# red for white (complexion)



## Awlaadberry

Is the term "red" still used in any parts of the Arab World to mean what people today mean by "white"? I've shown that the Arabs of the past used the term "white" for a dark complexion that would be considered black today. If the Arabs of the past meant the light complexion that we  mean today when we say ‘white’, they didn’t say ‘white’, but they said ‘_*red*_’.  Al Hafidh Al Dhahabi said in his book Siyar A’laam Al Nubalaa, “The  speaker in the hadith which says: ‘a man who was _red_ as if he was one of  the slaves…’ meant that the person had the color of the slaves who were  captured from the Christians of Syria, the Romans, and the Persians.”  Ibn Mandhour said in his book _Lisaan Al Arab_, “*The Red People* are the  Persians because of their white complexion and because most of them are  very fair. The Arabs used to call the non-Arabs that were mostly  white-skinned – like the Romans and Persians and those near them – *the  Red People*. He (Ibn Mandhour) also said, “When the Arabs said that a  person was ‘_red_’, they meant he/she was white. And the Arabs call the  slaves _*the Red People*_.”

Hisham Ibn Mohamed said that ‘Awaana Ibn  Al Hakam told him that Mughira Ibn Shu’ba asked an Arab nomad from the  tribe of Bani TaimAllah Ibn Tha’laba what he had to say about the Arab  tribe of Yashkur and the Arab nomad said, “They are light. You would  think that they are slaves from their appearance”. Hisham said, “Because  there is _redness_ in their complexion”.

Are people called white today still called _red_ in any parts of the Arab World? If not, does anyone know during which period they stopped being called _red_?


​


----------



## WadiH

Yes, in Najd, أحمر ("a7amar") can still mean white and blond.  I suppose it refers to the color of the cheeks, or it refers to the "red" tan that they get in the sun (similar to the American term 'redneck').


----------



## Awlaadberry

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Yes, in Najd, أحمر ("a7amar") can still mean white and blond.  I suppose it refers to the color of the cheeks, or it refers to the "red" tan that they get in the sun (similar to the American term 'redneck').



That's interesting Wadi Hanifa. What about the term أبيض ? In Nejd, does it mean what it meant in the past - حنطي اللون بحلية سوداء ?


----------



## WadiH

Awlaadberry said:


> That's interesting Wadi Hanifa. What about the term أبيض ? In Nejd, does it mean what it meant in the past - حنطي اللون بحلية سوداء ?



أبيض is a relative term and can refer to different complexions depending on context.  In the local context, أبيض typically means someone like this, as opposed to أسمر, which typically means someone like this or darker.


----------



## Awlaadberry

Wadi Hanifa said:


> أبيض is a relative term and can refer to different complexions depending on context.  In the local context, أبيض typically means someone like this, as opposed to أسمر, which typically means someone like this or darker.



But what's the difference between the complexion of the person you said would be considered أبيض and the complexion of an Iranian (Persian), who would be considered أحمر ? 

Saudis consider this complexion حنطي hinti: 

(go to www dot rewardsforjustice.net/images/quso1.jpe)

and they consider these colors أسمر asmar:

(go to www dot alsahwh.com/up2//uploads/images/alsahwha40ff4d4d8.jpg)

(go to www dot e-mailaat.com/infimages/myuppic/4bd2a999a3487.jpg)

(go to www dot arriy.com/dbpics/article/images/30705_7.jpg)


----------



## WadiH

Awlaadberry said:


> But what's the difference between the complexion of the person you said would be considered أبيض and the complexion of an Iranian (Persian), who would be considered أحمر ?



أحمر is mostly reserved for blonde people, particularly those of European origin.  Persians are usually what we call بيض or سمر.

حنطي is not that commonly used.  It may be a lighter variation of أسمر, though I've heard it used with أسمر interchangeably.



> Saudis consider this complexion حنطي hinti:
> 
> (go to www dot rewardsforjustice.net/images/quso1.jpe)
> 
> and they consider these colors أسمر asmar:
> 
> (go to www dot alsahwh.com/up2//uploads/images/alsahwha40ff4d4d8.jpg)
> 
> (go to www dot e-mailaat.com/infimages/myuppic/4bd2a999a3487.jpg)
> 
> (go to www dot arriy.com/dbpics/article/images/30705_7.jpg)



As you know, Saudi Arabia is a diverse society with many social and regional groups.  I am only speaking for my own environment.  What you've referred to as حنطي we would refer to as أسمر, and what you've referred to as أسمر we would typically refer to as أسود.  But as I said above, these are relative terms that can mean different things to different people and hence you can't always ascribe hard and fast rules to their usage.


----------



## Ustaath

this is interesting, I spend a lot of time with Sudanese and they never say 'aswad' but 'asmar' to indicate that they come from "Arab: stock as opposed to the African ( now seceded) Sudanese who are 'sood'.


----------



## Awlaadberry

Wadi Hanifa said:


> أحمر is mostly reserved for blonde people, particularly those of European origin.  Persians are usually what we call بيض or سمر.
> 
> حنطي is not that commonly used.  It may be a lighter variation of أسمر, though I've heard it used with أسمر interchangeably.
> 
> 
> 
> As you know, Saudi Arabia is a diverse society with many social and regional groups.  I am only speaking for my own environment.  What you've referred to as حنطي we would refer to as أسمر, and what you've referred to as أسمر we would typically refer to as أسود.  But as I said above, these are relative terms that can mean different things to different people and hence you can't always ascribe hard and fast rules to their usage.



أحمر is mostly reserved for blonde people, particularly those of European origin.  

 *أحمر isn't reserved for blonde people. It is reserved for the Persians. That's why the Persians were nicknamed by the Arabs "The Red People".*

Persians are usually what we call بيض or سمر.

*Persians have never been described as ** سمر**  . They have always been described as the "Red People". *

حنطي is not that commonly used.  It may be a lighter variation of أسمر, though I've heard it used with أسمر interchangeably.

