Muhammad is a White Man?

Christoph_Haupt

Salam,

you say that Adam was one (wahid) then it could be interpretet that Mankind (Adam) was united (one). Manigfold races and tribes from ONE (man)kind.

Peace.....Chris

Al_Khidr

Salam,

you say that Adam was one (wahid) then it could be interpretet that Mankind (Adam) was united (one). Manigfold races and tribes from ONE (man)kind.

Peace.....Chris

WRONG!

Basharaan in Qur'aan 1528 is singular not collective or plural. Second Allah addresses the Prophet Adam as ONE.

progod

WRONG!

Basharaan in Qur'aan 1528 is singular not collective or plural. Second Allah addresses the Prophet Adam as ONE.

Al-Khidr,

I guess you don't want to accept that basharan can be singular, or collectively plural do you? And you still deny after I gave you proof from another passage of the Quran. Just say that this is your interpretation, but don't act like you are right without a doubt because basharan (the 'an' is just the accusative case ending here, and has no bearing on number) in 1528 can be interpreted in a singular or collectively plural way. I think those of us who disagree with you can see how you see it the way you do and can respect your right to believe that. But don't get all indignant and act like you are right without a doubt when the Arabic is not on your side, as you want to believe it to be.

Godbless,
Anwar

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Progod,

I guess you don't want to accept that basharan can be singular, or collectively plural do you? And you still deny after I gave you proof from another passage of the Quran. Just say that this is your interpretation, but don't act like you are right without a doubt because basharan (the 'an' is just the accusative case ending here, and has no bearing on number) in 1528 can be interpreted in a singular or collectively plural way.

I haven't seen anywhere in the Quran where "basharan" is interpreted as a collective plural. Where in the scripture have you found this? And also, to avoid all traces of doubt regarding this, the Quran used the term "WAAHID" to refer to Adam, and this is consistently used in the reading to refer to ONE, individual and indivisible person or object. For example, the statement that Allah is WAAHID would be inconclusive if there were other gods, saying that this word (i.e. "waahid&quot refers to one collective body of gods, like Christians claim regarding the Trinity. As far as the scriptures are concerned, though, this is ridiculous. "Waahid" refers to something that is one, indivisible and individual object or being, not a collective body. So, in saying that Adam was "waahid", it means that Adam was ONE (SINGULAR) PERSON, not a group of people.

If Adam refers to the entire race of humanity, then why is the human race often called "children of Adam"? How can we be children of humanity if we ARE humans? That's ridiculously redundant. Also, who would Adam's (humanity's) wife be referring to (719)? If she was a human being, then she would be considered "Adam" too according to your theories, right? How could all of humanity have one wife? Why is the word "wife" used at all in this reference? Were there no women around during that period? Also

Allah has chosen Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Amram to the people. (333)

This verse would make no sense if Adam was more than one person, and this would be implying that Noah was also more than one person. Instead, all of these people are spoken of singularly and individually, and all of the plurals are specified (i.e. "the family of...&quot. This wouldn't make sense if "Adam" was an entire community of people. The only accurate view is based on the concept of him being one individual person.

Peace,

Ahmad

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Christoph Haupt,

Remember that Quran was for mankind? Of course you do! So you have to make a divison! Al-Insan are the black and Al-Jinn are the white?! How convenient to find some ayat speaking about the creation of man from black mud. Maybe you forgot about the ayat where Allah tells us that His book consist of governing verses and allegorical verses but for those humans who have desease in their hearts they will follow the allegorical verses to deviat people from the path.
You should interpret that "Black Mud" allegorical and not literal.

This is incorrect. How would the scriptures stating that Adam was created from black/"hamaa" mud be allegorical? What purpose would it serve? This is a clear example of your biased point of view. The verse says that Allah shaped Adam from "salsaalin min hamaain"/black mud. It is already accepted (and proven) that he was actually formed from mud. So, how can you say that "salsaal"/mud is literal, but "hamaa"/black is allegorical? This is clear evidence of your willingness to distort God's message to prove your biased belief.

Your ignorant view contains the seed of fanatismus. How long will it take until a people of the Al-Insan goes on a killing spree to rid this world of the devillish Al-Jinn thinking he has the divinely ordained supremacy? And this Jinn are not human, so what?
Your ignorant worldview and interpretation of the scripture that should bring unity, equality, justice and brother(sister)hood to mankind is a disgrace to your God given intellectual abilities. At this place be reminded how Allah defines a human being Allah tells us to us our reason and thinking. People who do not use it are less than cattle.

