The True Arabs
-
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...
-
God is also a proper name in English. Not 'the god', not 'a god' which are titiles but just 'god' which we capitalize out of respect like all names, hence 'God'. When you say 'Oh God' you are saying the exact equivalent of 'Ya Allahu' when you say 'Oh you god' speaking to any god (maybe a god of the greeks or someone who thinks of himself as a god), you say 'Ya ayuhaal-ilaah' or Yaa ilaahaaah or Waa ilaaahaah. To give a confirmig example, if you say 'Oh grief!' that is 'yaa hasrataaah.' If you say 'Oh you man' you say 'yaa ayuhaar-rajul'. God and Allah are proper names that we humans gave to the Creator. They are good names with some solid etymological logic and they only express the idea of the creator, who would exist whether we gave him a name or not.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
As for Elohim, I liken this word to al-kaa'inaat in Arabic. Al-kaa'inaat is also a name of Allah. If you translate it literally you will get 'the many female things that exist'. But this is wrong. The plural form in Arabic and the female have a way of emphasizing singular masculine things. Look at Allahumma. Look at the royal plurals. Like antum for anta and even hum for huwa. Look at khalifah which is an empasis of khalif. And there are more.These are somewhat rare and are extreme cases but they still DO surface. So al-kaa'inaat is like saying 'the great and magnficent being.' I think Hebrew has some similar linguistic patterns and Elohim is probably an emphatic form of Eloh.
As Jafar said the linguistic etymology of Yahweh/Jehovah is 'he who was, is and will be.'
By the way if you haven't read the savethetruearabs page please do. This stuff comes directly from the dictionaries and puts the other stuff about white Muhammad (God bless him) into context. If he was white (or if his underarms were white) and he (or his underarms) was a wheat brown color. As the Arabs when they referred to very white individuals like the northern Persians or The Romans from the Turkish area they used the word 'red.' Check it out
http//www.savethetruearabs.blogspot.com/
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Actually the word Elohim is found in the Quran. I mean exactly 'Elohim'!!!
I don't know why the Quran quotes foreign words as it is! As if the author (apparently) is mindlessly copying ancient texts with complete disregard of the actual meaning of the word.
The word Elohim in the midst of Arabic is nonsense. What does it signify? What is relation of Elohim to Allah?
The more I try to defend the Quran, the more I realize that it is the ultimate spin. brickwall