Adam - 'blackskinned human' ?
-
Well now they are saying the first humans were Asian. One day they will make up their minds
It's not about 'them' making up 'their' minds...new discoveries are made time and time again. I think it's fascinating.
For the moment, the majority of anatomical, archaeological and genetic evidence gives credence to the view that fully modern humans are a relatively recent evolutionary phenomenon. The current best explanation for the beginning of modern humans is the Out of Africa Model that postulates a single, African origin for Homo sapiens.
From http//www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html
Scientists have also discovered an older fossil in Europe. Note though that this is a hominid ancestor
This "into Africa" scenario is likely to be controversial. Critics argue that discoveries like Moy?-Sol?'s are more likely to reflect the quality of the fossil records in Africa and Europe than offer clues to the actual origins of hominids.
Jay Kelley, a palaeobiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, points out that the fossil record from the time in question is much better in Europe than in Africa. "If you've got a record on one continent but not the other, naturally you're going to see origins of the group from the continent where you've got the record," he says.
http//www.newscientist.com/article/dn17225-were-our-earliest-hominid-ancestors-european.html
Some of the comments on the article are also helpful. Like this one
Africa is the most likely location of the common ancestor. The 500,000 year estimate is based on mitochondrial DNA differences between homo sapiens and homo sapiens neandethalensis. The two species share 99.5% of their respective DNA. The amount of mutational difference between the two enables an estimate of about 500,000 years ago for the common ancestor.
-
...does the Quran say Adamn was black skinned, or not?
Him being made out of black (or colored) clay should not mean anything as I'm sure Adam consisted of hundreds of different colors in his nails, hair, eyes, skin and inner organs.
We are concerned with skin so we should cite where it talks about the color of his skin.
-
...does the Quran say Adamn was black skinned, or not?
Yes, the Qur'aan says that the first of humanity were BLACK skinned people... see 1526, 28, 33
-
I see black clay, but no mentioning of skin. I do not see the need to think the color of the clay has to be the color of the outer suface of a man even though skin is less than 50% of his entirety. Skin is one thing but what about the bones, the organs, the eyes, and the blood...if they were black, the earliest men would be just a bunch of black roaming the Earth...they can be called shadows. sun
I typed the above before I read your long response about clay referring only to his outer appearance i.e. his skin. I still do not believe it however. If God isn't saying it's resembling the outer surface (or, skin) then I don't regard it as an indisputable fact. What says the clay was still black after man was finished being created? Was he still clay? Or was he a man? God can manipulate things drastically (obviously) and it's likely he made him out of black (or, dark, since I heard black doesn't really exist...) clay but the end product was not even clay let alone black material (or black skin). Just imo.
-
Peace,
These have already been discussed in detail in other threads. You should check them out...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598861.msg216611#msg216611
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597651.0There is some very good information contained in all of those threads...
-
Peace,
These have already been discussed in detail in other threads. You should check them out...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598861.msg216611#msg216611
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597651.0There is some very good information contained in all of those threads...
Yep, absolutely right. The first human was black. bravo
-
Peace,
Respectfully.Good point.
This is something to think about.God knows best,
Glory be to our God.
Peace.Well, we might as well go one step further than just "thinking" accepting.
1528 Your Lord said to the angels "I am creating a human from black mud/clay."
1528 Wa-ith qala rabbuka lilmala-ikatiinnee khaliqun basharan min salsalin min hamain masnooninHamaa/Hamaain = Black
Salsalin = Clay or MudScroll down to the middle/last third of the following article for more info http//www.freewebs.com/tawhiyd/3salaattheoryexposed.htm
Peace
-
Peace Joe,
He was created from black mud/clay so logically his eyes, organs, hair, nails, tongue, teeth, and skin were black.