Nobody's talking about killing all white people or killing all black people. That's ridiculous! All we're doing is addressing the problem that so many people choose to ignore, claiming that it doesn't exist. I hear over and over again from Muslims all over the place that "there is no racism in Islam". Their way of combating the problem of racism in their particular communities is by ALL of them trying to be Arabs, like Arabs have superiority among the entire human race. That's the reason why sectarians, regardless of their skin complexions, dress, walk, talk, eat, and behave like Arabs, even to the extent of growing thick beards and wearing kufi hats (which were originally worn by the Nubians/Africans). People have tried to hide the problem of racism by hiding their own identities, trying to be people they're not, people who don't even accept them. We're identifying the problem of racism so that, one day, we may be able to find a definate and permanent solution to it.

Peace,

Ahmad

progod

Ahmad Bilal,

As it concerns the term bashar being used for more than one person in the Quran I came accross an example of this morning 518. It's translated as 'nay you are men.' (bal antum bashar)

Your conclusion about the verse mention waahid, depends on forcing an interpretation of Adam or a person as what we originate from. The unit of origination does not have to be a person.

In the Quran the Israelites are referred to as Israel and Children of Israel. These are the Old Arabic tribal epithets. you either say qabilat hashim or banoo Haashim.

And as for 333 that is an interpretation of the waw's used in that verse. They can be understood differently. How about Humanity was chosen, and these individuals over all people. ('alaa al-'aalamina)

Godbless,
Anwar

marleya

Peace Christoph Haupt,

This is incorrect. How would the scriptures stating that Adam was created from black/"hamaa" mud be allegorical? What purpose would it serve? This is a clear example of your biased point of view. The verse says that Allah shaped Adam from "salsaalin min hamaain"/black mud. It is already accepted (and proven) that he was actually formed from mud. So, how can you say that "salsaal"/mud is literal, but "hamaa"/black is allegorical? This is clear evidence of your willingness to distort God's message to prove your biased belief.

Nobody's talking about killing all white people or killing all black people. That's ridiculous! All we're doing is addressing the problem that so many people choose to ignore, claiming that it doesn't exist. I hear over and over again from Muslims all over the place that "there is no racism in Islam". Their way of combating the problem of racism in their particular communities is by ALL of them trying to be Arabs, like Arabs have superiority among the entire human race. That's the reason why sectarians, regardless of their skin complexions, dress, walk, talk, eat, and behave like Arabs, even to the extent of growing thick beards and wearing kufi hats (which were originally worn by the Nubians/Africans). People have tried to hide the problem of racism by hiding their own identities, trying to be people they're not, people who don't even accept them. We're identifying the problem of racism so that, one day, we may be able to find a definate and permanent solution to it.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace.

I am not sure to talk here,among you knowledgable people.I am a little frightened!

But I have to try anyway.Why should it be a problem that the mud Allah created humans from were black?Dont we all agree,that humans did came from Africa?

This doesnt say that white people is not from the creation?If man google a little on dna and ancestory on internett,man will find a lot of information,on our past,and how dna really works.

There is in your nation Usa,a lot of both private and universities,that give people their dna information and where they ancestors are from.

Like the black boy,with black parents,found out that he was 48% euoropean and 52% black.Sarah Laing,is another example of white parents giving birth to a black girl,in the days of apartheid.She was classiefied as a black person,and was ecpelled from school.A very sad story,actually.

Every man on this earth is linked to one another,by common ancestry.That the mud was black,doesnt change this.

It is greater diversities within the respective "races",than the diversity beetween them.

You said earlier Bilal,that white slaves did not exist.There is black historians in Usa that say the opposite,feks Lerone Bennet Jr,in his articel "white servitude in the united states",publisert i Ebony,1969.

There was also white people as slaves with the arab muslims,in the earlier days.The scandinavians have a few of their ancestors as slaves for muslims,in the middles east.History is big and wide.

The racism,is, if you ask the emmigrant workers in the arab states,not that the workers want to be arabs,but that the arabs look down on them,and give them lousy work conditions and no human rights.The abuse of foreign workers in arabs rich nations,is widely known,around the poor world Bilal.

