The True Arabs
-
Peace,
I see where you are coming from but when we are living in the later parts of an era of world-wide European influence where color was EVERYTHING, and their explanation for the circumstances of mankind (and they meant that they were superior because they were white and others were inferior because they were brown). This ideology being so extreme as to deny that many ancient peoples including ancient Egyptians, Ancient Arabs, Ancient Hebrews, and Ancient Indians were some form of Black and that the ancient Greeks were mixed (and their culture greatly influenced by the ancient Egyptians), even despite the obvious results of admixture in the native modern day populations, or despite historical records from Greeks and Romans and even native records. Not to mention the total and intentional ignorance about Sahelian and Subsaharan African empires and other black and brown peoples achievements around the globe and the influences on European and Western culture . .. .it's no wonder that this 'color' issue becomes important, because Europeans and their diaspora will claim that all civilization began with some sort white people, even to the point of calling obviously black and mixed peope, white when convenient (Somalis, Ethiopians, Arabs, Berbers, Copts, Dravidians). And people have to struggle and fight the norm in order to sift through the lies and the cultural falsities that many think are NORMAL today. It's not so much about skin color, Rev, (and skin color is not the only determination of race, or rather human varities) but it is more about culture than anything. It is a battle to get THROUGH the cultural barriers and historic lies that have been told by Western Civilization which were created to concoct the perception that anything European or derived from Europe is apart of a superior culture or legacy and anything not . . . well it has no worth. All this has historical and psychological reasons and it is NO WAY innate in anyone's race or skin color. And I think most people know that this is not innate in anyone's race or skin color. (Maybe except for Western Europeans and their diaspora who always overemphasize the skin color aspect of these issues). Unfortunately these false 'norms' that have been ingrained in our culture are also ingrained into our thought patterns (because of the cultures we grew up in that are a product of Eurocentric influence or Eurocentrism itself.). The color of people is not what is so important as is exposing the lies. Did you know that the original Arabs were black and that there are still many native (non-immigrant derived) black Arabs? Did you know that light skinned Arabs are the product of heavy mixture with Persians and other Caucasiod peoples from the North? If you didn't know, than this has added to your knowledge and possible destroyed a lie that you may have been told or that someone may have told you in the future and that you would have resorted to in a discussion that you might have had one day about who and what the Arabs are and their origins. Again it's not about skin color it is only about truth, adding to our knowledge and exposing any lies.
Godbless,
AnwarForgive any spelling mistakes.
I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you. I was very lucky, even though I was brought up in London, my family were not prejudiced in any way (except perhaps my mothers mistrust of Germans after living through WW2), so I have little understanding of colour or problems with different cultures.
-
Peace,
If there was any confusion it can be clarified here. Check the following link out and ask any of the Arabs here to verify, Samia, Ahmad Baghat and Layth are some who can confirm this for you.
http//www.savethetruearabs.blogspot.com/
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
If there was any confusion it can be clarified here. Check the following link out and ask any of the Arabs here to verify, Samia, Ahmad Baghat and Layth are some who can confirm this for you.
http//www.savethetruearabs.blogspot.com/
Godbless,
AnwarI understand what it is trying to say. But most of it comes from the hadiths.