*This Saudi said the following about the person in the picture in the link below:
*
*هذا مذيع الإخبارية خالد مدخلي .. عاد مو أسمر أسمر تقدر تقول حنطي*
*
""He's not asmar asmar. He is what you call hinti complexioned"*

*(go to http colon //s.alriyadh.com/2010/04/13/img/513193034297.jpg)*
​
​ 
As you know, Saudi Arabia is a diverse society with many social and  regional groups.  I am only speaking for my own environment.  What  you've referred to as حنطي we would refer to as أسمر, and what you've  referred to as أسمر we would typically refer to as أسود.  But as I said  above, these are relative terms that can mean different things to  different people and hence you can't always ascribe hard and fast rules  to their usage.

*The people in the links referred to as حنطي hinti were referred to as حنطي  hinti by Saudis. The people referred to as أسمر asmar were referred to as أسمر asmar by Saudis. And not just one Saudi, but different Saudis described them this way.  

Here this lost man in the picture in the link below is officially referred to as **أسمر asmar**:

(go to www dot okaz.com.sa/okaz/myfiles/2007/09/05/l12-small.jpg )
*


----------



## WadiH

Awlaadberry said:


> أحمر is mostly reserved for blonde people, particularly those of European origin.
> 
> *أحمر isn't reserved for blonde people. It is reserved for the Persians. That's why the Persians were nicknamed by the Arabs "The Red People".*
> 
> Persians are usually what we call بيض or سمر.
> 
> *Persians have never been described as ** سمر**  . They have always been described as the "Red People". *



Yeah, well, you asked about Najdi, and in Najd they are.



> حنطي is not that commonly used.  It may be a lighter variation of أسمر, though I've heard it used with أسمر interchangeably.
> 
> *This Saudi said the following about the person in the picture in the link below:
> *
> *هذا مذيع الإخبارية خالد مدخلي .. عاد مو أسمر أسمر تقدر تقول حنطي*
> *
> ""He's not asmar asmar. He is what you call hinti complexioned"*
> 
> *(go to http colon //s.alriyadh.com/2010/04/13/img/513193034297.jpg)*
> ​
> ​
> As you know, Saudi Arabia is a diverse society with many social and  regional groups.  I am only speaking for my own environment.  What  you've referred to as حنطي we would refer to as أسمر, and what you've  referred to as أسمر we would typically refer to as أسود.  But as I said  above, these are relative terms that can mean different things to  different people and hence you can't always ascribe hard and fast rules  to their usage.
> 
> *The people in the links referred to as حنطي hinti were referred to as حنطي  hinti by Saudis. The people referred to as أسمر asmar were referred to as أسمر asmar by Saudis. And not just one Saudi, but different Saudis described them this way.
> 
> Here this lost man in the picture in the link below is officially referred to as **أسمر asmar**:
> 
> (go to www dot okaz.com.sa/okaz/myfiles/2007/09/05/l12-small.jpg )
> *



Apologies for repeating myself, these are all ***relative*** terms.  A person can be called أبيض in Riyadh and viewed as "brown" or "swarthy" in America.  I can describe someone as أسود and my friend may describe him as أسمر.  In reality, these are all artificial social constructs that are more suitable for discussion in the "Cultural" sections of this forum rather than the linguistic ones.


----------



## Awlaadberry

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Apologies for repeating myself, these are all ***relative*** terms.  A person can be called أبيض in Riyadh and viewed as "brown" or "swarthy" in America.  I can describe someone as أسود and my friend may describe him as أسمر.  In reality, these are all artificial social constructs that are more suitable for discussion in the "Cultural" sections of this forum rather than the linguistic ones.



A  person can be called أبيض in Riyadh and viewed as "brown" or "swarthy"  in America.  

*That's true and the reason is because أبيض "white" to the Arabs means حنطي اللون بحلية سوداء a hinti complexion with a black hilya and a person that color in America would be called not only swarthy, but black. See the thread at:


http  colon   //forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2190751* 

I can describe someone as أسود and my friend may describe  him as أسمر.  

*This is true and it is because أسمر  asmar means dark-skinned - not tanned.*

In reality, these are all artificial social constructs  that are more suitable for discussion in the "Cultural" sections of this  forum rather than the linguistic ones.

*They aren't artificial social constructs. They are real terms with real meanings. A أحمر red person isn't أسمر asmar and an آدم adam person isn't حنطي hinti, for example. These are real words with real meanings and these true meanings need to be taught to those who don't know.*


----------



## WadiH

Awlaadberry said:


> A  person can be called أبيض in Riyadh and viewed as "brown" or "swarthy"  in America.
> 
> *That's true and the reason is because أبيض "white" to the Arabs means حنطي اللون بحلية سوداء a hinti complexion with a black hilya and a person that color in America would be called not only swarthy, but black. See the thread at:
> 
> 
> http  colon   //forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2190751*



Actually, no, that's not true.  A person described as أبيض in Najd is unlikely to be considered 'black' in America.  I understand that this does not comport with some supposedly historic usage of the term that you've come across in some medieval books, but that's not what this thread (or your follow-up question) is about.


----------



## Awlaadberry

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Actually, no, that's not true.  A person described as أبيض in Najd is unlikely to be considered 'black' in America.  I understand that this does not comport with some supposedly historic usage of the term that you've come across in some medieval books, but that's not what this thread (or your follow-up question) is about.



The true meaning of a word can't change. If a person today reads the many books written in the past with descriptions of people and he/she reads about someone described as  أبيض , he/she has to understand what was meant by the term  أبيض . If he/she goes by your supposedly Najdi definition of  أبيض, he/she will be misled. Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi of the 13th and 14th century explained the meaning of  أبيض for us to know, not for it to be replaced with another meaning. How can students today understand what they read if they don't know the true meanings of the words found in the books that they read? A dictionary gives the true meanings of words. It doesn't replace original meanings with new meanings. To do so would be misleading to say the least.


----------



## cherine

Awlaadberry said:


> The true meaning of a word can't change.


Oh yes it does! I think you need to learn a bit more about language(s), you'll be surprised by the amound of words that now have totally different meaning from those they used to have many years ago.


> If a person today reads the many books written in the past with descriptions of people and he/she reads about someone described as أبيض , he/she has to understand what was meant by the term أبيض .


True. That person will only need to learn the meaning of the word in its _historical context_. That's all. But if that same person reads a modern book and thinks that أبيض means something else but "white", now that person will be misled.


