Muhammad is a White Man?
-
Salaam Anwar/Progod
You have said that I said this
"You yourself used to say that the pale, weak Arabs could never conquer black Africans."
I can tell that you are consciously attempting to distort what I say and possibly to mislead others that are paying attention to this Post. Now I CHALLENGE you to quote me verbatim where I have made this declaration which you have foolishly associated with my self.
-
This is the third time someone has misunderstood me when I brought up the "ghetto mentality" concept. I'll explain it again
I was demonstrating that applying a mentality to an entire skin color of people is incorrect. Saying all white people are arrogant and prideful is the same as saying all black people are ghetto. BOTH statements are incorrect, BOTH statements are inappropriate and offensive. I never offered a commentary on 'ghetto mentality' and never presumed to know where it comes from or what it is. It was just an example, I could just as easily have used "all asians work hard at school" or any other ridiculous stereotype. I wasn't saying anything about blacks or the ghetto, I was just using a popular example of ignorant thinking.
Don't be so quick to think I'm just here to be arrogant and defend whites. I don't identify with any "race" (i dont even believe in the things) and could care less what anybody thinks about people who look like me. I don't deny many European and European-descended people have done a lot of racist things and continue to do them. This is not a hard reality for me to face, what's hard for me to accept is that people are using the Qu'ran and putting "whites" where "jinn" is and using the story of the fall of Iblis to characterize "white" behavior. It takes a very race-centric and skewed point-of-view to come up with that. We all believe what we want to believe but seriously, does it have to always be about color? I was floored when Harun Yahya was introduced with "This is what he looks like" and a picture. How much more prejudiced does it get?
-
This is the third time someone has misunderstood me when I brought up the "ghetto mentality" concept. I'll explain it again
I was demonstrating that applying a mentality to an entire skin color of people is incorrect. Saying all white people are arrogant and prideful is the same as saying all black people are ghetto. BOTH statements are incorrect, BOTH statements are inappropriate and offensive. I never offered a commentary on 'ghetto mentality' and never presumed to know where it comes from or what it is. It was just an example, I could just as easily have used "all asians work hard at school" or any other ridiculous stereotype. I wasn't saying anything about blacks or the ghetto, I was just using a popular example of ignorant thinking.
Don't be so quick to think I'm just here to be arrogant and defend whites. I don't identify with any "race" (i dont even believe in the things) and could care less what anybody thinks about people who look like me. I don't deny many European and European-descended people have done a lot of racist things and continue to do them. This is not a hard reality for me to face, what's hard for me to accept is that people are using the Qu'ran and putting "whites" where "jinn" is and using the story of the fall of Iblis to characterize "white" behavior. It takes a very race-centric and skewed point-of-view to come up with that. We all believe what we want to believe but seriously, does it have to always be about color? I was floored when Harun Yahya was introduced with "This is what he looks like" and a picture. How much more prejudiced does it get?
RSW
?Saying all white people are arrogant and prideful is the same as saying all black people are ghetto.?
I nor Ahmad Bilal said 100% of all white people. As militant and strong as Malcolm X was he to also never said that 100% of white people are as such. JInns are one of the most evil beings (in Jannah) and one of the most evil human beings (in al ard, the planet earth) in the Qur?aan but yet even Allah says that there ar some good Jinns so if Allah never addressed the Jinns in the absolute sense then how can we say that 100% of white people are racists. Our claims is that the majority of white people are racist, remember they are in global position of power, who can deny this!
"Don't be so quick to think I'm just here to be arrogant and defend whites."
Well your actions make it hard to believe especially when you attempted to say that I diminish racism to skin color, which you cannot quote me saying this.
"I was floored when Harun Yahya was introduced with "This is what he looks like" and a picture. How much more prejudiced does it get??
Alhamdulillah for this! Again I am one of the children of the slaves who decided to stand up and speak out against this racism but because I?m doing this and others like me as well for some reason white folks in this forum are exercising reverse racism and calling me and others racists.
-
I remember saying some things you said were racist (if it draws any distinction having to to with race it's racist the way I see it, and this whole thread has been about that from the start), but I don't recall saying any of you were actually racists. If I did say or imply that I apologize because it would indeed be a stupid thing to say and I ought to be ashamed of myself. If any of us were intentionally racist we wouldn't be here talking about this.
European and European-descended leaders are a minority in both the "white race" and in the world -- but they are the only ones with the power to institutionalize racism on a global scale. The majority of whites did not participate in this, the majority of the whites were serfs kicking dirt around a feudal lord's mansion while most of that stuff was being set up. I'll acknowledge that most AMERICANS IN GENERAL are racist but its the snide coward racism they inherited from their parents at the diner table, it doesn't make it better but it's not like they're enforcing a caste system. They are just being ignorant humans, following suit like humans tend to do. It's got less to do with global power and racist oppression and more to do with being obnoxious and hateful. It isn't making things better and it needs to stop, but it's got nothing to do with the rich white bastards running the world (except that they are probably the ones who instigated it. I read "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" where Thomas Sowell claimed racism came from the ruling class trying to split the working class so they argue and fight each other instead of the ruling class. How accurate that is I don't know, but it seems likely).
