True Arabs CAN ONLY BE BLACK!!
-
Of course, youre right about that. Science to this day has at its best never been better than a practically applicable approximation. However we as believers have the Quran to guide us on the general direction on issues that can be found mentioned in it.
049.013 O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).
Strange finding here. The translation you used, it's Yusuf Ali, right? There is actually no word that corresponds to "single (pair)" in the Arabic script. Then I checked the occurrences of dhakarin (you can see here, Ctrl+F search for "dhakarin" and there you go). Please notice the similar "min dhakarin aw/wa untsa" in all of the occurences.
See the pattern? Right, in four of the occurrences, it's not translated as a singular noun object in the sense of one, specific male or one specific female ("a male" or "a female" but rather, simply to denominate human gender, as in "...of male or female...". In the verse 4913, suddenly the same "min" preposition popped out as "from" which, in English, could definitely be taken as denoting origin. Furthermore, the terms dhakarin and untsa each receives noun-number "a" and as such, appear as explicitly singular noun objects).
Let's try a little exercise for consistency, using the format that fits the other four verses
4913 O mankind! Indeed, We created you of male and female and We made you nations and tribes that you may know one another.
male and female (human gender), nations and tribes (groups of humans)
Implied is difference (so "that you may know one another"
So, in my view, using that verse in support for the single-pair human origin theory is very questionable. On the other hand, it may also show us how a preconception could lead us to bias in our reasoning. The reasoning used in the translating of AQ apparently isn't free of such bias.
In this specific case, however, it's very easy to test which side of consistency is the more likely to be true. You can reverse what i did above and make the other four occurrences to follow the format that is popularly-accepted with 4913 (which would be, in those verses, "...from a male or a female..." with the "from" preposition intended to explicitly denote an origin, and "a" denotes noun-number). What do you make of that?
-
San,
What's up with this comment?
"Muhammad is imagined by most as being white", yes, i can personally confirm that it's the case at least here where i live. It's the image i've been reading in hadiths and sirah/biography books... Maybe challenging his white-ness would invite the same reaction as claiming the ugliness of Joseph... /
The Qurans says Joseph was beautiful.
I wish people would actually visit the sources where I pull this stuff from. I figure if you (not just you San) find the topic interesting that you would check out the sources. I'll just sum it up though. If you are interested in truth you will do your own digging and check the sources.
Abyad in ancient Arabic meant a few things fair, white, luminous, brilliant, clear.
Azhar in Arabic means a beautiful tone/the best tone (not white or pink tone).
When describing the fairness of people two terms were used Ahmar (red) and Azraq (blue).
Persians, Turks, Byzantines, Greeks and slaves were called red (al-humr, al-ahaamirah and al-hamraa'u).
Many Arabs in the old Arabic literature are described as both dark brown and abyad. Abyad here means luminous.
There is even an expression in Arabic 'wajhuka abyad' which does not mean 'you are white.' It means you are radiant, luminous, brilliant. The lexicons state that Arabs preferred to say Red for fair/white people and preferred aybad to comment on the character of a person.
It has also been explained in old Arabic lexicons that when the Arabs used 'abyad' for each other as a skin tone they also mean 'wheat brown' or
a person that is black with a light undertone. I.e. light black/brown tones.Ahmar is the preferred term for white skin as we know it. Also ashqar. Azraq was also used to define 'white' and especially folks whom it was known were fair because they mixed with red (white) people.
There are hadeeth that say that the prophet was white, as in luminous. There two in particular that would seem to contradict each other. One says that the prophet was Asmar (very brown skinned) and the other says he was Abyad bihumrah (fair with hints of whiteness). So this would be more like a dark Europeans tone, dark olive-skinned or high-yellow (which includes dark skinned tones of persians and Mediterraneans). Both hadeeth are of equal strength. One scholar explains it away by saying that under his clothes he was olive skinned/high yellow but where he was exposed to the sun he was very brown skinned. But when you read that someone is 'white' in old Arabic texts, you cannot understand it as white unless it is specifically talking about non-Arabs or it says Red or Blue. For example there is one hadeeth that says the prophet's neck was white like silver! Nobody's skin is white like silver. The meaning here is luminous. And neck seems to have a deeper meaning here, unless it just means shiny.
Wierd? That's only the beginning. Green and yellow also meant aswad (black) or asmar (all shades of very brown skin). Yellow being only connected to the term aswad. Asmar can be broken up into tones. There is general asmar but then there are two darker classes of asmar/sumrah being al-udmah (very deep chocolate) and and as-suhmah(coal/tar black), or al-ismihaan(coal/tar black). Sawaad or blackness seems to have two definitions. Asmar or literally as-suhmah/al-ishmihaan.