> How can students today understand what they read if they don't know the true meanings of the words found in the books that they read?


I think it depends very much on the books. It seems you're the only one who doesn't know this, or are not willing to accept this fact.


> A dictionary gives the true meanings of words. It doesn't replace original meanings with new meanings. To do so would be misleading to say the least.


Actually, a dictionary that doesn't give the new meanings would be outdated, and not recommended for anyone who is learning or reading the Modern language.
But no one can deny the utmost usefulness of such a dictionary in learning the Classical language and the historical usage of words and.


----------



## إسكندراني

Maybe we should be careful to distinguish between Modern Standard, Classical and Dialects. There is definitely an argument that Modern Standard should try to be as conservative as possible.
I am now curious about classical. Was أبيض always intended to mean black? Wasn't Muhammad PBUH described as 'with a radiant visage'?


----------



## Awlaadberry

cherine said:


> Oh yes it does! I think you need to learn a bit more about language(s), you'll be surprised by the amound of words that now have totally different meaning from those they used to have many years ago.
> 
> True. That person will only need to learn the meaning of the word in its _historical context_. That's all. But if that same person reads a modern book and thinks that أبيض means something else but "white", now that person will be misled.
> 
> I think it depends very much on the books. It seems you're the only one who doesn't know this, or are not willing to accept this fact.
> 
> Actually, a dictionary that doesn't give the new meanings would be outdated, and not recommended for anyone who is learning or reading the Modern language.
> But no one can deny the utmost usefulness of such a dictionary in learning the Classical language and the historical usage of words and.



Oh yes it does! I think you need to learn a bit more about language(s),  you'll be surprised by the amound of words that now have totally  different meaning from those they used to have many years ago.

*What is it about languages that you feel I don't understand? Words may have different meanings today from the meanings that they had in the past, but that doesn't make the past meaning change to the new meaning. A correct dictionary would give the past meaning and any other new meanings the word might have. The past meaning cannot be erased and not taught because if it is, people's understanding of the language will be limited because we now today have books that were written by people in the past and these books are read by people today and to understand what's in these books that are read today, you MUST understand the original meaning of the word. You must understand what the writer who wrote the book in the past meant by the words - not what the word means today (if the meaning has changed).*

True. That person will only need to learn the meaning of the word in its _historical context_. 

*Exactly. This is my point. He/She MUST know the original meaning of the word. *

That's all. But if that same person reads a modern book and thinks that  أبيض means something else but "white", now that person will be misled.

*He/She will not be misled if he/she understands that the word had a certain meaning in the past and a different meaning today. A good dictionary would explain the two meanings - the past meaning and today's meaning (if the meaning has changed). To not explain both is misleading.*

I think it depends very much on the books. It seems you're the only one  who doesn't know this, or are not willing to accept this fact.

*Why do you say that? Where did I say that it does or doesn't* *depend on the book?*

Actually, a dictionary that doesn't give the new meanings would be  outdated, and not recommended for anyone who is learning or reading the  Modern language.
But no one can deny the utmost usefulness of such a dictionary in  learning the Classical language and the historical usage of words and.

*And a dictionary that doesn't give the original meaning of a word would be very limited and not recommended for anyone interested in having a true understanding of a given word and an understanding of what the Arabs of the past - who are the source - meant by the word. All modern dictionaries use what the Arabs of the past said as references and it's only natural for them to do so.*


----------



## Awlaadberry

إسكندراني said:


> Maybe we should be careful to distinguish between Modern Standard, Classical and Dialects. There is definitely an argument that Modern Standard should try to be as conservative as possible.
> I am now curious about classical. Was أبيض always intended to mean black? Wasn't Muhammad PBUH described as 'with a radiant visage'?



When you say 'with a radiant visage', I think you are referring to the Arabic word أزهر _azhar_ and yes, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was described as أزهر اللون _azhar_ complexioned, but as Abu Hanifa said, أزهر اللون _azhar_ complexioned means "with a radiant complexion" and it has nothing to do with the actual color of a person's skin. He says that a person can have an أزهر _azhar_ complexion no matter what color his skin is. Remember that the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) was also described as أسمر asmar complexioned. Musa Al-Kaadhim was described as أزهر اللون _azhar_ complexioned and at the same time, he was described as black-skinned.


----------



## إسكندراني

Awlaadberry said:


> When you say 'with a radiant visage', I think you are referring to the Arabic word أزهر _azhar_ and yes, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was described as أزهر اللون _azhar_ complexioned, but as Abu Hanifa said, أزهر اللون _azhar_ complexioned means "with a radiant complexion" and it has nothing to do with the actual color of a person's skin. He says that a person can have an أزهر _azhar_ complexion no matter what color his skin is.


This is what I've heard, copied from here:


> * عن أبي الطفيل رضي  الله عنه قال: رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم  وما على وجه الأرض رجل رآه غيري قال: فكيف رأيته؟ قال: كان أبيض مليحًا مقصدًا. رواه  مسلم*​ *
> وعن أنس رضي الله  عنه: كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أزهر اللون ليس  بأبيض أمهق ولا آدم. رواه البخاري ومسلم، والأزهر: هو الأبيض المستنير المشرق،  وهو أحسن الألوان. *​


So أزهر is described as neither of [the two opposing extreme cases]; neither أبيض أمهق nor آدم. It's described as الأبيض المستنير المشرق and أبيض مليحاً مقصداً.


----------



## Awlaadberry

إسكندراني said:


> This is what I've heard, copied from here:
> So أزهر is described as neither of [the two opposing extreme cases]; neither أبيض أمهق nor آدم. It's described as الأبيض المستنير المشرق and أبيض مليحاً مقصداً.




أزهر اللون أي مشرقه نيره زاد ابن الجوزي وغيره في الرواية كأن عرقه اللؤلؤ  قال في الروض الزهرة لغة إشراق في اللون* أي لون كان من بياض أو غيره* وقول  بعضهم إن الأزهر الأبيض خاصة والزهر اسم للأبيض
من النوار فقط* خطأه أبو حنيفة فيه وقال إنما الزهرة إشراق في الألوان كلها*

Remember that Anas described him (PBUH) as أسمر asmar so when Anas describes him (PBUH) as azhar in the hadith that you mentioned and he says that he was neither أمهق _amhaq_ nor _adam_, that doesn't exclude أسمر _asmar_ and it doesn't exclude أزهر _azhar_ if we understand that أزهر _azhar_ refers to a radiant complexion - not to the specific color. But if you say that أزهر azhar refers to a specific color, how can Anas (RAA) describe him (SAWS) as أسمر _asmar_ in one hadith and أزهر _azhar_ in another hadith?

