though. In Saba by the first century BC the clan was everything. The king was... well usefull when foreigners attacked. While the Nabataean in the north were making gods of their kings. Though in general they appear to have been men who tought one should be proud on what he has done, yet be humble at the same time. Making fincancial losses was a crime. And they are described to being very devout and faithfull when it comes to pledges, religion, or king/tribe.

making financial losses was indeed a crime in Arabia, provided that the losses were for something pointless or excessive. cases where a person was swindled, spent his money on an emergency, and/or blood money were generally the exception, at least in hijaz and the najd plains. many tribal leaders IIRC were actually cahsh strapped from their generosity

Though in general they appear to have been men who tought one should be proud on what he has done, yet be humble at the same time

hence when I said "justifiable pride". merit of one's work was a huge concept, then and now.

[antisocialmunky]

In Saba by the first century BC the clan was everything. The king was... well usefull when foreigners attacked.

Isn't that still true for much of that part of the world?

[Ibrahim]

Isn't that still true for much of that part of the world?

nope, things have changed.

nowadays, you're allowed no more than 0 cups of wine. financial loss is no longer prohibited (not from religion, but lack of care). and nowadays they can't balance pride with humility, so they are either vain c***s or with a serious inferiority syndrome. that last one can be atributed to the past century.

the ideals of preislamic arabia, and early islamic arabia have survived either in only a few people, or is just a hollow ideal to most arabs today.

[antisocialmunky]

Quote editted for clarity ^^^.

[Ibrahim]

Quote editted for clarity ^^^.

oh, in which case it has still changed. Arabs don't even have the guts to stand up to the rulers (kurds do, and Kuwaitis are the only Arabs who do, or want to). those who do stand up make the mistake of joining terrorists, and the rest don't give a crap who rules them. why do you think Husni mubarak keeps getting away with being reelected with 99% of the popular vote? If arabs cared, Mubarak would be hanging from the nearest tree.

same applies to most of the "republics" in the Arab world.

[Watchman]

Mubarak's got an army (and secret police and whatnot) and isn't afraid to use it, though.
That often puts a damper on people's interest in more proactive approaches to regime changes, unless the rulers treat them seriously horribly.