I haven't even been outside of America (im pretty sure 'most whites' DONT live in the US) and haven't read about racist attitudes of whites outside of it so I am not at liberty to make statements including whites outside of America. If you know more than me concerning the amount of racist whites in europe/asia/australia/south america/africa I'd be interested in hearing about it.
When I hear you saying that the Qu'ran speaks of whites when it speaks of Jinns and that GOD created man from black mud and that means original man was black it seems to me you are reducing racism to skin color. If I'm incorrect here then please fill me in. It's my understanding that skin color and race has **** all to do with anything in the Qu'ran, but I'm flexible on these things.
I admit I don't understand your last sentence. I don't mean to accuse you of reverse racism but I really don't understand why what Harun Yahya looks like is so important to debunk his lies.
-
Al-Khidr,
I'll be the first to admit if I have made a mistake. But first, can i ask you if you have Terets or something? Why do you have to stick an insult in everytime you address me on an issue, and intentionally try to incite me. I'm starting to find it funny but at the same time I'm starting to worry about you, brother. Saying that my associating this statement with you is foolish is wrong. I might be mistaken but I'm not a fool for being mistaken about something you may have said. If you do have Terets, I suggest you go see someone about it, and I say that with deep concern for your well-being.
Now to get back to the issue maybe these weren't your exact words, but they are what i understood from something you said some time ago. I looked around for it using key words and I couldn't find the thread or the specific post of yours that made me take that understanding away from it. So I'll ask you, did you ever say or imply that the pale Arabs were too weak to have ever conquered (black) Africa?
If you didn't I'll gladly say, my bad. But don't let that tempt you into trying to undermine all of my other points on in this topic or on this forum, just because I accidently misquoted you. That would be unjust, unquranic and just plain old manipulative, evil and satan-like. I pray that as someone on a mission for truth, you are better than that.
So again, did you ever say or imply that the pale Arabs were too weak to have ever conquered (black) Africa?
Godbless,
AnwarSalaam Anwar/Progod
You have said that I said this
"You yourself used to say that the pale, weak Arabs could never conquer black Africans."
I can tell that you are consciously attempting to distort what I say and possibly to mislead others that are paying attention to this Post. Now I CHALLENGE you to quote me verbatim where I have made this declaration which you have foolishly associated with my self.
-
Al-Khidr,
I'll be the first to admit if I have made a mistake. But first, can i ask you if you have Terets or something? Why do you have to stick an insult in everytime you address me on an issue, and intentionally try to incite me. I'm starting to find it funny but at the same time I'm starting to worry about you, brother. Saying that my associating this statement with you is foolish is wrong. I might be mistaken but I'm not a fool for being mistaken about something you may have said. If you do have Terets, I suggest you go see someone about it, and I say that with deep concern for your well-being.
Now to get back to the issue maybe these weren't your exact words, but they are what i understood from something you said some time ago. I looked around for it using key words and I couldn't find the thread or the specific post of yours that made me take that understanding away from it. So I'll ask you, did you ever say or imply that the pale Arabs were too weak to have ever conquered (black) Africa?
If you didn't I'll gladly say, my bad. But don't let that tempt you into trying to undermine all of my other points on in this topic or on this forum, just because I accidently misquoted you. That would be unjust, unquranic and just plain old manipulative, evil and satan-like. I pray that as someone on a mission for truth, you are better than that.
So again, did you ever say or imply that the pale Arabs were too weak to have ever conquered (black) Africa?
Godbless,
AnwarAnwar
I respond to you in such manner because you are associating or ascribing things to me which I never declared. When I respond to you notice that I quote you verbatim so there will be no mistake about it. I never made such declarations and I can tell that you are just talking from the top of your head so I made indications that you are intentionally distorting things about what I say and I said the same thing about RSW because he also made declarations that I said certain things when I didn?t so I also called him to task and ask him to quote me verbatim and nothing is wrong with that. My words are in this post and different parts of this forum and you know the Tawhiyd website, I can be quoted there as well. All one has to do is copy and paste. I call a spade a spade. Just like I have not taken it personal of your actions, don?t take it personal of my response to you. I don?t hate you or anything like that but you have to look at the context here, we are in a heated debate concerning this subject that I posted here. I been aware of the Arab Slave Trade, it happened, it existed so that means they were able to conquer. I am aware of the slave trade instituted by the Christians, it happened, it existed so that means they were able to conquer Africa.
-
Peace RSW,
I was demonstrating that applying a mentality to an entire skin color of people is incorrect. Saying all white people are arrogant and prideful is the same as saying all black people are ghetto.