-
Peace,
Yeah that doesn't matter so much as it is not so much about religious guidance or events in history but it is opening a doorway into Arab culture and perceptions about themselves at that time (early islam and pre-Islam). A time when there were still many Arabs who had not mixed so intensely with all of the poeples they conquered to the north and the large numbers of slaves from Turkey, Eastern Europe, Persia, Rome and other places that they would bring into the area later on. And even during the time of the Hadeeth the arabization was just beginning (although pre-islam there were periodic influxes of people into the region before these people were known as Arabs). We consider Bukhari an Arab now, but he was a Persian then. Tirmidhi and even Muslim I believe were Persians as well. THe hadeeth can be used as a linguistic source and a source of the perceptions of Muslims in the early days of Islam post-Quran and post-last prophet. But as it concerns historical accuracy the subjects have to be at the very least mutawaatir in meaning to be considered possibly true and mutawaatir in isnad to be considered true. But this only concerns historical accuracy describing events and the life of our last prophet or other early Muslims. I don't believe in the acension the way the hadeeth tells it (the last prophet visting Moses and other prophets, God bless them all-at different levels in the heavens). But the fact that the Arabs of early Islam imagined him as tall and black like the tribe of shamu'ah says something about the Arabs' perception of themselves and how they imagined the ancient Israelites and possibly even saw the Israelite Jews of their time. And so on and so on. You get my point.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Yeah that doesn't matter so much as it is not so much about religious guidance or events in history but it is opening a doorway into Arab culture and perceptions about themselves at that time (early islam and pre-Islam). A time when there were still many Arabs who had not mixed so intensely with all of the poeples they conquered to the north and the large numbers of slaves from Turkey, Eastern Europe, Persia, Rome and other places that they would bring into the area later on. And even during the time of the Hadeeth the arabization was just beginning (although pre-islam there were periodic influxes of people into the region before these people were known as Arabs). We consider Bukhari an Arab now, but he was a Persian then. Tirmidhi and even Muslim I believe were Persians as well. THe hadeeth can be used as a linguistic source and a source of the perceptions of Muslims in the early days of Islam post-Quran and post-last prophet. But as it concerns historical accuracy the subjects have to be at the very least mutawaatir in meaning to be considered possibly true and mutawaatir in isnad to be considered true. But this only concerns historical accuracy describing events and the life of our last prophet or other early Muslims. I don't believe in the acension the way the hadeeth tells it (the last prophet visting Moses and other prophets, God bless them all-at different levels in the heavens). But the fact that the Arabs of early Islam imagined him as tall and black like the tribe of shamu'ah says something about the Arabs' perception of themselves and how they imagined the ancient Israelites and possibly even saw the Israelite Jews of their time. And so on and so on. You get my point.
Godbless,
AnwarYes I see your point. I think it is obvious that Jesus was a lot darker skinned that he is portrayed.
-
Peace to all,
Personally, I think race should definately be examined more closely in relation to today's religious systems, especially in reference to Islaam, Christianity, and Judaism. There has been so much racism promoted in all of those systems throughout the world, and even in Arab society, a black man is frequently called "abd", meaning slave or servant. Blacks are also often looked down upon by Jews, and American and European societies are proof in themselves that Christianity has often embraced hatred of black people and African culture. If people knew the truth - that the original humans, Asiatics, Egyptians, Hebrews, Israelites, Arabs, Nazarenes, etc. were BLACK PEOPLE - then maybe they wouldn't hold onto such ridiculous hatreds. In the meantime, though, religious groups are perfectly fine with painting a picture of a white Adam, a white Moses, a white Jesus, a white Muhammad, and a white god! That's a major flaw in the world today...
-
People paint white Muhammads? If a black slave called Bilal was mentioned, why was such a distinction made if Muhammad's people were black? Why would God be a specific colour?
Not disputing the rest however and I think the only way that they can be proven once and for all to everybody would be to take a time machine and get pictures. Because each camp brings up their sources, their proofs and one can believe in either side unless something undeniable comes up.
-
Not disputing the rest however and I think the only way that they can be proven once and for all to everybody would be to take a time machine and get pictures. Because each camp brings up their sources, their proofs and one can believe in either side unless something undeniable comes up.
bravo bravo
-
People paint white Muhammads? If a black slave called Bilal was mentioned, why was such a distinction made if Muhammad's people were black? Why would God be a specific colour?
Yes, I've seen people paint portraits of what white Muhammad. Even more blatant, in my opinion, I've seen people actually display pictures of a white (European) Moses, even though his biographical sketch clearly says that he was raised among the black Egyptians! It's just been history's choice to "whitewash" the entire history of humanity, starting with Adam, even to the point of recognizing hadiyths that claim that all black people are destined for hell and all white people are destined for heaven. Here's some good information on this, that we discussed in a previous thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg188549#msg188549And of course Allah Himself isn't any specific color (in the physical sense), since He is invisible and omnipresent. But instead of accepting this concept, Christians have painted pictures of a "white god" reaching his "white hand" out to a "white Adam". They've painted distorted pictures of his "son" as a white man, and since a son depicts the image of his father, they're inadvertantly saying that their god is white. Bilal is often rejected in the hadiyths, and according to these stories, he was rejected by nearly all the followers of Muhammad after his death, even by his wife Aisha!