One God,One Love

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Progod,

As it concerns the term bashar being used for more than one person in the Quran I came accross an example of this morning 518. It's translated as 'nay you are men.' (bal antum bashar)

Thank you. I haven't noticed the term "basharun" in this verse before as referring to a group... This clearly says, "but you are humans" (or you are but humans). However, this verse is directly talking about the Jews and the Nazarenes, and there is no question regarding the plurality of the audience. In the case of Adam, your view is interpeted, and it is not clearly stated in the scripture. Therefore, referring to "Adam" as an entire civilization conflicts with the Quran's claim to be "clear revelations" (2216).

In the Quran the Israelites are referred to as Israel and Children of Israel. These are the Old Arabic tribal epithets. you either say qabilat hashim or banoo Haashim.

This is FALSE. "Israel" is never used in a collective sense in the Quran, at least not where I've seen. All of them refer to the "banee Israel"/children of Israel, a reference to the nation as a whole. The separation of these from 1958 shows that Israel is not referred to as "Israel" in the collective sense, and in 1958, "Israel" is used to refer to the person (singular). In all the others, "banee Israel" is used to refer to the collective people.

Your conclusion about the verse mention waahid, depends on forcing an interpretation of Adam or a person as what we originate from. The unit of origination does not have to be a person.

No, this is also wrong. The term "waahid" is always used to refer to one distinct individual person or object. In instances where "waahid" is used to refer to a collective body, the collective body would be directly identified, and this would avoid causing confusion. In every sense, "Adam" is always identified as ONE PERSON, not a collective body. The instances where "Adam" would be mentioned as a collective body are clearly identified as "banee Adam"/children of Adam, never as "Adam". Please, show me an instance where "Israel" is used to refer to the collective body instead of "banee Israel"/children of Israel. Likewise, show me an instance where "Adam" is used to refer to the collective body instead of saying "banee Adam"/children of Adam.

And as for 333 that is an interpretation of the waw's used in that verse. They can be understood differently. How about Humanity was chosen, and these individuals over all people. ('alaa al-'aalamina)

Based on the context, this statement wouldn't make sense if it was referring to all of humanity. According to your theory, this should be translated as

Allah has chosen Adam (all of humanity), and Noah, and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imraan over the universe. (333)

This would beg the question WEREN'T NOAH, ABRAHAM'S FAMILY, AND IMRAAN'S FAMILY PART OF HUMANITY? If they were part of humanity, it would make this statement redundant. Also, since "Adam" is directly followed by "Noah", if Adam was used in a collective sense, it would imply that Noah is also being used in a collective sense. However, this idea is refuted by the words "wa'ala Ibraheem"/and the family of Abraham. Since these descendants of Abraham are used collectively by speaking specifically about his "family" (which is also the case with Imraan), this would make all the other people named INDIVIDUAL HUMANS, not collective tribes.

Peace,

Ahmad

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Marleya,

I am not sure to talk here,among you knowledgable people.I am a little frightened!

Don't be frightened. We're all equals here, and we all have room to learn new things about new things...

Why should it be a problem that the mud Allah created humans from were black?Dont we all agree,that humans did came from Africa?

This is what is widely accepted, even though some people still refuse to admit this, claiming that we actually came from southern Iraq...

This doesnt say that white people is not from the creation?If man google a little on dna and ancestory on internett,man will find a lot of information,on our past,and how dna really works.

There is in your nation Usa,a lot of both private and universities,that give people their dna information and where they ancestors are from.

Like the black boy,with black parents,found out that he was 48% euoropean and 52% black.Sarah Laing,is another example of white parents giving birth to a black girl,in the days of apartheid.She was classiefied as a black person,and was ecpelled from school.A very sad story,actually.

Every man on this earth is linked to one another,by common ancestry.That the mud was black,doesnt change this.

Actually, this is not true. The reason white people and black people are capable of producing alternate DNA forms is because we both have mixtures of dominant and recessive genes in our bodies. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, they didn't have any flaws and recessive genes; all their genes were dominant. Therefore, a mixture of these would only produce other dominant genes (i.e. brown eyes, dark skin, curly hair, etc.), not recessive ones. The only way their children could develop recessive genes is if they mixed with a person (or group of people) with recessive genes, namely "white people". Adam and Eve were genetically INCAPABLE of naturally producing a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, pale-skinned child, unless they mixed with someone else; and this shows that white people COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY come from both Adam and Eve. Now, there are other possibilities. For example

(1) Since Adam is always referred to as the dominant being, white people and black people could've come from Adam. However, this would mean that white people were not produced from Eve, meaning that Allah created a separate "white woman" for Adam.
(2) Allah may have condemned Adam's rebellion and created a completely separate group of people (i.e. "white people&quot to replace them.
(3) The angelic beings came down, as is stated in the Biblical story of Noah, and mixed with the humans, creating a separate race of people (i.e. "white people&quot with different genetic compositions than the regular ("black&quot Nubian humans.