I understand your reasoning, but this is NOT the same thing. White people are generally, inherently prideful and arrogant, while the so-called "ghetto mentality" is based on social and cultural upbringing. That makes these factors completely different. On this issue of pride and arrogance throughout life, this has nothing to do with race, since everybody has the CHOICE to be arrogant and prideful. Many white people CHOOSE to maintain this attitude throughout life, but some make positive changes to be more humble and accepting of others. This, though, is the minority, not the majority. I can't place 100% of white people in one group just like I can't place 100% of black people in one group, and Brother Al Khidr wasn't saying this either. We're only speaking about the general majority.
I'll acknowledge that most AMERICANS IN GENERAL are racist but its the snide coward racism they inherited from their parents at the diner table, it doesn't make it better but it's not like they're enforcing a caste system. They are just being ignorant humans, following suit like humans tend to do. It's got less to do with global power and racist oppression and more to do with being obnoxious and hateful.
This is not completely true. In many parts of the world, especially parts of America, there are no black people. However, even though the younger generations of those people have never even seen black people in their life, if you integrate them into a multi-cultural society, they show clear signs of racism and discrimination. This shows that their prideful, judgemental attitude is not based on environment or surroundings; it's an inborn trait that they choose to exhibit.
I haven't even been outside of America (im pretty sure 'most whites' DONT live in the US) and haven't read about racist attitudes of whites outside of it so I am not at liberty to make statements including whites outside of America. If you know more than me concerning the amount of racist whites in europe/asia/australia/south america/africa I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Racism exists in all countries of the world, and it is exhibited strongest by white people. Also, you have to realize that white racism is reflective, and they tend to show discrimination against their own people if no black people are available. That's why brunettes hate blonds, Italians hate Irish and Scottish people, blue-eyed people hate brown-eyed people, etc. This has been mimicked by black society as well, and it's starting to become more prevalent that lighter-skinned blacks are showing discrimination toward darker-skinned blacks. In any case, the social viewpoint is "lighter is better". This happens inside and outside the United States, and it seems to be a growing trend. Because many black people have become so unaware of black history and culture, they mimick the characteristics of their white counterparts, even to the extent of lighter-skinned blacks hating darker-skinned blacks. This is especially becoming extremely prevalent in intermixed (black and white) people, who think they are a "better breed" than black people.
When I hear you saying that the Qu'ran speaks of whites when it speaks of Jinns and that GOD created man from black mud and that means original man was black it seems to me you are reducing racism to skin color. If I'm incorrect here then please fill me in. It's my understanding that skin color and race has **** all to do with anything in the Qu'ran, but I'm flexible on these things.
Skin color differences aren't directly mentioned in the Quran, but Adam being created from "black mud" does make him a black man. And here's how I interpret that, based on genetic reproduction Since Adam and Eve didn't have any genetic defects or recessive genes (they were the first humans), they could have only produced other black people. If they both had brown eyes, they couldn't have physically produced a blue-eyed child. The same would be the case if Adam and Eve were white. Either way, only one race of people could've come from them; the other group came from somewhere and someone else. So, the question is, Where did they come from? Who, if not Adam, produced them? Did Allah place another man and woman on the earth who He forgot to mention in the Quran? We see in the scriptures that the race of jinns aren't beyond repentence and forgiveness, and they can receive GOD's mercy; it depends on their choices. This is the same scenario with the children of Adam. The Quran says that many generations of them were wiped out and replaced with new ones, which shows that nobody, man or jinn, black or white, is exempt from following GOD's universal law. We all have to make the choice to "hear and obey".
Peace,
Ahmad
-
I remember saying some things you said were racist (if it draws any distinction having to to with race it's racist the way I see it, and this whole thread has been about that from the start), but I don't recall saying any of you were actually racists. If I did say or imply that I apologize because it would indeed be a stupid thing to say and I ought to be ashamed of myself. If any of us were intentionally racist we wouldn't be here talking about this.
European and European-descended leaders are a minority in both the "white race" and in the world -- but they are the only ones with the power to institutionalize racism on a global scale. The majority of whites did not participate in this, the majority of the whites were serfs kicking dirt around a feudal lord's mansion while most of that stuff was being set up. I'll acknowledge that most AMERICANS IN GENERAL are racist but its the snide coward racism they inherited from their parents at the diner table, it doesn't make it better but it's not like they're enforcing a caste system. They are just being ignorant humans, following suit like humans tend to do. It's got less to do with global power and racist oppression and more to do with being obnoxious and hateful. It isn't making things better and it needs to stop, but it's got nothing to do with the rich white bastards running the world (except that they are probably the ones who instigated it. I read "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" where Thomas Sowell claimed racism came from the ruling class trying to split the working class so they argue and fight each other instead of the ruling class. How accurate that is I don't know, but it seems likely).