Personally, I don't think we should base our beliefs on the concept of race and color. But many people throughout the world don't feel the same way. So, in order to eliminate racism and discrimination within the fold of Islaam, we have to expose the truth for what it is...
-
Yes, I've seen people paint portraits of what white Muhammad. Even more blatant, in my opinion, I've seen people actually display pictures of a white (European) Moses, even though his biographical sketch clearly says that he was raised among the black Egyptians! It's just been history's choice to "whitewash" the entire history of humanity, starting with Adam, even to the point of recognizing hadiyths that claim that all black people are destined for hell and all white people are destined for heaven. Here's some good information on this, that we discussed in a previous thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg188549#msg188549And of course Allah Himself isn't any specific color (in the physical sense), since He is invisible and omnipresent. But instead of accepting this concept, Christians have painted pictures of a "white god" reaching his "white hand" out to a "white Adam". They've painted distorted pictures of his "son" as a white man, and since a son depicts the image of his father, they're inadvertantly saying that their god is white. Bilal is often rejected in the hadiyths, and according to these stories, he was rejected by nearly all the followers of Muhammad after his death, even by his wife Aisha!
Personally, I don't think we should base our beliefs on the concept of race and color. But many people throughout the world don't feel the same way. So, in order to eliminate racism and discrimination within the fold of Islaam, we have to expose the truth for what it is...
Unfortunately God is generally depicted as an old white man with long white hair and a long white beard. I am quite sure God does not look like that, what use would a beard be to him? or long hair? why would he be white? why would he be old? why would he be a man? No one knows what God looks like.
-
Unfortunately God is generally depicted as an old white man with long white hair and a long white beard. I am quite sure God does not look like that, what use would a beard be to him? or long hair? why would he be white? why would he be old? why would he be a man? No one knows what God looks like.
Exactly. And if God is incorporeal, then He had no physical form anyway; He doesn't "look" like anything. The Qur'aan clearly says that nothing is equal or comparable to Him (Q. 1124). But this doesn't stop them from painting those paintings and drawing those drawings...
-
Exactly. And if God is incorporeal, then He had no physical form anyway; He doesn't "look" like anything. The Qur'aan clearly says that nothing is equal or comparable to Him (Q. 1124). But this doesn't stop them from painting those paintings and drawing those drawings...
Exactly! that's why the ancient israelites named him YHVH = He Who Was, Is and Will Be, as He is uncomparable to anything except Himself... And that's also why in the traditions, it's forbidden to draw / paint any icon / symbol / statue for Him.
(But apparently that also doesn't stop people to put Yod-He-Vav-He and/or Alef-Lam-Ha as 'symbol' for Him, declaring them as His "true name"..Salam / Peace
-
Exactly! that's why the ancient israelites named him YHVH = He Who Was, Is and Will Be, as He is uncomparable to anything except Himself... And that's also why in the traditions, it's forbidden to draw / paint any icon / symbol / statue for Him.
(But apparently that also doesn't stop people to put Yod-He-Vav-He and/or Alef-Lam-Ha as 'symbol' for Him, declaring them as His "true name"..Salam / Peace
Why would God have a name? If he is the supreme being and the only one, who is there to name him? Why would he need a name?
-
Why would God have a name? If he is the supreme being and the only one, who is there to name him? Why would he need a name?
I agree! names are just names! we use them to differenciate between different things! )
-
Peace Jafar,
Exactly! that's why the ancient israelites named him YHVH = He Who Was, Is and Will Be, as He is uncomparable to anything except Himself... And that's also why in the traditions, it's forbidden to draw / paint any icon / symbol / statue for Him.
(But apparently that also doesn't stop people to put Yod-He-Vav-He and/or Alef-Lam-Ha as 'symbol' for Him, declaring them as His "true name"..I completely agree with you on this...