عن  يعقوب بن سفيان، حدثني عمرو بن عون وسعيد بن منصور قالا: حدثنا خالد بن  عبد الله عن حميد الطويل، عن أنس بن مالك قال: *كان رسول الله أسمر اللون*.
​
​


----------



## إسكندراني

Here is the one you just introduced:


> كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَبْعَةً لَيْسَ بِالطَّوِيلِ وَلَا بِالْقَصِيرِ   حَسَنَ الْجِسْمِ *أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ *وَكَانَ شَعْرُهُ لَيْسَ بِجَعْدٍ وَلَا سَبْطٍ إِذَا مَشَى يَتَوَكَّأُ


 and here is a further explanation:


> *(وَلَا بِالْأَبْيَضِ الْأَمْهَقِ   )*
> بِفَتْحِ الْهَمْزَةِ وَسُكُونِ  الْمِيمِ ، وهُوَ الكَرِيهُ الْبَيَاضِ كَلَوْنِ الْجِصِّ
> 
> *(   وَلَا  بِالْآدَمِ   ) *
> مِنَ الْأُدْمَةِ بِالضَّمِّ بِمَعْنَى السُّمْرَةِ ،  لَيْسَ بِأَسْمَرَ ،
> 
> وَهَذَا يُعَارِضُ مَا فِي رِوَايَةِ   حُمَيْدٍ   عَنْ   أَنَسٍ   فِي بَابِ   الْجُمَّةِ وَاتِّخَاذِ الشَّعْرِ   أَنَّهُ -صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- كَانَ أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ ،
> 
> وَالْجَمْعُ بَيْنَهُمَا بِأَنَّ الْمَنْفِيَّ إِنَّمَا هُوَ شِدَّةُ  السُّمْرَةِ فَلَا يُنَافِي إِثْبَاتَ السُّمْرَةِ فِي رِوَايَةِ   حُمَيْدٍ   عَنْ   أَنَسٍ   عَلَى أَنَّ لَفْظَةَ ( أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ ) فِي الرِّوَايَةِ الْمَذْكُورَةِ انْفَرَدَ بِهَا   حُمَيْدٌ   عَنْ   أَنَسٍ   ، وَرَوَاهُ عَنْهُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ الرُّوَاةِ بِلَفْظِ ( أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ )
> 
> وَمَنْ رَوَى   صِفَتَهُ -صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-   غَيْرُ   أَنَسٍ   فَقَدْ وَصَفَهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دونَ السُّمْرَةِ ، وَهُمْ خَمْسَةَ عَشَرَ صَحَابِيًّا ، قَالَهُ   الْحَافِظُ الْعِرَاقِيُّ   ،
> 
> * وَحَاصِلُهُ *: تَرْجِيحُ رِوَايَةِ الْبَيَاضِ بِكَثْرَةِ الرُّوَاةِ وَمَزِيدِ الْوَثَاقَةِ ،* وَلِهَذَا قَالَ   ابْنُ الْجَوْزِيِّ    : هَذَا حَدِيثٌ لَا يَصِحُّ ، وَهُوَ مُخَالِفٌ لِلْأَحَادِيثِ كُلِّهَا*  ،
> 
> وَقِيلَ : الْمُرَادُ بِالسُّمْرَةِ : الْحُمْرَةُ ؛ لِأَنَّ الْعَرَبَ  قَدْ تُطْلِقُ عَلَى كُلِّ مَنْ كَانَ كَذَلِكَ أَسْمَرُ ،
> 
> وَمِمَّا يُؤَيِّدُ ذَلِكَ رِوَايَةُ   الْبَيْهَقِيِّ    : كَانَ أَبْيَضَ ، بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ ، وَالْحَاصِلُ أَنَّ  الْمُرَادَ بِالسُّمْرَةِ : حُمْرَةٌ تُخَالِطُ الْبَيَاضَ ،  وَبِالْبَيَاضِ الْمُثْبَتِ فِي رِوَايَةِ مُعْظَمِ الصَّحَابَةِ مَا  يُخَالِطُ الْحُمْرَةَ ، وَآدَمُ بِمَدِّ الْهَمْزَةِ ، وَأَصْلُهُ :  أَأْدَمُ بِهَمْزَتَيْنِ عَلَى وَزْنِ أَفْعَلُ أُبْدِلَتِ الثَّانِيَةُ  أَلِفًا


So it looks like *usually* أبيض is the opposite of أسمر but it's possible to describe some حُمْرة in an أبيض as أسمر, though some find that so strange that they reject this حديث - whatever all these words may mean.


----------



## Awlaadberry

إسكندراني said:


> Here is the one you just introduced:
> 
> and here is a further explanation:



There is a BIG problem with that explanation because آدم _adam_ DOES NOT mean أسمر _asmar_ as the writer said. آدم _adam _means very أسمر _asmar_ and saying that a person isn't آدم _adam _IS NOT saying that the person isn't _asmar_ أسمر. Being described as آدم adam is one thing and being described as أسمر asmar is another thing. So the writer made a big mistake in his explanation because there is no contradiction.


----------



## Awlaadberry

إسكندراني said:


> Here is the one you just introduced:
> and here is a further explanation:
> So it looks like *usually* أبيض is the opposite of أسمر but it's possible to describe some حُمْرة in an أبيض as أسمر, though some find that so strange that they reject this حديث - whatever all these words may mean.



Why do you say that _abyad_ أبيض is a color the opposite of _asmar_ أسمر ? It's a color near _asmar_ أسمر . It's a little lighter than _asmar_ أسمر and darker than _hinti_ حنطي.


----------



## إسكندراني

Awlaadberry said:


> Why do you say that _abyad_ أبيض is a color the opposite of _asmar_ أسمر ?