I haven't even been outside of America (im pretty sure 'most whites' DONT live in the US) and haven't read about racist attitudes of whites outside of it so I am not at liberty to make statements including whites outside of America. If you know more than me concerning the amount of racist whites in europe/asia/australia/south america/africa I'd be interested in hearing about it.
When I hear you saying that the Qu'ran speaks of whites when it speaks of Jinns and that GOD created man from black mud and that means original man was black it seems to me you are reducing racism to skin color. If I'm incorrect here then please fill me in. It's my understanding that skin color and race has **** all to do with anything in the Qu'ran, but I'm flexible on these things.
I admit I don't understand your last sentence. I don't mean to accuse you of reverse racism but I really don't understand why what Harun Yahya looks like is so important to debunk his lies.
RSW
?The majority of whites did not participate in this?
This is a fallacy of the highest degree. Let me give you a quick analogy below, for example
The US gov. after slavery is still guilty of taking land from the Native Indians. If the present generation of white folks sit back and allow this gov. to do this and do not speak up and condemn this form of imperialism, then how can they (the present generation of white folks) say that they are any better then their forefathers who took this entire country away from the Native Indians!
Do you get my point.
You will notice that if something white folks disagree with for example, i.e. many of them support homosexuality, or maybe against inhumane acts upon animals by humans, companies, corporations, they will come out and march by the THOUSANDS but where are all these white folks standing up and marching against the inhumane conditions of not only Black and people of color in the US and throughout the world? They aren?t, this is the reality, the white race cannot escape their collective deeds and actions that they have committed on the darker peoples of the world. The majority of them (white folks) support policies (that are crushing people of color throughout the world) of their gov. regardless if its in Europe, Australia, US, etc. so the collect embodiment of them are just as guilty as the elite whom you speak of as the only perpetrators.
-
This is true to an extent, but like I said, it's already been scientifically acknowledged that white people and black people are INHERENTLY different from eachother. For starters, if you take a black child in an all-black community and then introduce him to a white child, he will most likely be accepting, wanting to make friends. However, if you take a white child in an all-white community and introduce him to a black child, he will most likely reject him because he looks different that the white child's other peers. This is a clear indication that white people are inherently racist, arrogant, and judgemental, just like the Quran describes Iblis/Satan.
Is the first sentence dealing with "scientific acknowledgement" leading to the next as evidence of the former? Where can I find these scientific studies that provide evidence for "white people" being inherently racist, arrogant and judgemental? And while you're at it, where are the studies that show "black people" aren't?
-
I've seen what you're saying about whites try to find superficial reasons to hate other people not like them. I'm not sure how frequent that is in non-European societies and this (like the 'white children raised in white society will be racist in a multicultural society' is the kind of thing that requires real-world experiments and studies. I don't feel comfortable resting on allegations based on what it seems like should happen, or what people may claim to have seen, etc. I'd like to see some decent research conducted on these things before we just say "this is built-in on whites."
Also, something else that puzzles me about your interpretation of the Qu'ran is the timeline. Do you believe, like the website claims, that dark-skinned humans are the original man (I'm not saying I do or don't, I don't have any opinion on the subject)? If the Jinns (uhm, "whites" existed prior to the creation of man wouldn't that mean white people predated "original man"? Does that make white people less human, or black people less original?
The thing with me is the Qu'ran puts such a deep divide between humans and jinns that for 1400 years it hasn't been inconcievable that Jinns were nonmaterial spiritual beings (almost as completely different from man as you can get). While I believe our cultural influences do create some strong differences between us, I don't think they are so deep that millions of people would mistake that difference for the difference between a physical and spiritual being. That type of difference which is beyond race, beyond species, beyond even the plant/animal distinction what is natural and what is supernatural. Reading the Qu'ran the way suggested draws such a racially polarized world that coexistence can only ever be a delusional daydream at best. It divides mankind into two groups at perpetual unending war (albeit with some on either side who see above it all, but nonetheless). Do you think that is acceptable? You don't think there's more to mankind than this?
Also, the way the website illustrates it it's got a pretty clear bias with "whites" being the "badguys" and the rest of the world being the victims. Sure enough, the Qu'ran depicts most Jinns as being evil with a small percent being repentant. However, the Qu'ran also overwhelmingly shows the ratio of bad to good leaning on the dark side in mankind. Just as in the communities of Jinns, the communities of mankind are depicted as being overwhelmingly evil with just a few decent folks. But the Qu'ran shifts the blame for their immorality and disbelief to Jinns, saying THEY are the ones leading men astray. It paints Jinns as mischevious devils, the inspiration behind all of the evil activities men participate in. To interpret the Qu'ran based on this will create a worldview that is inherently prejudiced and in many people would easily cause resentment and hatred toward whites. Do you think this is acceptable?
-
Peace Savage_Carrot,
Is the first sentence dealing with "scientific acknowledgement" leading to the next as evidence of the former? Where can I find these scientific studies that provide evidence for "white people" being inherently racist, arrogant and judgemental? And while you're at it, where are the studies that show "black people" aren't?