There are other potential biological possibilities as well, but all of them give the same conclusion White people and black people don't have the same ancestors. If black people came from Adam and Eve, then white people couldn't have come from them, at least not collectively, and vice versa. It's not biologically and genetically possible...

You said earlier Bilal,that white slaves did not exist.There is black historians in Usa that say the opposite,feks Lerone Bennet Jr,in his articel "white servitude in the united states",publisert i Ebony,1969.

There was also white people as slaves with the arab muslims,in the earlier days.The scandinavians have a few of their ancestors as slaves for muslims,in the middles east.History is big and wide.

I didn't say that there have never been white slaves, and if I ever implied this, I sincerely apologize. There have been plenty of white slaves. What I said, though, is white people were never enslaved ON THE BASIS OF RACE. Black people were enslaved simply because they were black, and this is what separates all other forms of enslavement from racial enslavement, which was executed by the Europeans and Americans. In the Arab slave trade, Arabs could also be enslaved. In the white American society, other white Americans were EXEMPT from being enslaved (outside of "indentured servitude&quot.

The racism,is, if you ask the emmigrant workers in the arab states,not that the workers want to be arabs,but that the arabs look down on them,and give them lousy work conditions and no human rights.The abuse of foreign workers in arabs rich nations,is widely known,around the poor world Bilal.

I agree that this is a form of racism. However, this is a VERY SMALL part of worldwide racial discrimination. Arabs generally look down on non-Arabs because they have been influenced by European and American cultures, which both promote racial inequality.

Peace,

Ahmad

marleya

Peace.

I understand every thing you say Ahmed Bilal,I just dont get,how you belive that white and black people are not from the same creation?There is no specific race genes among humanbeings Bilal.

Melanin expression in humans skin,are controlled by the enzyme Tyrosinase.
All people have enough tyrosinase to be very black in their skin colour.It is the regulation of the tyrosinase that determines skin colour.

Dark skin protect against ultraviolet radiation,and light skin allows enhanced formation of vitamin D.

From 1,2 million years ago,the ancestors of all people alive,were dark as todays Africans.

The descendent of any prehistoric people who migrate North from equator,will mutate to become ligh over time,because the evolutionary constraint keeping Africans skin dark,decreases generally the further north a people migrates.
This also occour as a result of selection for light skin,due to the need to produce vitamin D,by the penetration of sunlight into the skin.Exeption is for example the inuits,who get enough vitamin d,throug their food,and kept their dark skin colour.

You are fooling yourself if you belive that black people is not the ancestors of white people Bilal.

progod

Peace,

Let me restate that this is off topic. So after I address some of your confusions on this issue, I'd like to say that I am fine with you believing what you want to believe. So there is no need to talk about this here. So unless you start a new topic I am going to leave it at this for now, out of respect for this topic.

Thank you. I haven't noticed the term "basharun" in this verse before as referring to a group... This clearly says, "but you are humans" (or you are but humans). However, this verse is directly talking about the Jews and the Nazarenes, and there is no question regarding the plurality of the audience. In the case of Adam, your view is interpeted, and it is not clearly stated in the scripture. Therefore, referring to "Adam" as an entire civilization conflicts with the Quran's claim to be "clear revelations" (2216).

This is your biased interpretation. If you don't agree with mine, that means it's not clear? i don't think so. The fact here is that Adam as the first man is a story that came before the Quran and that has been read into the Quran. Whether that is a correct understanding should be serioiusly (and respectuflly) discussed but not in this topic.

Quote from progod on Yesterday at 075952 AM
In the Quran the Israelites are referred to as Israel and Children of Israel. These are the Old Arabic tribal epithets. you either say qabilat hashim or banoo Haashim.

This is FALSE. "Israel" is never used in a collective sense in the Quran, at least not where I've seen. All of them refer to the "banee Israel"/children of Israel, a reference to the nation as a whole. The separation of these from 1958 shows that Israel is not referred to as "Israel" in the collective sense, and in 1958, "Israel" is used to refer to the person (singular). In all the others, "banee Israel" is used to refer to the collective people.