Because of this statement in my last quote:


> وَهَذَا *يُعَارِضُ *مَا فِي رِوَايَةِ   حُمَيْدٍ   عَنْ   أَنَسٍ   فِي  بَابِ   الْجُمَّةِ وَاتِّخَاذِ الشَّعْرِ   أَنَّهُ -صَلَّى اللَّهُ  عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- كَانَ أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ ،


The writer is saying it *conflicts* with the other narration.


----------



## Awlaadberry

إسكندراني said:


> Because of this statement in my last quote:
> 
> The writer is saying it *conflicts* with the other narration.



He is wrong. It doesn't conflict with the other narration for the reasons I stated above. Again:

There is a BIG problem with that explanation because آدم _adam_ DOES NOT mean أسمر _asmar_ as the writer said. آدم _adam _means very أسمر _asmar_ and saying that a person isn't آدم _adam _IS NOT saying that the person isn't _asmar_  أسمر. Being described as آدم adam is one thing and being described as  أسمر asmar is another thing. So the writer made a big mistake in his  explanation because there is no contradiction.


----------



## إسكندراني

In any case that is a direct quote from *تحفة الأحوذي شرح سنن الترمذي.*


----------



## Awlaadberry

إسكندراني said:


> In any case that is a direct quote from *تحفة الأحوذي شرح سنن الترمذي.*



I'm familiar with the quote and I know where it's from.


----------



## إسكندراني

Awlaadberry said:


> I'm familiar with the quote and I know where it's from.


In that case we have two routes now:
1/ agree to disagree and not look further into this, since here we have a strong source for white=white.
2/ look into whether this was 'wrong' and why, instead of just making that statement. My understanding is you're going by another classical source too; was there difference in terminology back then? تحفة الأحوذي isn't full of 'wrong' just like that!


----------



## Awlaadberry

إسكندراني said:


> In that case we have two routes now:
> 1/ agree to disagree and not look further into this, since here we have a strong source for white=white.
> 2/ look into whether this was 'wrong' and why, instead of just making that statement. My understanding is you're going by another classical source too; was there difference in terminology back then? تحفة الأحوذي isn't full of 'wrong' just like that!



1. Where is the strong source for white = white? 
2. I explained to you twice why what he said is wrong. Don't   
    you see it? Do you understand the meaning of آدم _adam_?


----------



## إسكندراني

1. تحفة الأحوذي wasn't written in Modern Standard, nor in Dialect; why should we not take it as an indicator of what أبيض means?
2. The problem is the definition you brought in (أبيض=حنطي) is totally new to all of us and to modern (and apparently some classical) usage, so we should consider sources for that definition weigh them up against the opposing ones. To immediately call either 'wrong' is completely unscientific and only weakens the argument.

On a separate note, what would تبيضّ وجوه and وجوه مبيضّة mean according to أبيض=حنطي? 
What would we make of يوم تبيضّ وجوه وتسودّ وجوه?


----------



## Awlaadberry

إسكندراني said:


> Because of this statement in my last quote:
> 
> The writer is saying it *conflicts* with the other narration.



I still don't see where it says that it is the opposite of أسمر asmar. It simply says that there is a contradiction because in one hadith it says أبيض abyad and in the other hadith it says أسمر asmar, but it doesn't say what أبيض abyad means or that أبيض abyad is the opposite of أسمر asmar. As I said, أبيض abyad isn't أسمر asmar, but it's a color near _asmar_ أسمر . It's a little lighter than _asmar_ أسمر and darker than _hinti_ حنطي. 	Do you understand?


----------



## Awlaadberry

إسكندراني said:


> 1. تحفة الأحوذي wasn't written in Modern Standard, nor in Dialect; why should we not take it as an indicator of what أبيض means?
> 2. The problem is the definition you brought in (أبيض=حنطي) is totally new to all of us and to modern (and apparently some classical) usage, so we should consider sources for that definition weigh them up against the opposing ones. To immediately call either 'wrong' is completely unscientific and only weakens the argument.
> 
> On a separate note, what would تبيضّ وجوه and وجوه مبيضّة mean according to أبيض=حنطي?
> What would we make of يوم تبيضّ وجوه وتسودّ وجوه?



1. تحفة الأحوذي wasn't written in Modern Standard, nor in Dialect; why should we not take it as an indicator of what أبيض means?

*Because the book doesn't mention what أبيض abyad means at all.*

2. The problem is the definition you brought in (أبيض=حنطي) is totally  new to all of us and to modern (and apparently some classical) usage, so  we should consider sources for that definition weigh them up against  the opposing ones.

*أبيض Abyad doesn't mean just حنطي hinti. It means حنطي hinti with a حلية سوداء black hilya. So أبيض abyad is darker than حنطي hinti.

There is no opposing classical meaning of the word أحمر ahmar. It was used very often in the past and writers made it clear what the word means.*

 To immediately call either 'wrong' is completely  unscientific and only weakens the argument.

*I said that it is wrong for Al-Mubaarkaafouri** - author of تحفة الأحوذي* *to say that آدم adam means simply أسمر asmar because it is a known fact that that isn't true. آدم Adam means very asmar شديد السمرة, so there is no contradiction in saying that a person isn't آدم adam and saying that he/she is أسمر asmar because أسمر asmar is one color and آدم adam is an even darker color.*

On a separate note, what would تبيضّ وجوه and وجوه مبيضّة mean according to أبيض=حنطي? 
What would we make of يوم تبيضّ وجوه وتسودّ وجوه?

*تبيضّ وجوه * *has nothing to do with skin color. It's an expression which means a person being happy and full of bliss. It has NOTHING to do with skin color. And تسود الوجوه** is an expression meaning to feel sad and depressed. It has NOTHING to do with skin color.*


----------



## إسكندراني

Awlaadberry said:


> To immediately call either 'wrong' is completely  unscientific and only weakens the argument.
> I said that it is wrong for Al-Mubaarkaafouri - author of تحفة الأحوذي to say that آدم adam means simply أسمر asmar
> because it is a known fact that that isn't true.


I want some sources defining آدم أسمر أبيض to back up the underlined 'known fact'. Not that I disagree with it; just that none of us should consider Classical Arabic definitions without backing them up.
If we have as many sources as possible we can weigh them up together. 