I didn't say that scientists agree that white people are inherently racist and discriminatory; this is a conclusion I've found to be true throughout my life and experiences with dealing with white children and adults throughout the world. I said white people and black people are "INHERENTLY DIFFERENT FROM EACHOTHER". I've done my own research, and I've also concluded that white people are generally more judgemental and unaccepting than blacks. Cultural science experts seem to agree with me on this issue as well. If you don't believe me, look it up. There are proofs of it everywhere.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
RSW
?The majority of whites did not participate in this?
This is a fallacy of the highest degree. Let me give you a quick analogy below, for example
The US gov. after slavery is still guilty of taking land from the Native Indians. If the present generation of white folks sit back and allow this gov. to do this and do not speak up and condemn this form of imperialism, then how can they (the present generation of white folks) say that they are any better then their forefathers who took this entire country away from the Native Indians!
Do you get my point.
You will notice that if something white folks disagree with for example, i.e. many of them support homosexuality, or maybe against inhumane acts upon animals by humans, companies, corporations, they will come out and march by the THOUSANDS but where are all these white folks standing up and marching against the inhumane conditions of not only Black and people of color in the US and throughout the world? They aren?t, this is the reality, the white race cannot escape their collective deeds and actions that they have committed on the darker peoples of the world. The majority of them (white folks) support policies (that are crushing people of color throughout the world) of their gov. regardless if its in Europe, Australia, US, etc. so the collect embodiment of them are just as guilty as the elite whom you speak of as the only perpetrators.
Yeah, I get your point now. It'd be kind of inconvenient for all the individuals and businesses who have bought up this land in their game of "postindustrial economy" to have to give it back to who it really belongs to. but there's nothing "white people" can do about it anymore. Even if we got every white person to give up their private property there's still publicly traded companies and governments who own land and those are IDEAS, not people of a certain color. Also, should non-white people who have purchased land give it up? It wasn't bought with permission of it's owner. And the number of native americans remaining to the amount of land to be given back is now so wildly disproportionate that revoking ownership would leave a lot of homeless and poor people of all colors scrambling for a place to be, just so a few people could have what was taken from their ancestors.
I think the reason you don't see white people up in arms about this is because finding a solution is more complicated than "just give it back". With homosexuality the simple answer is "let them do what they want," with animal rights it's "just treat them right." With the land issue it's "We're going to have to radically change our whole world." The former make white people feel good about themselves and make them feel like they're progressive and making a difference (they're just deluding themselves anyway, waving a sign and voting doesn't change a thing), but the latter leaves them questioning the legitimacy of their entire lives. It's not pleasant to think about and part of white culture is ignoring what is not pleasant to think about (or adopting a meaningless political platform on the issue for the image and then doing nothing about it).
-
I didn't say that scientists agree that white people are inherently racist and discriminatory; this is a conclusion I've found to be true throughout my life and experiences with dealing with white children and adults throughout the world. I said white people and black people are "INHERENTLY DIFFERENT FROM EACHOTHER". I've done my own research, and I've also concluded that white people are generally more judgemental and unaccepting than blacks. Cultural science experts seem to agree with me on this issue as well. If you don't believe me, look it up. There are proofs of it everywhere.
You said it was scientifically acknowledged that "white people" and "black people" are inherently different...I would like to see the scientific proof is all. Second, this then is used to support your argument that "white people" are inherently racist, arrogant etc or there is no need to use "scientific acknowledgement" as a springing board. The last I read is that science doesn't support inherent differences in the human race that have to do with traits such as arrogance for example. If there are any scientific studies (even half way respectable by actually being published in a scientific journal even by a "cultural science expert" that provide evidence for these inherent differences, please do post.
Other than that, based on one's personal experiences, one might think that the world is flat but if they say it's scientifically acknowledged that it is so, I probably would ask for evidence that it is scientifically acknowldged and preferably evidence that is actually peer reviewed/rigourously examined and thus published and not like the studies like we did back in college, rounding up a few kids and asking them hot words (in psy for example) and insisting that it proved that they stole another kid's lunch money.