It's unfortunate when people make statements about the Quran that makes it more than obvious that they haven't read the Quran enough. Didn't you pretty much just make the same claim when it came to bashar? See 393, 1958

No, this is also wrong. The term "waahid" is always used to refer to one distinct individual person or object. In instances where "waahid" is used to refer to a collective body, the collective body would be directly identified, and this would avoid causing confusion. In every sense, "Adam" is always identified as ONE PERSON, not a collective body. The instances where "Adam" would be mentioned as a collective body are clearly identified as "banee Adam"/children of Adam, never as "Adam". Please, show me an instance where "Israel" is used to refer to the collective body instead of "banee Israel"/children of Israel. Likewise, show me an instance where "Adam" is used to refer to the collective body instead of saying "banee Adam"/children of Adam.

Again, I am not saying that waahid does not refer to one entity or person. I am saying that the nafsun waahidun doesn't have to refer to people at all. As I said I have seen this interpreted as the single cell from which we all came from. So seeing this as Adam is an interpretation. Just like seeing Adam as one person or more than one person are two different interpretations. I gave you the references for Israel above. Now, I read the Arabic and it seems that you are more dependent on translations and English phrasing. I can assure you those waw's do not have to been seen how you are seeing them. And that doesn't make it less clear in general, it makes it less clear to you and those who are not familiar with Arabic grammar, prhasings and literature. Whenever you do decide to get into Arabic more and start reading things you will see that Arabic styles while clear to those used to reading in Arabic are not clear to those not used to reading Arabic. In my schooling in Arabic I have come accross a number of phrasings that were awkard to me but not to Arabic speakers who have had life long, or years of experience with Arabic phrasing and literature. So my opinion that those phrasings were awkward (and unclear) were based on my inexperience with the language. And the understanding of those phrases are not less clear in general, but less clear to the less knowledgeable which is to be expected.

Quote from progod on Yesterday at 075952 AM
'And as for 333 that is an interpretation of the waw's used in that verse. They can be understood differently. How about Humanity was chosen, and these individuals over all people. ('alaa al-'aalamina)''

Based on the context, this statement wouldn't make sense if it was referring to all of humanity. According to your theory, this should be translated as

Allah has chosen Adam (all of humanity), and Noah, and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imraan over the universe. (333)

First of all you do know that al-'aalamoona (after a preposition or in a possesive phrase it becomes al-'aalameena) can mean 'the nations'? Don't you? What you put can be a valid interpretation as well but the understanding of universe for al-'aalameena doesn't make any sense. When i read the Arabic I can understand 'God chose Adam (Humanity), and (he chose) Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Imraan over (all) the nations.

I put 'he chose' in parenthesis because the case ending on Noah, family (of Abraham), and family (of Imraan) are all in the accusative form relating back to the phrase 'he chose' (Istafaa). The 'all' in parenthesis can be validly applied, and we already know about Adam.

And as I can understand it that way in Arabic i can translate it that way as well. I am past translations, brother. A translation is the translator's understanding of what is being said in the Arabic, which can be affected by religious doctrines (which includes inherited or learned tafsirs) or sometimes a lack of knowledge in the grammar of what is being said. I don't think there is anything grammatically wrong with interpreting Adam as the first man here, it is rather a doctrine and an inherited tafsir of the name Adam. I just happen to disagree with it and have not seen any contradictions in my understanding of this issue in the Quran. Now I'm sure there are translations that disagree with me, but remember that translations are based on the understandings (grammar and doctrine) of the translator. So I'm not going to argue over a translation, but we can discuss the grammar of the Arabic in another topic. You can start the topic up and invite me if you'd like.

Also, since "Adam" is directly followed by "Noah", if Adam was used in a collective sense, it would imply that Noah is also being used in a collective sense. However, this idea is refuted by the words "wa'ala Ibraheem"/and the family of Abraham. Since these descendants of Abraham are used collectively by speaking specifically about his "family" (which is also the case with Imraan), this would make all the other people named INDIVIDUAL HUMANS, not collective tribes.