That's not sensible based on the context of the passage. The word used is "salsaal", which refers to a type of vessel, and the outside of this vessel (in this case, the human body) was shaped by black mud. But also, in the context of this word's usage, "salsaal" oftentimes refers to a type of fixed vessel where things can still be placed inside, such as blood, bones, organs, eyes, etc. Therefore, based on the word usage, only the EXTERIOR of the human's body was shaped by "salsaalin min hamaain"/black mud. It's not referring to anything beneath the skin...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
When this topic was originally discussed, everyone did research on the roots of the word. Here's something that Wakas came up with
The word in question...
From
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htmSad-Lam-Lam / Sad-Lam-Sad-Lam = to resound, clash, be dried up, emit a sound. sallatun - sound, clank, dry earth. salsaal - dry ringing clay, sounding/dried clay.
salsal n.m. 1526, 1528, 1533, 2533?, 5514
LL, V4, p 433, 434, 435
#####################################################
It is interesting that it implies that a form of vessel was created, ready for something to be put into it.
Ready for something to be "put into it". This can refer to internal organs and factors, all of which are NOT black (i.e. eyes, blood, muscles, bones, etc.)... The mud traces found within the human body were discovered in the SKIN, which the Qur'aan says was shaped by BLACK mud. So, why is it so hard to believe that Adam had black skin?
Like I said, if this passage openly said that Adam had "white" skin, people would jump all over this in defense of Adam's "whiteness". But because it says he was BLACK ("hamaa", people are skeptical and disbelieving, even though this conclusion is supported by science...
-
Peace,
When this topic was originally discussed, everyone did research on the roots of the word. Here's something that Wakas came up with
Ready for something to be "put into it". This can refer to internal organs and factors, all of which are NOT black (i.e. eyes, blood, muscles, bones, etc.)... The mud traces found within the human body were discovered in the SKIN, which the Qur'aan says was shaped by BLACK mud. So, why is it so hard to believe that Adam had black skin?
Like I said, if this passage openly said that Adam had "white" skin, people would jump all over this in defense of Adam's "whiteness". But because it says he was BLACK ("hamaa", people are skeptical and disbelieving, even though this conclusion is supported by science...
To be quite honest, I don't care if he was black, white, yellow, brown or blue with pink spots.
-
The problem is that the compund that makes the skin apparently black has no relation to black mud. So I say that this is just a speculation. But I don't disagree that the first humans were black but I think this has no relation to the color of the raw material they are made up of.
-
Unfortunately you are wrong when you say "science" supports it. It does not. All science can do at the moment is speculate on where humans first evolved. First they thought it was Europe or the Middle East, then Africa, then Asia. Who knows what colour they were a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Science can only base it's speculation on the earliest human remains that have been found, so far the oldest remains are not Adams.
-
Unfortunately you are wrong when you say "science" supports it. It does not. All science can do at the moment is speculate on where humans first evolved. First they thought it was Europe or the Middle East, then Africa, then Asia. Who knows what colour they were a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Science can only base it's speculation on the earliest human remains that have been found, so far the oldest remains are not Adams.
that is true!
-
Unfortunately you are wrong when you say "science" supports it. It does not. All science can do at the moment is speculate on where humans first evolved. First they thought it was Europe or the Middle East, then Africa, then Asia. Who knows what colour they were a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Science can only base it's speculation on the earliest human remains that have been found, so far the oldest remains are not Adams.
They don't have to be Adam's. If they are the oldest human remains to date, and they were of black people, then it's more likely to believe that the first humans were black people... Also, based on concepts of biogenetics, black people were the original inhabiters of the planet, since human melanin composition actively lowers over time. That's why it's IMPOSSIBLY for two white people to have a black child, while it is possible, under certain conditions, for two black people to have a white child. White (pale) skin was most likely caused by a recurring genetic deformity, stimulated by a melanin deficiency, resulting in albinism. Over time, when several people of a certain region, who all possess these same albino traits, reproduce, the result is an entire race of melanin deficient people (i.e. white people)...
These things are all carefully considered and explained in this thread, from a Qur'aanic viewpoint.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.0