Our starting point is the following أحاديث referenced above:


> كان *أبيض مليحًا مقصدًا*.





> كان [...] *أزهر *اللون *ليس  بأبيض أمهق ولا آدم*. [...] *والأزهر: هو الأبيض المستنير المشرق*،  وهو أحسن الألوان





> كَانَ [...] *أَسْمَرَ* اللَّوْنِ [...]ـ


تحفة الأحوذي's quote regarding the second quote above boils down to:


> *الْأَبْيَضِ الْأَمْهَقِ *هُوَ *الكَرِيهُ الْبَيَاضِ *كَلَوْنِ الْجِصِّ





> *الْآدَمِ *بِمَعْنَى *السُّمْرَةِ*





> *وَهَذَا يُعَارِضُ* مَا فِي رِوَايَةِ   حُمَيْدٍ   عَنْ   أَنَسٍ   فِي  بَابِ   الْجُمَّةِ وَاتِّخَاذِ الشَّعْرِ   أَنَّهُ -صَلَّى اللَّهُ  عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- كَانَ *أَسْمَرَ *اللَّوْنِ ،





> وَالْجَمْعُ بَيْنَهُمَا بِأَنَّ
> الْمَنْفِيَّ إِنَّمَا هُوَ شِدَّةُ   السُّمْرَةِ
> فَلَا يُنَافِي إِثْبَاتَ السُّمْرَةِ فِي رِوَايَةِ    حُمَيْدٍ   عَنْ   أَنَسٍ   عَلَى أَنَّ لَفْظَةَ ( أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ )  فِي الرِّوَايَةِ الْمَذْكُورَةِ انْفَرَدَ بِهَا   حُمَيْدٌ   عَنْ    أَنَسٍ   ،
> وَرَوَاهُ عَنْهُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ الرُّوَاةِ بِلَفْظِ ( أَزْهَرَ  اللَّوْنِ )
> 
> وَمَنْ رَوَى   صِفَتَهُ -صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-   غَيْرُ    أَنَسٍ   فَقَدْ وَصَفَهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دونَ السُّمْرَةِ ، وَهُمْ خَمْسَةَ  عَشَرَ صَحَابِيًّا ، قَالَهُ   الْحَافِظُ الْعِرَاقِيُّ   ،





> *وَحَاصِلُهُ : تَرْجِيحُ رِوَايَةِ الْبَيَاضِ* بِكَثْرَةِ الرُّوَاةِ وَمَزِيدِ الْوَثَاقَةِ ، *وَلِهَذَا قَالَ   ابْنُ الْجَوْزِيِّ    : هَذَا حَدِيثٌ لَا يَصِح*ُّ ، وَهُوَ مُخَالِفٌ لِلْأَحَادِيثِ كُلِّهَا  ،





> * وَقِيلَ : الْمُرَادُ بِالسُّمْرَةِ : الْحُمْرَةُ* ؛ لِأَنَّ الْعَرَبَ  قَدْ تُطْلِقُ عَلَى كُلِّ مَنْ كَانَ كَذَلِكَ أَسْمَرُ ،  وَمِمَّا يُؤَيِّدُ ذَلِكَ رِوَايَةُ   الْبَيْهَقِيِّ    : كَانَ  أَبْيَضَ ، بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ





> ، *وَالْحَاصِلُ أَنَّ  الْمُرَادَ
> بِالسُّمْرَةِ : حُمْرَةٌ تُخَالِطُ الْبَيَاضَ *،
> وَ*بِالْبَيَاضِ*  الْمُثْبَتِ فِي رِوَايَةِ مُعْظَمِ الصَّحَابَةِ *مَا  يُخَالِطُ  الْحُمْرَةَ*


We also have from فيض القدير شرح الجامع الصغير:




> *( أزهر اللون ) أي مشرقه نيره* [...] كأن عرقه اللؤلؤ .
> *الزهرة لغة  إشراق في اللون *أي لون كان من بياض أو غيره *وقول بعضهم : إن الأزهر الأبيض  خاصة والزهر اسم للأبيض من النوار فقط خطأه أبو حنيفة فيه وقال : إنما  الزهرة إشراق في الألوان كلها *.





> أزهر  اللون أي أبيض مشرب بحمرة





> كان أبيض مشربا بياضه بحمرة ( ليس بالأبيض الأمهق )





> ( ولا ب*الآدم* )  بالمد أي ولا *شديد السمرة* وإنما يخالط بياضه الحمرة لكنها حمرة بصفاء فيصدق  عليه أنه أزهر





> *تطلق على من هو كذلك أسمر والمراد  بالسمرة التي تخالط البياض*





> ولهذا جاء في حديث أنس عند أحمد والبزار قال ابن  حجر بإسناد صحيح صححه ابن حبان أنه كان أسمر وفي الدلائل للبيهقي عن أنس  كان أبيض بياضه إلى السمرة وفي لفظ لأحمد بسند حسن أسمر إلى البياض قال ابن  حجر : يمكن توجيه رواية أمهق بالأمهق الأخضر اللون الذي ليس بياضه في  الغاية ولا سمرته ولا حمرته فقد نقل عن رؤية أن *المهق خضرة الماء *فهذا  التوجيه على تقدير ثبوت الرواية


I could find almost nothing in the dictionaries but لسان العرب includes:


> في الحديث: أُعْطِيتُ الكَنْزَينِ الأَحمرَ والأَبيضَ، فالأَحمرُ مُلْكُ الشام، والأَبْيَضُ مُلْكُ فارس،
> وإِنما *يقال لفارس الأَبْيَض لبياض أَلوانهم* ولأَن الغالب على أَموالهم الفضة،
> كما أَن الغالب على أَلوان أَهل الشام الحمرة وعلى أَموالهم الذهب


and also - though I think this is irrelevant:


> وبَياضُ الجلد: ما لا شعر عليه. التهذيب: *إِذا قالت العرب فلان أَبْيَضُ وفلانة بَيْضاء فالمعنى نَقاء العِرْض من الدنَس والعيوب*؛ [...] وهذا كثير في شعرهم *لا يريدون به بَياضَ اللون* ولكنهم يريدون المدح بالكرم ونَقاءِ العرْض من العيوب،
> وإِذا قالوا: *فلان أَبْيَض الوجه* وفلانة بَيْضاءُ الوجه *أَرادوا نقاءَ اللون من الكَلَفِ والسوادِ الشائن*. [...]


