Adam - 'blackskinned human' ?
-
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 -
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.
Don't you think that's a little hypocritical? The Qur'aan says that humanity was created from BLACK mud, and you're admitting that the first humans were most likely BLACK people. Yet, these two ideas don't have anything to do with eachother?? Then, what is the point of the Qur'aan even mentioning the color of the mud in the first place? Allah could've easily said that humanity was simply created from mud/"salsaal". But instead, it specifically describes it's color. What is the purpose of this, if not to describe the color of Adam (and humanity)?
-
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=9597416.0They didn't say they were black. The bones were just found in Africa. Don't forget about the so-called "Ice-man" He wasn't black and he is the oldest complete body found.
-
They didn't say they were black. The bones were just found in Africa. Don't forget about the so-called "Ice-man" He wasn't black and he is the oldest complete body found.
I guess this is true to an extent, but it doesn't change our perception of the world. 5000 years ago, the continent of Africa was full of BLACK Nubian people, and there were no white people anywhere around there. The ancient Egyptians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, Libyans, Moors, and everybody else was BLACK. So, if we consider the idea that the first human civilization was discovered in Africa, we can deduce that he was most likely an extremely dark-skinned person... Also, based on biogenetics, the composition of melanin would make it NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE for the first man to have been anything except BLACK. Many people are quick to believe that the Nubian people were dark because they were in hot climates, but this is not realistic and it's not scientific. Dark skin is a genetic trait, just like brown eyes and curly hair. If Adam was a pale-skinned (white) person, then he would've been incapable of producing black children, and there would be NO black people anywhere on this planet. And as we can see, this is definately not the case... Black civilizations are undoubtedly older than white (European) civilizations too, and they were accredited with more ancient scientific and historical contributions than any other group in the world. This is because they were here FIRST, stemming from "Adam", the FIRST human. So, based on deductive reasoning, Adam would've had to have been a BLACK man, and his wife was a BLACK woman...
It's not really important from a theological standpoint, at least not as much as many people make it out to be, but it is important. What makes it drastically important in certain circles is that (in general) white people keep denying it! That's why, as I mentioned before, there are so many images of a white Adam and white prophets, a white Jesus, and a white God. White is perceived as good and black as bad. They even claim that the stone in Mekka was originally white, but it turned BLACK because of all the sins of humanity! And it's trickled down to our present day too, both in theology and in everyday life. The figure satan is always pictured wearing black (or dark) colors, while angels are clothed in white. White cake with vanilla frosting is called "Angel Food", while dark chocolate cake is called "Devil's Food". White is the color of everything pure and righteous, and black is the color of everything filthy, evil, and sinful... If society wasn't trying to forcefully (and unethically) whitewash everything, we wouldn't even need to have discussions like this one. But unfortunately, they do, and therefore, we do...
By the way, scientists are estimating that the "iceman" lived around 4-5000 years ago, and they don't know what color he was, at least not specifically. However, the civilization of the ancient Zingh Empire is dated back to around 15,000 B.C., and the societies in Khemet (modern day Egypt) and Nubia-Kush, with their established rulerships and empires, have been dated to around 17,000 years ago! So, really, there's no comparison. The full body of the "iceman" is a lot newer than the BLACK civilizations of ancient Africa, further attesting to the fact that Adam was a black man.
-
I guess this is true to an extent, but it doesn't change our perception of the world. 5000 years ago, the continent of Africa was full of BLACK Nubian people, and there were no white people anywhere around there. The ancient Egyptians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, Libyans, Moors, and everybody else was BLACK. So, if we consider the idea that the first human civilization was discovered in Africa, we can deduce that he was most likely an extremely dark-skinned person... Also, based on biogenetics, the composition of melanin would make it NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE for the first man to have been anything except BLACK. Many people are quick to believe that the Nubian people were dark because they were in hot climates, but this is not realistic and it's not scientific. Dark skin is a genetic trait, just like brown eyes and curly hair. If Adam was a pale-skinned (white) person, then he would've been incapable of producing black children, and there would be NO black people anywhere on this planet. And as we can see, this is definately not the case... Black civilizations are undoubtedly older than white (European) civilizations too, and they were accredited with more ancient scientific and historical contributions than any other group in the world. This is because they were here FIRST, stemming from "Adam", the FIRST human. So, based on deductive reasoning, Adam would've had to have been a BLACK man, and his wife was a BLACK woman...
It's not really important from a theological standpoint, at least not as much as many people make it out to be, but it is important. What makes it drastically important in certain circles is that (in general) white people keep denying it! That's why, as I mentioned before, there are so many images of a white Adam and white prophets, a white Jesus, and a white God. White is perceived as good and black as bad. They even claim that the stone in Mekka was originally white, but it turned BLACK because of all the sins of humanity! And it's trickled down to our present day too, both in theology and in everyday life. The figure satan is always pictured wearing black (or dark) colors, while angels are clothed in white. White cake with vanilla frosting is called "Angel Food", while dark chocolate cake is called "Devil's Food". White is the color of everything pure and righteous, and black is the color of everything filthy, evil, and sinful... If society wasn't trying to forcefully (and unethically) whitewash everything, we wouldn't even need to have discussions like this one. But unfortunately, they do, and therefore, we do...
By the way, scientists are estimating that the "iceman" lived around 4-5000 years ago, and they don't know what color he was, at least not specifically. However, the civilization of the ancient Zingh Empire is dated back to around 15,000 B.C., and the societies in Khemet (modern day Egypt) and Nubia-Kush, with their established rulerships and empires, have been dated to around 17,000 years ago! So, really, there's no comparison. The full body of the "iceman" is a lot newer than the BLACK civilizations of ancient Africa, further attesting to the fact that Adam was a black man.
I understand your argument, and agree with you that it really does not matter one way or another, but it would be very interesting to know. All I am trying to do is point out that there can be no way that we can prove or disprove the colour of the early humans any further back than a thousand years or two with our present day science, nor can we assume anything. As far as we know he could have been green.