-
Al-Khidr,
As I said if I accused you of saying something that you didn't say I apologize for that. But as it concerns the fact of slavery, neither Europeans nor Arabs conquered Subsaharan Africa. How would you categorize the slavery that existed in Subsaharan African between those AFricans themselves. Would you deny that it ever existed when it obviously did? Again, if you look at history closer you will see how it was the rampant and badly managed slave trade that destroyed the African empires at that time to such a degree that subsaharan Africa was able to be conquered. And colonialism in Africa didn't start until the mid to late 1800's whereas the shipping of slaves to the Middle East, India and the Americas had been going on since the 1400's (the Arabs didn't buy nearly as many slaves as the Europeans did) and Africans were also traders, sailors and more on the trade routes from East Africa to Arabia and southeast Asia. There were African slaves as well as merchants, traders and other than that. I know the truth of the matter but how do you explain these things? And why are you mixing all of the issues. To have slaves doesn't mean that you had to have conquered anyone, you can just have bought them (at the root someone had to have done the conquering but it doesn't have to be the person who ends up with the slave). And the type of slavery that existed in Africa and the Middle East was not the type of slavery that existed in the Americas, i.e. chattel slavery. So your logic of the becuz Europeans and the Arabs had African slaves that means that they had to have conquered Africa is wrong. It can be clearly shown that by the time the Europeans conquered Africa the transatlantic slave trade had already been abolished, and even slavery in American was close to or in some cases already was abolished. And by the time the Omani Arabs had established their sultanate on the swahili coast, they had been already buying slaves for hundreds of years before. In addition to that, they never went beyond the swahili coast. And there are still plent of non-Arab swahilis living there. There are the majority. I beg you to look at the facts. Saying that the Europeans and the Arabs conquered Africa and took slaves from Africa after they had conquered it not only wrong but is in part Eurocentric myth. Just like the myth that Europeans invented the gun. The Moors invented the gun, and the Europeans just massively invested in it.
Godbless,
Anwar -
http//www.afrocentricnews.com/html/about_slavery.html
I did a brief search online for what I was talking about. And i found this article. I've read this before and I probably was thinking of you Al-Khidr (how sweet, right?) when I was reading it. So again I aplogize for putting words in your mouth. Everyone should read the article however. I try to find some more on this topic, that is maybe not as afrocentric, although the main point of the article (Arabs and Islam in Africa) I found to be true.
Godbless,
Anwar -
I thought it was the far-east Asians who invented the gun, and was spread to Asia and eventually Europe around the time of Genghis Khan (who reportedly used the early firearms in his conquests of Asia). http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firearms#East_Asia ?
-
I have not read all the posts in this thread,but I did read a lot of nonsens,about white people as jinns.
So the white people once sat in the heavens and listening to Gods command?Someone said that if you took a white child and let him grow up among africans,he would still feel better than them.That is a saying of someone with no experience
when it comes to children.The arabs was in Africa and fetched slaves,for many centuries.Black historians say that Africa would had the manpower to stand the white people when they came if
it was not for the slavetrade that had existed for hundreds of year.
In year 900,there was a slave uprising in Baghdad,that was the main capital for muslims.Their leader called Zanj,took his soldiers of slaves,and was on the brink of
taking the town,before they were beaten.From that time,the arabs were more carefull with to many man slaves.Arab slave trade was as inhuman as the white peoples
slave trades.The arabs kept white slaves also at that time.Many of them were castrated,the white man got his balls cut of,but with the black man,they cut it all of.People
died as flies of course.Another thing that was different,with arab slavetrade,was that when the white people took two men for each woman,that was opposit for the arabs,
they took two woman for every man.
The light skinned woman,worked in the houses,the darker once in the field.Sheiks had thousands of slavegirls that they had sex with.
One famous Iraq sheik had 17 000 slavegirls in his harem.When the white people started they slavetrade from Africa,they had allready practised the prosedure on other white people and the red indians.The black man inherited
his chains from the pioneer bondsmen,who were red and white.
The plantation pass system,the fugitive slave law,the use of the overseer and the house servant and the uncle Tom,the forced separetion of parents and children
on the auction block and the sexual exploitation of servant women,the whipping post,the slave chains,the branding iron,all these mechanisms were tried
out and perfected first on white/red men and women.Cheap labour,and mony making is the reasons,of the exploitation of any human being.There is not enough for all the human beings to live like
queens and kings,so somebody,have to be living a very cheap life,for some of us to live a luxurious life.Every human being have their african secuenses in their dna.From white norwegians to aborigines.The african is the race with most
mutations,and therefor the oldest race in this world,but every human is from Africa,the white people also. -
Peace Savage_Carrot,
You said it was scientifically acknowledged that "white people" and "black people" are inherently different...I would like to see the scientific proof is all. Second, this then is used to support your argument that "white people" are inherently racist, arrogant etc or there is no need to use "scientific acknowledgement" as a springing board. The last I read is that science doesn't support inherent differences in the human race that have to do with traits such as arrogance for example. If there are any scientific studies (even half way respectable by actually being published in a scientific journal even by a "cultural science expert" that provide evidence for these inherent differences, please do post.
Other than that, based on one's personal experiences, one might think that the world is flat but if they say it's scientifically acknowledged that it is so, I probably would ask for evidence that it is scientifically acknowldged and preferably evidence that is actually peer reviewed/rigourously examined and thus published and not like the studies like we did back in college, rounding up a few kids and asking them hot words (in psy for example) and insisting that it proved that they stole another kid's lunch money.