----------



## Awlaadberry

إسكندراني said:


> I want some sources defining آدم أسمر أبيض to back up the underlined 'known fact'. Not that I disagree with it; just that none of us should consider Classical Arabic definitions without backing them up.
> If we have as many sources as possible we can weigh them up together.
> 
> Our starting point is the following أحاديث referenced above:
> تحفة الأحوذي's quote regarding the second quote above boils down to:
> We also have from فيض القدير شرح الجامع الصغير:
> 
> 
> I could find almost nothing in the dictionaries but لسان العرب includes:
> 
> and also - though I think this is irrelevant:



I want some sources defining آدم أسمر أبيض to back up the underlined  'known fact'. Not that I disagree with it; just that none of us should  consider Classical Arabic definitions without backing them up.
If we have as many sources as possible we can weigh them up together. 

Here Ibn Athir defines adam as very asmar:
* قال ابن الأَثير:*

*  الأُدْم جمع آدم كأَحْمَر وحُمْر. والأُدْمة في الإِبل: البياض مع سواد المُقْلَتَيْن. قال: وهي في الناس السُّمرة الشديدة، وقيل: هو من أُدْمة الأَرض، وهو لَوْنُها، قال: وبه سمي آدم أَبو البَشَر، على نبينا وعليه الصلاة والسلام*​*
* Here Al-Tha'aalabi defines adam as a degree of blackness and darker than asmar, which he also defines as a lighter degree of blackness:

*
قال الثعالبي في  تَرْتِيبِ سَوَادِ الإنْسَانِ:​ **إذا عَلاَهُ أَدْنَى سَوَادٍ فَهُوَ أسْمَرُ*
* فإنْ زَادَ سَوَادُهُ مَعَ صُفْرَةٍ تَعْلُوهُ فَهُوَ أَصْحَمُ*
* فإنْ زَادَ سَوَادُهُ عَلَى السُّمْرَةِ فَهُوَ آدَمُ

*​ Our starting point is the following أحاديث referenced above:


Quote:
                                                   كان *أبيض مليحًا مقصدًا*.                           
*I've explained the meaning of abyad.*
​        Quote:

                                                  كان [...] *أزهر *اللون *ليس  بأبيض أمهق ولا آدم*. [...] *والأزهر: هو الأبيض المستنير المشرق*،  وهو أحسن الألوان                                 
*As I've explained, azhar refers to a radiant complexion and has nothing to do with the actual skin color. This is what Imam Abu Hanifa has explained and it makes a lot of sense. Musa Al-Kaadhim was black-skinned and he was described as azhar also. Amhaq means an unattractive whiteness.*

Quote:
                                                                               كَانَ [...] *أَسْمَرَ* اللَّوْنِ [...]ـ                                 
تحفة الأحوذي's quote regarding the second quote above boils down to:
     Quote:
*الْأَبْيَضِ الْأَمْهَقِ *هُوَ *الكَرِيهُ الْبَيَاضِ *كَلَوْنِ الْجِصِّ                                 
*That's correct.*

Quote:
*الْآدَمِ *بِمَعْنَى *السُّمْرَةِ* 
*Incorrect. Here is the problem. Adam is not simply asmar. It means very asmar, which is a color that is darker than asmar. You really need to understand this.*

Quote:
*وَهَذَا يُعَارِضُ* مَا فِي رِوَايَةِ   حُمَيْدٍ   عَنْ    أَنَسٍ   فِي  بَابِ   الْجُمَّةِ وَاتِّخَاذِ الشَّعْرِ   أَنَّهُ -صَلَّى  اللَّهُ  عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- كَانَ *أَسْمَرَ *اللَّوْنِ ،                                 
*Incorrect. There is no contradiction for the reason stated above - adam is one color and asmar is another color.*

Quote:
                                                 وَالْجَمْعُ بَيْنَهُمَا بِأَنَّ 
الْمَنْفِيَّ إِنَّمَا هُوَ شِدَّةُ   السُّمْرَةِ 
فَلَا يُنَافِي إِثْبَاتَ السُّمْرَةِ فِي رِوَايَةِ    حُمَيْدٍ   عَنْ    أَنَسٍ   عَلَى أَنَّ لَفْظَةَ ( أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ )  فِي الرِّوَايَةِ  الْمَذْكُورَةِ انْفَرَدَ بِهَا   حُمَيْدٌ   عَنْ    أَنَسٍ   ، 
وَرَوَاهُ عَنْهُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ الرُّوَاةِ بِلَفْظِ ( أَزْهَرَ  اللَّوْنِ ) 

وَمَنْ رَوَى   صِفَتَهُ -صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-   غَيْرُ     أَنَسٍ   فَقَدْ وَصَفَهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دونَ السُّمْرَةِ ، وَهُمْ خَمْسَةَ   عَشَرَ صَحَابِيًّا ، قَالَهُ   الْحَافِظُ الْعِرَاقِيُّ   ،                                 
*When he says **وَصَفَهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دونَ السُّمْرَةِ** , if he understands that bayaad means a hinti complexion with a black hilya, he will understand that it isn't a big contradiction because abyad (**a hinti complexion with a black hilya) is a complexion near asmar. However, he appears to not understand that abyad meant **a hinti complexion with a black hilya.*

Quote:
*وَحَاصِلُهُ : تَرْجِيحُ رِوَايَةِ الْبَيَاضِ* بِكَثْرَةِ الرُّوَاةِ وَمَزِيدِ الْوَثَاقَةِ ، *وَلِهَذَا قَالَ   ابْنُ الْجَوْزِيِّ    : هَذَا حَدِيثٌ لَا يَصِح*ُّ ، وَهُوَ مُخَالِفٌ لِلْأَحَادِيثِ كُلِّهَا  ،                                 
*Same problem that I mentioned above.*


----------



## Awlaadberry

Quote:
* وَقِيلَ : الْمُرَادُ بِالسُّمْرَةِ : الْحُمْرَةُ*  ؛ لِأَنَّ  الْعَرَبَ  قَدْ تُطْلِقُ عَلَى كُلِّ مَنْ كَانَ كَذَلِكَ  أَسْمَرُ ،   وَمِمَّا يُؤَيِّدُ ذَلِكَ رِوَايَةُ   الْبَيْهَقِيِّ    :  كَانَ   أَبْيَضَ ، بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ                                  
*What does he mean by ahmar (red) here? Does he mean the literal meaning of red which is a dark color like dates: 

*http://reviews.in.88db.com/images/stories/dates-fruit.jpg

*Or does he mean red with the opposite meaning -  the color that is called abyad today?* *Ibn Mandhour says in his book Lisan Al-Arab:* *الأحمر الأبيض تطيرا بالأبرص”*​ *“A white person” was called “a red person” because of superstition against leprosy." 