You can find all of these defintions and discussion of these terms at www.savethetruearabs.com or in lisaanul-arab. Basically all of these hadeeth have been mistranslated. There is the famous hadeeth about Moses (God bless him) when the last prophet (God bless him too) went into heaven. The Arabic literally describes him as tawaalun aadamu ashamu with straight hair like the tribe of shanuah. Most translations of the hadeeth will leave out as-hamu (which means coal/tar black) and mistranslated aadamu as 'a man' instead of what it really means which is asumrah-ashadeedah i.e. very, dark/deep chocolate brown. Remember the one 'i was sent to the red and black people'. Red means 'white' and 'black' means asmar. all the tafsirs say that Ahmar means the persians and their likes and aswad means the arabs their likes. But that stuff is intentinally left out of the translations. It's a shame.
By the way aswad also has a meaning of ajallu, i.e. most majestic, most honorable.
Godbless,
Anwar -
No, progod, please don't get me wrong. Personally i'm fine with whatever skin Muhammad had, and actually i found this information you bring very interesting. What i meant by that comment is the irony regarding the common view that is held by Muslims here. And thank you for summarizing those parts, esp about the mistranslations.
These are all new information to me, and so i had to review these terms in Quran when i have enough time. I'm not sure what to say about Adam yet, but i already thought that it couldn't mean a single man as a single common ancestor for all the races of human on earth that exist today, hence my posts above. However this will also be in conflict with the popular Biblical version of the story, though that should be nothing surprising also. Yes, re Moses being not 'Caucasian-like', i've already figured that it would fit the Quranic story better (just a tiny bit though could that Arabic of Moses description be possibly translated as "dark-brown-skinned, with straight black hair"?), i.e. he had been interacting with the Israa'ilites (most possibily 'Caucasian-like' as a native Egyptian.
My mind is a bit overloaded right now with these and other stuff etc so please allow me to review this subject later...
-
Peace,
As for Adam. I didn't discuss Adam as in Adam and Eve, just the term Adamu as a description of color. The word can be the name Adam or the descriptive term for al-umdatu, which is dark chocolate brown. I don't think the israelites were caucasian-like, as Moses (God bless him) was probably a typical ancient Israelite. Just goes to show that both the ancient Egyptians (definitely) and ancient israelites (most likely) were two different ethnicities of black people who could overlap in phenotypes and features (the bible has him taking an Ethiopian as his wife). That can be said for a lot of black ethnic groups, who generally look different but where you can find some overlap, some groups more than others. Anyway, I don't take hadeeth too seriously especially hadeeth like these (the description of Moses in a vision), but it is interesting that the hadeeth shows that many Arabs and even Persians believed that Moses was black, very black, and therefore other ancient Hebrews of his time. There are two hadeeth however that have Jesus (god bless him) as ahmar, or white (a color associated with Persians and levantines during the prophet's day) but with bushy/kinky hair. Another says that he had straight hair (implying that the Arabs/Persians believed that the Hebrews mixed heavily with white people, possibly Greco-Romans, Perisans and others). The version with straight hair is recorded as being doubtful by older scholars. The hadeeth about Moses also shows that the Arab tribe of Shanuwah was a black tribe with straight hair when the hadeeth was recorded. Aadmu like I said, is described a dark/very asmar, or dark chocolate.
As-hamu means black like the Dinka and other southern sudanese tribes, black like coal or bitumen.As for Adam being the father of all mankind. I take Adam to be the name of the tribe of humanity. Like Shanuwah or Quraysh. There is Quraish as the whole tribe and banoo Quraish as all of the members of that tribe. You find this in the Quran with Isra'il. Both Isra'il and Banoo Isra'il are mentioned referriing to the same people. Hence I take both Adam and Banoo Adam to be referring to the same people. As for Adam being black, well all people aren't black. Perhaps this is their origin, perhaps the Arabs or whoever first used the term Adam used this term in general for people because most people were this color. There is another example of this with sawaad, i.e. blackness. Sawaadun-naas means 'the majority of people' or 'the masses' in Arabic. Perhaps this is the origin of the word but Adam (in addition to 'dark chocolate brown) as far as I understand means humanity.
As for Adam being created from black mud. Even if we consider that Adam was the first man (which I don't believe), if being created from black mud automatically makes you black, doesn't it also make your bones, flesh and blood black too? See the lack of logic in assuming that because one is made from black mud that that makes one's skin color black?
Godbless,
Anwar -
Did you know that most of the original slaves in America were white Irish and not black?
And that most African slaves were sold by their own kings?It's not a question of colour. It's a question of humanity.
I understand your beef but I certainly have no intention to sit and feel that I have some sort of "impurity" because I am not black skinned. Not in an Islamic forum. That's brain fuck is what that is.
-
If you thought that the intent of my post was to make you feel like you have some sort of "impurity" then you are waaay wrong. Where did you even read that in my post? The point of this post was to spread knowledge and dispel common misinformation about aboriginal/true Arabs and what they looked like and to establish the truth of their blackness.