From this perspective, I see that you haven't done any research on this basic concept. White people and black people are inherently different, but many white people refuse to acknowledge this reality. I've done research on this myself, and I've also spoken with several cultural science experts on the issue, and they all agree that there are obvious psychological, emotional, and social differences between blacks and whites. To get a full picture on this ideology, it's best to analyze both respective opinions on the issue of racial separation and divisibility. Here are a few websites I found pretty interesting on the issue
http//inverted-world.com/index.php/articles/articles/the_reality_of_racial_differences/
http//www.crusader.net/texts/bt/bt00.html
http//www.human-nature.com/nibbs/03/jensen.html
http//www.stormfront.org/racediff/equality.html
http//www.cpsimoes.net/artigos/bell_mainstr.html
http//psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
Now, if you read through many of these, you can see the outrageously ignorant views of these white people, who insist on characterizing black people as INFERIOR to the "white race". This is a basic view of their ignorance and arrogance, which is the true nature of Satan's offspring. In some of the other articles, though, a few of the authors give unbiased views on the real source of the problem; it's not only environmental diversity, black and white people are biologically different, and this affects their thinking and reasoning, their growth and performance, and it also affects their self-portaits of their own personal characters, white people viewing themselves "higher" than blacks. Because of their degradation of the black race, they have imposed a self-hatred mechanism on black people, forcing many of them to feel "inferior"/lower than white people, which is why so many of them resort to self-discrimination and servitude. In other words, white people have hated black people so much for so long, they've actually forced black people to hate themselves. That's why, in order to be accepted by white society, many black people have resorted to self-reform, trying to look, think, and behave like white people. Personally, I think you should look at the video Brother Al Khidr posted by Minister Louis Farrakhan ("NOI" on blacks being stripped of their culture and being forced to take on white culture, including it's beliefs, languages, and characteristics.
And the reason I characterize the distinction of blacks and whites as "them & them" instead of "us & them" is because I'd rather look at the situation from an unbiased perspective, without placing myself in a particular racial group. In my opinion, both groups are equal; but again, that's just my opinion, and it's NOT compatible with reality. And the reality is the two groups are not equal. That's why cultural integration is a DISASTER; the two groups are not socially compatible, and they never will be unless the white race (the general majority) becomes more accepting of black people in mainstream society.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Marleya,
I have not read all the posts in this thread,but I did read a lot of nonsens,about white people as jinns.
So the white people once sat in the heavens and listening to Gods command?Where does the Quran say that all the jinns used to sit in the heavens and listen to GOD's commands?
Someone said that if you took a white child and let him grow up among africans,he would still feel better than them.That is a saying of someone with no experience
when it comes to children.You've gotta be kidding me, Marleya... Show me ONE white person in Africa who doesn't feel socially, culturally, mentally, and physiologically superior than the black African people, and then you may have a case. Until then, you're speaking foolishness. Africa is plagued with disease and pestilence, poverty, social conflict, and starvation. So, with all the white people over there (i.e. British, American, French, etc.), why aren't they helping? Instead, they're only colonizing, trying to take over the area, implement their own beliefs and policies, and control the African people, just like they did during the slave trade. They just put a new name on it, and they use forced poverty and starvation as weapons instead of whips and chains... Do you think white children are TAUGHT this stuff? From who, and where did those people learn it from? The reality is that it's an inborn trait, and white people are biologically inclined to exhibit these qualities. And even though some of them choose to overcome these racist tendencies and equalize everyone, the vast majority of white people choose to maintain this twisted mentality. That's why the world is the way it is today...
The arabs was in Africa and fetched slaves,for many centuries.Black historians say that Africa would had the manpower to stand the white people when they came if
it was not for the slavetrade that had existed for hundreds of year.
In year 900,there was a slave uprising in Baghdad,that was the main capital for muslims.Their leader called Zanj,took his soldiers of slaves,and was on the brink of
taking the town,before they were beaten.From that time,the arabs were more carefull with to many man slaves.Arab slave trade was as inhuman as the white peoples
slave trades.The arabs kept white slaves also at that time.Many of them were castrated,the white man got his balls cut of,but with the black man,they cut it all of.People
died as flies of course.Another thing that was different,with arab slavetrade,was that when the white people took two men for each woman,that was opposit for the arabs,
they took two woman for every man.
The light skinned woman,worked in the houses,the darker once in the field.Sheiks had thousands of slavegirls that they had sex with.
One famous Iraq sheik had 17 000 slavegirls in his harem.What is the point of stating this? Black Africans couldn't stand up their white oppressors because they were not as culturally and technologically advanced in terms of weaponry. Also, the enslavement of the black Africans led many of them to feel "secure" in their enslavement, even to the point where they were willing to fight against their own people to aid their white oppressors... And you can change that "hundreds" to "THOUSANDS" - slavery has existed for THOUSANDS of years. And also, you can't compare the Arab slave trade with the European slave trade because they were completey different.