Al-Zubaidi says in his book Taj Al-Arous:* *“’The red one’ means the white one didd (white in today’s meaning). This is the explanation of ‘the red’ in the hadith: ‘I was sent to the red and the black’. The Arabs say, ‘a red lady’ to mean ‘a white lady’ (white in today’s meaning)”.*
*
*
 *الأحمر : الأبيض ضد. و به فسر بعض الحديث : " بعثت إلى الأحمر و الأسود " . والعرب تقول امرأة حمراء أي بيضاء
*​ *Let  me explain briefly what is meant by the statement “didd”. The Arabs  sometimes use words to mean the opposite of what the word really means.   This use of words is called “didd”.  Al-Zubaidi says that “the red one” means “the white one”  didd because red is actually a dark color, but the Arabs used “red”  intead of “white” to describe a light-skinned person. Al-Zubaidi says:*
*“Dates are called ‘the red’ because of their color”.*
*
"الأحمر : تمر للونه ."*
*Al-Zubaidi then says:*

* “’The red one’ means ‘the white one’ didd”.*

  Quote:
                                                  ، *وَالْحَاصِلُ أَنَّ  الْمُرَادَ  
بِالسُّمْرَةِ : حُمْرَةٌ تُخَالِطُ الْبَيَاضَ *،  
وَ*بِالْبَيَاضِ*  الْمُثْبَتِ فِي رِوَايَةِ مُعْظَمِ الصَّحَابَةِ *مَا  يُخَالِطُ  الْحُمْرَةَ* 
*Again, does he mean the literal meaning of ahmar like I mentioned above?*

We also have from فيض القدير شرح الجامع الصغير:

     Quote:
*( أزهر اللون ) أي مشرقه نيره* [...] كأن عرقه اللؤلؤ . 
*الزهرة لغة  إشراق في اللون *أي لون كان من بياض أو غيره *وقول   بعضهم : إن الأزهر الأبيض  خاصة والزهر اسم للأبيض من النوار فقط خطأه أبو   حنيفة فيه وقال : إنما  الزهرة إشراق في الألوان كلها *.                                 
*Yes. Azhar means with a radiant complexion. It has nothing to do with the skin color.*

Quote:
                                                 أزهر  اللون أي أبيض مشرب بحمرة                      

*See what Abu Hanifa said about azhar.*

Quote:
                                                 كان أبيض مشربا بياضه بحمرة ( ليس بالأبيض الأمهق )                      

     Quote:
                                                  ( ولا ب*الآدم* )  بالمد أي ولا *شديد السمرة* وإنما يخالط بياضه الحمرة لكنها حمرة بصفاء فيصدق  عليه أنه أزهر                                 
*Yes. He wasn't adam meaning he wasn't shadeed as-sumra (very asmar).*

Quote:
*تطلق على من هو كذلك أسمر والمراد  بالسمرة التي تخالط البياض* 
      Quote:
ولهذا  جاء في حديث أنس  عند أحمد والبزار قال ابن  حجر بإسناد صحيح صححه ابن  حبان أنه كان أسمر وفي  الدلائل للبيهقي عن أنس  كان أبيض بياضه إلى السمرة
*This is proof that abyad is a color close to asmar.*
 وفي لفظ لأحمد بسند  حسن أسمر إلى البياض قال ابن  حجر : يمكن توجيه رواية  أمهق بالأمهق الأخضر  اللون الذي ليس بياضه في  الغاية ولا سمرته ولا  حمرته فقد نقل عن رؤية أن *المهق خضرة الماء *فهذا  التوجيه على تقدير ثبوت الرواية 


 and also - though I think this is irrelevant:
      Quote:
                                                  وبَياضُ الجلد: ما لا شعر عليه. التهذيب: *إِذا قالت العرب فلان أَبْيَضُ وفلانة بَيْضاء فالمعنى نَقاء العِرْض من الدنَس والعيوب*؛ [...] وهذا كثير في شعرهم *لا يريدون به بَياضَ اللون* ولكنهم يريدون المدح بالكرم ونَقاءِ العرْض من العيوب، 
 وإِذا قالوا: *فلان أَبْيَض الوجه* وفلانة بَيْضاءُ الوجه *أَرادوا نقاءَ اللون من الكَلَفِ والسوادِ الشائن*. 
 [...]                      

*This is another meaning of abyad - a clean complexion without spots. This also has nothing to do with a person's actual color. *


----------



## cherine

Moderator note:

This thread has become multi-topic, and most of the last posts are actually off-topic. The topic (question) of the thread was whether the Term "Red" _Still_ Mean "White" Anywhere?
This was already answered. The lenghty discussion of the meaning of _different colors_ in _Classical_ Arabic is obviously off-topic.

If we can't remain on-topic, maybe we'll have to close this thread.

Thank you all for your understanding.


----------



## Awlaadberry

cherine said:


> Moderator note:
> 
> This thread has become multi-topic, and most of the last posts are actually off-topic. The topic (question) of the thread was whether the Term "Red" _Still_ Mean "White" Anywhere?
> This was already answered. The lenghty discussion of the meaning of _different colors_ in _Classical_ Arabic is obviously off-topic.
> 
> If we can't remain on-topic, maybe we'll have to close this thread.
> 
> Thank you all for your understanding.



Those with comments about the colors آدم _adam_, and أبيض _white_ should go to the threads that I opened about these colors and comment there.


----------