Now that is not true. Just becuase one is collective doesn't mean all of them have to be collective. Again I based my understanding of Adam on 711. It would do you good to read it. I have not seen clues to the same affect for Noah or Abraham, although I have seen them for Israel. And both Adam and Israel are used interchangeably with banoo Isra'il and banoo Adam, and I have not seen anything to go against that understanding. Now there are biblical theories about that (individual names representing peoples), but i'm sticking to Arabic and the Quran. So in Arabic you can use fulaan(un) and banoo fulaan(in) to refer to a tribe and its members. So Quraysh(un) and banoo quraysh(in) can be used interchangeably. In this same manner Adam and Israel are used. You can disagree with that but please start another topic so I don't have to continue to write posts that are off topic here.

Godbless,
Anwar

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Marleya,

The descendent of any prehistoric people who migrate North from equator,will mutate to become ligh over time,because the evolutionary constraint keeping Africans skin dark,decreases generally the further north a people migrates.
This also occour as a result of selection for light skin,due to the need to produce vitamin D,by the penetration of sunlight into the skin.Exeption is for example the inuits,who get enough vitamin d,throug their food,and kept their dark skin colour.

We're not just talking about skin color. We're talking about the total dominance of recessive genes (i.e. pale skin, blue/light eyes, straight/thin hair, etc.). The issue of race goes far beyond skin color. Most black people have an overwhelming concentration of dominant genes, while white people generally have mostly recessive genes. Dominant genes are retained even after moving to a northern, colder atmosphere, especially if there are no recessive genes within the body. That's why Nubian people who don't have any traces of European ancestry are STILL dark, regardless of where they live. And it's the same reason why lighter-skinned people in southern, hotter climates are STILL lighter-skinned people. It's not about solar-protection and evolution, it's about genetics and features in your DNA.

Peace Progod,

This is your biased interpretation. If you don't agree with mine, that means it's not clear? i don't think so. The fact here is that Adam as the first man is a story that came before the Quran and that has been read into the Quran. Whether that is a correct understanding should be serioiusly (and respectuflly) discussed but not in this topic.

I didn't say it's unclear because it's your interpretation, or because I don't agree with it. I said it's unclear because it's UNSPECIFIED. Why would the Quran refer to the first man as "WAAHID" when it doesn't actually mean "WAAHID"? This causes confusion, and is therefore not clear.

It's unfortunate when people make statements about the Quran that makes it more than obvious that they haven't read the Quran enough. Didn't you pretty much just make the same claim when it came to bashar? See 393, 1958

Wow... Now it's evident that YOU haven't read the Quran enough, brother. The description in 393 is clearly defined by saying "banee Israel"; it doesn't use the name "Israel" as a collective plural. Also, 1958 refers to "thurriyya"/decendants; it never uses the specified names as collective plurals. It is literally translated as "DECENDANTS OF ABRAHAM AND ISRAEL". So, in this case, to imply that Israel is being used as a collective plural, you are also imply that
Abraham is being used as a collective plural, and that's ridiculous. Please show an example where "Israel" is used to refer to a collective plural...

First of all you do know that al-'aalamoona (after a preposition or in a possesive phrase it becomes al-'aalameena) can mean 'the nations'? Don't you? What you put can be a valid interpretation as well but the understanding of universe for al-'aalameena doesn't make any sense. When i read the Arabic I can understand 'God chose Adam (Humanity), and (he chose) Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Imraan over (all) the nations.

I put 'he chose' in parenthesis because the case ending on Noah, family (of Abraham), and family (of Imraan) are all in the accusative form relating back to the phrase 'he chose' (Istafaa). The 'all' in parenthesis can be validly applied, and we already know about Adam.

First of all, "al-'aalameena" can be translated as "the nations" only in reference to other nations. Throughout the Quran, however, it is usually referring to "the worlds" (or the universe). Secondly, you placed the innovation (i.e. "he chose&quot before the name of Noah; it's not actually in the verse. Since the verse is specifying an entire collaboration of groups, it doesn't make sense to apply it the way you did. ALL the groups were chosen as a collective body. So, if you added the words "he chose" behind the reference, it would look like this

"Allah chose Adam, and (He chose) Noah, and (He chose) the family of Abraham, and (He chose) the family of Imraan over (all) the universe/nations."

By only adding the words "he chose" in ONE PLACE, you are changing the Quran's words to fit your own interpretation. This this verse refers to them all collectively, if you apply the words "he chose" to any of them, you have to apply it to all of them.

