Adam - 'blackskinned human' ?
-
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.
-
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.
rotfl I guess that's true... A green Adam... laugh
-
Ahmad,
You keep using the terms white people and black people of which there is no such thing. There are people who happen to be of different shades and different heights, weights, et cetera. The divisive nature of the idea of race can be put into more divisive ideas where we can have people under 6 feet being one type of people, and people over 6 feet another type of people. We can now have mesomorphs be a different type of peoples from ectomorphs. Whether the first people were dark or light, or neither really does not matter because people come in various shades. Dark people could easily be Germans, or have been Hitlers and Aryans, as light people could easily have been enslaved for 400 years in America. Actually light people were enslaved in America. Organs themselves could easily be classified as vessels where you "put something into".
Joe
-
Ahmad,
You keep using the terms white people and black people of which there is no such thing. There are people who happen to be of different shades and different heights, weights, et cetera. The divisive nature of the idea of race can be put into more divisive ideas where we can have people under 6 feet being one type of people, and people over 6 feet another type of people. We can now have mesomorphs be a different type of peoples from ectomorphs. Whether the first people were dark or light, or neither really does not matter because people come in various shades. Dark people could easily be Germans, or have been Hitlers and Aryans, as light people could easily have been enslaved for 400 years in America. Actually light people were enslaved in America. Organs themselves could easily be classified as vessels where you "put something into".
Joe
You are right of course. White people were slaves in America, in fact many of the early settlers were white "Indentured Servants" (just another name for slave). The Irish, Chinese, Some of the English, made up the majority of the slaves for many years. Genghis Kahn was not white, nor was Hannibal.
-
Peace
Yea, even those who were not indentured servants were slaves. This is why light people up north feared the system of slavery because the light slaves with sandy colored hair and blue eyes mentioned in the flyers could easily be themselves and they could be snatched up into slavery even though they never were slaves, like some dark people were never slaves, and be forced into slavery.
Joe
-
Peace Joe,
You keep using the terms white people and black people of which there is no such thing. There are people who happen to be of different shades and different heights, weights, et cetera. The divisive nature of the idea of race can be put into more divisive ideas where we can have people under 6 feet being one type of people, and people over 6 feet another type of people. We can now have mesomorphs be a different type of peoples from ectomorphs. Whether the first people were dark or light, or neither really does not matter because people come in various shades. Dark people could easily be Germans, or have been Hitlers and Aryans, as light people could easily have been enslaved for 400 years in America.
I actually agree with you on this point...
Actually light people were enslaved in America. Organs themselves could easily be classified as vessels where you "put something into".
I disagree with this. Our organs are not black, and light people (collectively) were NOT slaves in America, especially not to the same extent as the dark African people. There's no comparison...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Yea, even those who were not indentured servants were slaves. This is why light people up north feared the system of slavery because the light slaves with sandy colored hair and blue eyes mentioned in the flyers could easily be themselves and they could be snatched up into slavery even though they never were slaves, like some dark people were never slaves, and be forced into slavery.
So, you're comparing this to the African people who were kidnapped from their homes; forced into slavery for hundreds of years; stripped of their names, cultures, languages, religions, and education; tortured, beaten, raped, and slaughtered; and taught to hate themselves? Is this what happened to the light people?! Like I said, there is NO COMPARISON...
-
So, you're comparing this to the African people who were kidnapped from their homes; forced into slavery for hundreds of years; stripped of their names, cultures, languages, religions, and education; tortured, beaten, raped, and slaughtered; and taught to hate themselves? Is this what happened to the light people?! Like I said, there is NO COMPARISON...
But were they not kidnapped by their own people or by neighbouring tribes and sold into slavery? I do not know as I wasn't there, I can only go by what people tell me.
-
Ahmad,
You keep using the terms white people and black people of which there is no such thing. There are people who happen to be of different shades and different heights, weights, et cetera. The divisive nature of the idea of race can be put into more divisive ideas where we can have people under 6 feet being one type of people, and people over 6 feet another type of people. We can now have mesomorphs be a different type of peoples from ectomorphs. Whether the first people were dark or light, or neither really does not matter because people come in various shades. Dark people could easily be Germans, or have been Hitlers and Aryans, as light people could easily have been enslaved for 400 years in America. Actually light people were enslaved in America. Organs themselves could easily be classified as vessels where you "put something into".
Joe
Peace
Good points, Joe. Doesn't 7/12 contrasts our being created from mud with iblis/jinn being created from (smokeless)fire? In fact, we can't find a single verse where satan isn't "involved", so to speak. Ha-mim-alif is used metaphorically, to me, in 18/86.
4/28 says Insaan was created weak. I am guessing people can see the problem with this...
-
Good points, Joe. Doesn't 7/12 contrasts our being created from mud with iblis/jinn being created from (smokeless)fire? In fact, we can't find a single verse where satan isn't "involved", so to speak. Ha-mim-alif is used metaphorically, to me, in 18/86.
No offense, but that's a ridiculous argument, period. If the "hamaa"/black was metaphoric, then that is also saying that the "salsaal"/mud or clay is metaphoric too. But it's not. Science is now saying that humans were actually formed from mud (or a clay-like substance), and they're claiming that we evolved from earth-born creatures... So, how can "black" be metaphorical, but not "mud"?!