-
Why would God have a name? If he is the supreme being and the only one, who is there to name him? Why would he need a name?
That what I proposed to the Jews. How can God have a proper name though he is the only one. Only idols and humans have proper names.
YHWH is a proper name. He is one of the Elohim who created the heavens and the Earth.
Elohim are the immortal men found in the beginning with the primeval chaos.
Thats why the Creation story of Elohim(God) and the YHWH Elohim(the Lord God) is different.
Just a thought.
-
That what I proposed to the Jews. How can God have a proper name though he is the only one. Only idols and humans have proper names.
Jews don't say that "YHVH" is G-d's proper name. Actually, Orthodox Judaism, as well as the other subordinate branches of Judaism, teaches that G-d is beyond having a proper name, which is the same thing that Qur'aanic Islaam teaches...
Thats why the Creation story of Elohim(God) and the YHWH Elohim(the Lord God) is different.
Can you explain this? How does the 'creation story' differ between the "two"?
-
Jews don't say that "YHVH" is G-d's proper name. Actually, Orthodox Judaism, as well as the other subordinate branches of Judaism, teaches that G-d is beyond having a proper name, which is the same thing that Qur'aanic Islaam teaches...
This is wrong. Where is the letter 'ha' before YHWH if it is a title? When I said that to some Jews, they became mad and started saying Allah is a proper noun too knowing that they were stuck.
Can you explain this? How does the 'creation story' differ between the "two"?
Genesis 1
There are two creation stories in Genesis the first creation story takes place in Genesis 1, while the second takes place in Genesis 2. The first creation account of man takes place on the sixth day and is as follows "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on the earth.' And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them and God said to them, 'Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth." (Genesis 126-2Genesis 2
The second account of creation explains that "the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." (Genesis 27) Genesis 2 then goes on to explain how God made the garden of Eden. God also brought all the wild beasts and birds of the sky to Adam to name. Genesis also states that "for Adam no fitting helper was found. So the LORD God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the LORD God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman; and He brought her to the man." (Genesis 220-22) The man then named the woman. "This one shall be called Woman" (Genesis 223) Genesis 2 then explains that this is why "a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh." (Genesis 224)Note God is in Genesis 1 and the Lord God is in Genesis 2.
-
This is wrong. Where is the letter 'ha' before YHWH if it is a title? When I said that to some Jews, they became mad and started saying Allah is a proper noun too knowing that they were stuck.
Well, I don't know what Jews you were talking to, but they were misinformed. Judaism teaches that the universal Lord of all creation does NOT have a personal name, since that humanizes Him or classifies Him as a manmade deity. Just because a title does not begin with the letter "ha" does not make it a name. For example, the title "Elohim" (God, literally means "powers" is usually not preceded by "ha". Yet, it is clearly a title, not a name... In traditional Islaam, they teach that "Allah" is actually the personal name of God, which is why they even have prayers saying, "Ya allah..." The word "ya" can only be preceded by a common noun when you drop the prepository clause (i.e. "al". Therefore, to say "oh God", you'd have to say, "Ya ilaah..." Unless, of course, "Allah" is a proper noun... But as you probably know, this phrase does not appear in the Qur'aan, it only shows up in hadiyths.
Genesis 1
There are two creation stories in Genesis the first creation story takes place in Genesis 1, while the second takes place in Genesis 2. The first creation account of man takes place on the sixth day and is as follows "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on the earth.' And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them and God said to them, 'Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth." (Genesis 126-2Genesis 2
The second account of creation explains that "the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." (Genesis 27) Genesis 2 then goes on to explain how God made the garden of Eden. God also brought all the wild beasts and birds of the sky to Adam to name. Genesis also states that "for Adam no fitting helper was found. So the LORD God cast a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And the LORD God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman; and He brought her to the man." (Genesis 220-22) The man then named the woman. "This one shall be called Woman" (Genesis 223) Genesis 2 then explains that this is why "a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh." (Genesis 224)These are not two different accounts of the event, one is just more detailed than the other...