And as I can understand it that way in Arabic i can translate it that way as well. I am past translations, brother. A translation is the translator's understanding of what is being said in the Arabic, which can be affected by religious doctrines (which includes inherited or learned tafsirs) or sometimes a lack of knowledge in the grammar of what is being said. I don't think there is anything grammatically wrong with interpreting Adam as the first man here, it is rather a doctrine and an inherited tafsir of the name Adam. I just happen to disagree with it and have not seen any contradictions in my understanding of this issue in the Quran.

I'm not talking about translations either, brother. The literal Arabic says that "He chose Adam", and the continuation of them by use of the word "wa" means that He chose all of them. Therefore, to place it solely behind Noah's name is incorrect. Sure, this teaching has been around longer than the Quran; but does this make it incorrect? The Quran is a confirmation of the Torah, and the Torah states this directly. Adam was one person. This is verified in the Quran by the scriptures referring to him as "waahid"/one. Now, whatever name you give him, this doesn't change this concept, and if you want to call him "James", "Charles", "Tim", or "Ramone", it doesn't change the fact that he was ONE PERSON.

Now that is not true. Just becuase one is collective doesn't mean all of them have to be collective. Again I based my understanding of Adam on 711. It would do you good to read it. I have not seen clues to the same affect for Noah or Abraham, although I have seen them for Israel. And both Adam and Israel are used interchangeably with banoo Isra'il and banoo Adam, and I have not seen anything to go against that understanding. Now there are biblical theories about that (individual names representing peoples), but i'm sticking to Arabic and the Quran. So in Arabic you can use fulaan(un) and banoo fulaan(in) to refer to a tribe and its members. So Quraysh(un) and banoo quraysh(in) can be used interchangeably. In this same manner Adam and Israel are used.

Please show me an instance where "Israel" is used as a collective plural. Also, show me an instance where Adam is used interchangeably with "banee Adam". You won't find any of these instances, brother. Adam is always used to refer to one person. Many people interpret the name to refer to a collective body, but the clear and literal translation would refer to one person, and "Adam" and "banee Adam"/children of Adam are not the same thing. 711 says

And We created you, then We formed you, then We said to the angels "Prostrate to Adam;" so they prostrated except for Iblis, he was not of those who prostrated. (711)

This verse says that Allah created "you" (i.e. humankind), which means that He formed and shaped humans. However, then it says for them to prostrate to Adam. Now, this could possibly be interpreted to refer to "Adam" as all of humankind. However, afterwards (i.e. 712), Iblis speaks of Adam as "him", not them, meaning he is actually about one being. Then, 719 goes on to say that Adam has a "wife". Now, to interpret Adam as a collective body is to say that all of humanity had ONE WIFE, which is illogical (and pretty disgusting). The only way this can be disputed is if his wife is also interpreted to refer to a collective body of women, and this conflicts with Quranic verses.

I agree with you that we need to form a new topic about this, so we can get further clarification on this issue. If you wish to start one, that works for me; or I can start one, if you'd like. This way, we can form a general consensus on the issue.

Peace,

Ahmad

Al_Khidr

Al-Khidr,

I guess you don't want to accept that basharan can be singular, or collectively plural do you? And you still deny after I gave you proof from another passage of the Quran. Just say that this is your interpretation, but don't act like you are right without a doubt because basharan (the 'an' is just the accusative case ending here, and has no bearing on number) in 1528 can be interpreted in a singular or collectively plural way. I think those of us who disagree with you can see how you see it the way you do and can respect your right to believe that. But don't get all indignant and act like you are right without a doubt when the Arabic is not on your side, as you want to believe it to be.

Godbless,
Anwar

Anwar

You need to open up your eyes because you haven't proven nothing. The context of Basharaan in Qur'aan 1528 is singular and in Qur'aan 7189 and Qur'aan Qur'aan 41 says Adam is ONE (WAAHID) which has nothing to do with that one other verse that you quoted which was NOT addressing the Prophet Adam or who ever you want to call him. Ahmad Bilal and I have clearly demonstrated this so why can't you show just one verse where Allah states or indicates that Adam means humanity or mankind because again Ahmad Bilal and I have shown you two verses where Allah says that the Prophet Adam (or what ever name that you want to call him) is WAAHID (ONE). Anwar, just admit that your arugment is circumstantial, unclear, unsound but not solid HAQQ!