Like I said, if the passage said Adam was shaped from "salsaalin min abyaadin"/white mud, most of you would be ecstatically jumping for joy, and you'd be alleging BLASPHEMY to anyone who claimed that Adam had black skin... But whatever, think what you want. Allah knows best, and He certainly declares His signs to the knowledgeable...
-
But were they not kidnapped by their own people or by neighbouring tribes and sold into slavery? I do not know as I wasn't there, I can only go by what people tell me.
That's a myth, bro. Most of the African people were forcefully kidnapped by the conquering European colonists, while others were bought and/or stolen from the Arabs. None of them willingly went, and none of them were sold by their own tribesmen...
-
Ok, the article about the prophets being black...
How is God saying "we chose Adam, Noah, Abraham etc." and saying they are descendants of one another confirm they are black? Because if we are all decsendants of Adam (and we are...) shouldn't then this logic be saying we're "black" as well? It was said not long ago here that if a black mixes in a bloodline than there can never be a white. Well, since we all descended from a black man...none of us can be black. Again, by this logic.
Not saying it's false, but that article made it seem like God "chose" only black people which is wrong and skin color doesn't mean crap to the god, and if skin color was that important one would think the god would've mentioned it even once in his fully detailed book.
Peace.
-
Ok, the article about the prophets being black...
How is God saying "we chose Adam, Noah, Abraham etc." and saying they are descendants of one another confirm they are black? Because if we are all decsendants of Adam (and we are...) shouldn't then this logic be saying we're "black" as well? It was said not long ago here that if a black mixes in a bloodline than there can never be a white. Well, since we all descended from a black man...none of us can be black. Again, by this logic.
Not saying it's false, but that article made it seem like God "chose" only black people which is wrong and skin color doesn't mean crap to the god, and if skin color was that important one would think the god would've mentioned it even once in his fully detailed book.
What article are you talking about?
-
No offense, but that's a ridiculous argument, period. If the "hamaa"/black was metaphoric, then that is also saying that the "salsaal"/mud or clay is metaphoric too. But it's not. Science is now saying that humans were actually formed from mud (or a clay-like substance), and they're claiming that we evolved from earth-born creatures... So, how can "black" be metaphorical, but not "mud"?!
Like I said, if the passage said Adam was shaped from "salsaalin min abyaadin"/white mud, most of you would be ecstatically jumping for joy, and you'd be alleging BLASPHEMY to anyone who claimed that Adam had black skin... But whatever, think what you want. Allah knows best, and He certainly declares His signs to the knowledgeable...
So, how can "black" be metaphorical, but not "mud"?!
Did the quran use mud metaphorically? I look at the quran and see how it uses its words, same as any other book I would read.
I am looking at the quran and how it uses 'black' and It has used it metaphorically. It also says that Iblis is created from smokeless fire IN THE SAME VERSE, this guy who is everywhere at once. Try taking that literally.
The quran says that Insaan (adam is insaan btw) was created weak... Why don't you take this literally?
-
Peace
Like I said, there is NO COMPARISON...
Light people were never wronged or experienced hardships. )
I believe all people have some hardship/s they deal with. See once again you are debating how dark people have had it worse than some other people, they very same people from the very same ancestors! All those dark people really had it bad in the Holocaust right? All those dark people really suffered during world war 1 and 2. All those dark people really suffered when those bombs were dropped over Japan. Give me a break. Slavery is bad for mankind. Slavery is not a thing for dark folks, because it has been practiced with all people. Ethnic cleansing happens in European nations all the time, that's light against light. Dark people have sold other dark people into slavery. What's the said difference between light and dark people? The smallest perception of difference sought by those to be divisive.
Joe
-
Did the quran use mud metaphorically? I look at the quran and see how it uses its words, same as any other book I would read.
I am looking at the quran and how it uses 'black' and It has used it metaphorically. It also says that Iblis is created from smokeless fire IN THE SAME VERSE, this guy who is everywhere at once. Try taking that literally.
None of these are particularly metaphorical, at least not to a blatant degree. There is NOTHING that says that "Iblis" is everywhere at once; that's outrageous! Allah is the ONLY omnipresent Being, and there is nothing like Him... The Qur'aan stating that man was shaped from "mud" is literal, not metaphorical. Therefore, the color of it ("black" must also be literal. Besides, how could you derive a metaphorical connotation to "black mud"? What is "hamaa"/black symbolic of?!
The scripture never says that "Iblis" was shaped from smokeless fire, it says the "jinn" were made from this substance, and it's NOT in the same verse... Now, the passage that you're speaking about (Q. 712) is contrasting humankind shaped from "mud" versus Iblis shaped from "fire". Sure, this can be relayed symbolically, insisting that Iblis was created as with FIERY temperament, while men were created to be LOWLY like the dirt. These can be cited as metaphorical references, and this is easily explained when comparing the idea of humanity being created "with haste" (or hasty, impatient). However, in the other passage, other terms are used with no metaphoric context (i.e. "smokeless" and "black". So, how are these terms metaphorical? What do they mean?
The quran says that Insaan (adam is insaan btw) was created weak... Why don't you take this literally?
C'mon, man, you have to come harder than that... ) The 2 preceding verses (Q. 426-27) show, by the context, exactly what the passage is talking about. This is understood to be LITERAL. It doesn't necessarily mean that he is PHYSICALLY weak, but it does mean that man is created with weakness.