The creators specifically said when asked about the name of the city that it is a mix of Baghdad and Agra. Not to mention it had plenty of Mughal Indian influence. The obvious Taj Mahal, the indian tiger named Rajah, even the appearance of the characters. Not to mention, "Arab" isn't even a real distinction as an ethnicity. An Egyptian Arab is far different then a Syrian one. There is no such thing as authenticity when you're basing it off a confusing Disney cartoon made by white people.
(Edited) The story is based off “Aladdin,” with elements incorporated from “The Thief of Baghdad.” As for the “set” design, much of it was inspired by Azadani’s hometown– an Iranian layout artist who heavily used his hometown in Iran as inspo. As for the Taj Mahal-turned-palace, remember that its base architecture was Persian, and a veritable homage to the tomb of Timur, which was constructed in the Persian style. Yes, it’s a Mughal Indian building, but the Indo-Islamic art and architecture was heavily influenced by the Middle East. As for the tiger being named Rajah, you yourself just pointed out that it’s an obviously Orientalist cartoon made by white people, and the live-action casting of Naomi reflects that part of the original cartoon. Just as they transplanted a couple of Indian elements into a kingdom set in the Middle East, near the banks of the Jordan River, they cast a half-Indian actress to play a MENA role set in a fictional Arabian city. They made a monolith of brown folks and called it Arabian. I believe they actually wanted to make Baghdad the setting but decided to make up a city instead, due to political tensions at the time. I don’t really understand why you are so adamant about it being ambiguous, when it clearly is not. Just because they named the city Agrabah, that doesn’t change the fact that the creators explicitly stated that they wanted the setting to be Maghrebi. The original story of Aladdin is set in China, and the Disney creators moved the story to the Middle East and simplified the plot. It’s also worth noting that the oldest version of “One Thousand and One Nights” is Persian. They cut-and-pasted a couple of Indian elements, but clearly said they wrote it to be a Middle Eastern story. And again, that never really bothered me. The creators weren’t super accurate to a purely Middle Eastern story, but the intention was never for it to be a mix of MENA and South Asian culture. Perhaps that’s the problem. However, trying to say the creators’ intentions were “ambiguity” and “something that resonates with both MENA and South Asian kids” is a huge stretch, since that’s clearly not the case. And trying to say that to justify a casting that is as inauthentically Arab as the original Disney story itself is, once again, a reach. It’s evidently difficult for people to accept that no, Aladdin was not meant to be Middle Eastern and South Asian. Maybe this is because a lot of these people were once brown kids of South Asian descent (myself included, in a way) saw themselves in the characters. But isn’t that the point of stories?? To see ourselves in characters, even if they aren’t exactly the same race and religion that we are? I don’t need the Disney version of Aladdin to be ambiguously Indian for me to enjoy it, nor does that mean I think it an authentic representation of the Mashriq. In short, I don’t need to retcon the creators’ intentions to justify Naomi as Jasmine, or the casting of non-MENA actors, because I never cared about authenticity for this movie anyway. I do mind when people try to 1) first say the casting was accurate, and then 2) hand-wave away authenticity altogether because a cartoon set in the Middle East created by white people got it wrong by incorporating a Bengal tiger and Persian/Mughal architecture. TLDR, Jasmine was intended to be Middle Eastern, the Disney story of Aladdin was intended to be set in Baghdad, and the live-action movie will probably be as inauthentically Arabian as the original cartoon. I’d love to be surprised and proven wrong, but I also don’t really care. I think I’ve devoted more than enough time to this topic, far more than it deserves, and the only thing I really care about is whether or not the musical numbers are done correctly. If they ruin “A Whole New World” and “Prince Ali” the way (my dear, sweet, favorite) Emma Watson ruined “Little Town,” then I’ll be pissed. All this casting stuff? The reaching bugs me more than the casting ever could.