When the white people started they slavetrade from Africa,they had allready practised the prosedure on other white people and the red indians.The black man inherited
his chains from the pioneer bondsmen,who were red and white.
The plantation pass system,the fugitive slave law,the use of the overseer and the house servant and the uncle Tom,the forced separetion of parents and children
on the auction block and the sexual exploitation of servant women,the whipping post,the slave chains,the branding iron,all these mechanisms were tried
out and perfected first on white/red men and women.This is an interesting theory, but it's incorrect. White people never enslaved themselves. The first racial enslavement by the Europeans took place among the Africans. They started off by capturing them and forcing them to work as "indentured servants", slaves for a time period until they were released. They claimed this servitude was not specifically for black people, and anyone could've become an indentured servant for a time period (I disagree with this theory). However, once they realized how productive the black Africans were, the new American states/colonies of Maryland and Virginia created a law to make black people indentured servants for LIFE. They also made racial intermarriage illegal, which subjected all black people to servitude, including the children of slaves. None of these were practiced on "white/red men and women".
Cheap labour,and mony making is the reasons,of the exploitation of any human being.There is not enough for all the human beings to live like
queens and kings,so somebody,have to be living a very cheap life,for some of us to live a luxurious life.This is ridiculous, and it doesn't justify enslavement at all. That's like saying, "If there are free people, there must be slaves," and that's completely illogical. People form their own standard of rich and poor classes of society. Before those white people went through subjective lands and "took over", there were no differentiating classes of rich and poor; everyone was equal.
Every human being have their african secuenses in their dna.From white norwegians to aborigines.The african is the race with most
mutations,and therefor the oldest race in this world,but every human is from Africa,the white people also.To say someone is from Africa is not really saying anything. Nobody ever disputed the origins of the human race in terms of location. Determining the race of white people in terms of ancestry is completely different because, based on genetic reproduction, white people and black people don't have the same ancestor (i.e. Adam).
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
What is the point of stating this? Black Africans couldn't stand up their white oppressors because they were not as culturally and technologically advanced in terms of weaponry. Also, the enslavement of the black Africans led many of them to feel "secure" in their enslavement, even to the point where they were willing to fight against their own people to aid their white oppressors... And you can change that "hundreds" to "THOUSANDS" - slavery has existed for THOUSANDS of years. And also, you can't compare the Arab slave trade with the European slave trade because they were completey different.What is the point of stating this? Black Africans couldn't stand up their white oppressors because they were not as culturally and technologically advanced in terms of weaponry. Also, the enslavement of the black Africans led many of them to feel "secure" in their enslavement, even to the point where they were willing to fight against their own people to aid their white oppressors... And you can change that "hundreds" to "THOUSANDS" - slavery has existed for THOUSANDS of years. And also, you can't compare the Arab slave trade with the European slave trade because they were completey different.
I disagree with this. It was the unregulated slave trade where Africans sold Africans (east coast and west coast) that weakened the African empires to a point that the Africans couldn't resist the Europeans. And Europeans didn't enter the continent until colonialism which was the mid 1800's at the earliest. The musket gun of the early days was not that much of a technological advance, and Africans had access to guns as well. Especially seeing that Africans sold other Africans for guns among other things. And there was also trade with North Africa where guns were also available. In addition to that West Africa had ironworks as well, so it wouldn't have taken much for West African empires to manufacture guns to use. It was the complete depletion of man power through the unregulated slave trade that brought the Europeans in and the fall of Africa.
Also, it is known that Europeans typically enslaved the Slavic peoples from which we get the word Slave. And it is a fact that Europeans as all other people enslaved their captives of war. The Arabs' slave trade as well was no more than the buying of slaves on the coast from other Africans. The difference is that Europeans racialized slavery and made slaves less than human. Arabs never racialized slavery and did not make their slaves less than human, although many were treated that way (european, asian, arab and african). And the Arabs never conquered Subsaharan Africa. Only North Africa. But they melted in with the people their and had an ethnicity that easily assimilated the locals if they chose, Europeans did not. The issue of Eunuchs is horrible but went on way before the Arabs. And I have seen no evidence of African Eunuchs having all their genitals cut off and European Eunuchs only their testicles cut off.
Europeans also preferred slaves from Africa becuz they were more skilled. Many had historically been rice farmers (this was the Carolinas' main crop during the early parts of American slavery), cattle herders, carpenters and had all sorts of other skills, and even soldiers. West Africa was highly civilized as opposed to what it became after the slave trade and European colonialism had devastated it.
As for the gun I can respect what wikipedia has to say. i had a history teacher back in high school who told me that the moors brought the gun to Europe. So maybe they didn't exactly invent it. But the chinese didn't invent the gun either, but the gun powder. So it was probably somewhere in between Northwest Africa and China where the weapon first took form. But we know that the Europeans didn't invent it, but they did capitalize on it more than others, or so it seems.
Godbless,
Anwar