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg185508#msg185508

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg185187#msg185187

http//www.concealmyip.com/goto/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/uggc/=2fserr-zvaqf.bet/sbehz/vaqrk.cuc=3fgbcvp=3d9597416.zft187363#msg187363

Al_Khidr

Peace Progod,

I haven't seen anywhere in the Quran where "basharan" is interpreted as a collective plural. Where in the scripture have you found this? And also, to avoid all traces of doubt regarding this, the Quran used the term "WAAHID" to refer to Adam, and this is consistently used in the reading to refer to ONE, individual and indivisible person or object. For example, the statement that Allah is WAAHID would be inconclusive if there were other gods, saying that this word (i.e. "waahid&quot refers to one collective body of gods, like Christians claim regarding the Trinity. As far as the scriptures are concerned, though, this is ridiculous. "Waahid" refers to something that is one, indivisible and individual object or being, not a collective body. So, in saying that Adam was "waahid", it means that Adam was ONE (SINGULAR) PERSON, not a group of people.

If Adam refers to the entire race of humanity, then why is the human race often called "children of Adam"? How can we be children of humanity if we ARE humans? That's ridiculously redundant. Also, who would Adam's (humanity's) wife be referring to (719)? If she was a human being, then she would be considered "Adam" too according to your theories, right? How could all of humanity have one wife? Why is the word "wife" used at all in this reference? Were there no women around during that period? Also

Allah has chosen Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Amram to the people. (333)

This verse would make no sense if Adam was more than one person, and this would be implying that Noah was also more than one person. Instead, all of these people are spoken of singularly and individually, and all of the plurals are specified (i.e. "the family of...&quot. This wouldn't make sense if "Adam" was an entire community of people. The only accurate view is based on the concept of him being one individual person.

Peace,

Ahmad

Salaam Bilal Ahmad

Thank you brother for bringing out the real meaning of WAAHID and raising those other strong points to DESTROY Anwar/Progod's foolish logic which holds no weight in Al Qur'aan as we both have clearly demonstrated. I see we are dealing with another die-hard Progressive Moslem.

Al_Khidr

Peace Christoph Haupt,

This is incorrect. How would the scriptures stating that Adam was created from black/"hamaa" mud be allegorical? What purpose would it serve? This is a clear example of your biased point of view. The verse says that Allah shaped Adam from "salsaalin min hamaain"/black mud. It is already accepted (and proven) that he was actually formed from mud. So, how can you say that "salsaal"/mud is literal, but "hamaa"/black is allegorical? This is clear evidence of your willingness to distort God's message to prove your biased belief.

Nobody's talking about killing all white people or killing all black people. That's ridiculous! All we're doing is addressing the problem that so many people choose to ignore, claiming that it doesn't exist. I hear over and over again from Muslims all over the place that "there is no racism in Islam". Their way of combating the problem of racism in their particular communities is by ALL of them trying to be Arabs, like Arabs have superiority among the entire human race. That's the reason why sectarians, regardless of their skin complexions, dress, walk, talk, eat, and behave like Arabs, even to the extent of growing thick beards and wearing kufi hats (which were originally worn by the Nubians/Africans). People have tried to hide the problem of racism by hiding their own identities, trying to be people they're not, people who don't even accept them. We're identifying the problem of racism so that, one day, we may be able to find a definate and permanent solution to it.

Peace,

Ahmad

As Salaamu Alaykum Bilal Ahmad

"Nobody's talking about killing all white people or killing all black people. That's ridiculous! All we're doing is addressing the problem that so many people choose to ignore, claiming that it doesn't exist. I hear over and over again from Muslims all over the place that "there is no racism in Islam". Their way of combating the problem of racism in their particular communities is by ALL of them trying to be Arabs, like Arabs have superiority among the entire human race. That's the reason why sectarians, regardless of their skin complexions, dress, walk, talk, eat, and behave like Arabs, even to the extent of growing thick beards and wearing kufi hats (which were originally worn by the Nubians/Africans). People have tried to hide the problem of racism by hiding their own identities, trying to be people they're not, people who don't even accept them. We're identifying the problem of racism so that, one day, we may be able to find a definate and permanent solution to it."

Alhamdulillah for this profound HAQQ! You are a sharp Nubian brother. Check out this one video which also compliments what you have presented. The biggest problem with white folks is that they can't truly admit racism from their white power structure exists whether its in Christianity or in Islaam. Now that Islaam is the fastest growing religion and its a scary thought to think how they try to say racism does not exist in Islaam. Do they think we are going to repeat this same form of slavery that we endured in Christianity under Al Islaam! They must be crazy if they think so but check out this video

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjoQEsd2GmA

Salaam

Al Khidr

Al_Khidr