As for West African slavery I am quite informed about it, although this was not the point of this topic. I know that Africans supplied to Europeans as slave labor were sold to Europeans by expanding African empires from Dahomey and Togo to Congo/Kikongo empires. These were some of the worst offenders. But if we are going to talk about slavery let's remember that there is a difference between the existence of slavery and how slaves are treated or when certain ethnicities or races are institutionalized into slavery and designated as slaves automatically. Then it becomes a wrong compounded onto another wrong and has lasting effects. Not to mention that although this was pretty severe, the more damaging aspects of racial oppression in the US was during Jim Crow in the south as well as the racialized laws employed both in the south and the north.
As for the Irish being the original slaves in America, that is rubbish. The whole concept of indentured servitude however was a form of slavery and was abused constantly in order to keep other Europeans in their servitude/slavery. However, let's remember that Western Slavery was not just in British colonies or in North America. The institutional enslavement of African peoples took place more in Central and South America than in North America, although with different methods of oppression. The phenomena of indentured servitude of Europeans has not been really investigated in Central and South America, although the enslavement of Native Americans before the importation of African into Central and South America has been dealt with.
Anyway we can't deny the influence of Eurocentrism on education and the matrix of accepted ideas out there and its ideological influence in the world. The bogus ideas of aboriginal Arabs as white people, of ancient Egyptians as white people, and of aboriginal North Africans as white people are European concocted ideas that have taken root as accepted ideas even within the halls of academia. So this topic is not to make white people feel bad, but rather to learn and recognize the truths of these matters. If it causes you mental or psychological discomfort that is perhaps indicative of an issue that you must address and rectify.
Godbless,
Anwar -
"As for the Irish being the original slaves in America, that is rubbish."
You ever known an Irish person descended from slaves?
Your posts are no different than some damned storm trooper rant and I wouldn't insult myself by digging any further.
You simply smokescreen your hatred with a bunch of intellectual rhetoric, just like any other racist.
The fact that you are calm about it doesn't make you any less full of shit.If you're going to sit and talk about whites, you'd better know what you're talking about.
Go ahead, let's hear it... let's hear about what great kings the blacks were.
Then let's hear about where a good lot of whites fit into that picture.Tell the whole truth.
They fit in chains, you damned fool.
Why do you think half of them are so pissed? -
"True Arabs can only be black?"
Fuck you.
How's that for a reply? -
Peace,
I hope the moderators are getting this and take necessary action. This sort of language is inappropriate and not necessary at all. "f you" is not even a pertinent reply. I discussed the issue of slavery of Europeans in North America which was abused indentured servitude. Not only Irish were subject to that but even poor British folks were routinely kidnapped and sold of in "indentured servitude" to the British colonies. Many scots Irish and poor Brits however immigrated willfully to the colonies and became virutal slaves when it came to the lives they had to live although they were not considered 'owned property' in any way. If you want to talk about when Moorish (berber and Arab) blacks unquranically and wrongly routinely took Europeans as slaves(and how this led to the lightening of north Africa and the Arab people) then we can. Anyway, as I said earlier this is the not very pertinent to this topic. I know you would like to consider me a racist. But let me state this clearly I don't hate or dislike anyone for the way God created them. All of God's creation is according to his most wise and great plan. Being racists against Europeans or their descendants or Africans and their descendants because of their physical form or the places from which they come is like being racist against a black cow, or a white cow or a brown cow or a brindled cow etc. etc. It's ridiculous. However we can dislike and must discuss injustices, ungodly, untruthful and negative aspects of each other's cultures and the "civilizations" we form a part of. That is necessary if we are to achieve knowledge and truth and to achieve a way of being, thought, beliefs and behavior that is godly and not based on the ignorance of our different clans, tribes, ethnicities and civilizations.
Godbless,
Anwar -
San,
I want to apologize to you. I came off very agressive towards you and misunderstood your statement. Thank you for recognizing my point and I'm totally with you on the common misconception and how they may see it as calling the prophet ugly.Mushu,
I also want to say that I agree with you totally. When I said give respect where respect is due, I just meant recognizing the truth of a matter and not believing in lies. No one needs to respect black Arabs per se as a group just for being black Arabs. What I meant, is not looking at them as if they are NOT aboriginal Arabs and the fairer ones are, when the darker ones are the more aboriginal Arabs.
In general, I read over my posts and found them quite forward to say the least. I was trying to get across a point but I didn't have to be so aggressive about it. I apologize for that.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace!
As a caucasian white i absolutely agree that the Ishmaelites were originally black just like the Israelites- the white genes are coming elsewhere- you need to know the scriptural Truth about the Flood and the Watchers and why Gog and Magog can only be the genes of the Nephellim - Neanderthals. White civilization came along with the white colonizers who arrogantly destroyed or enslaved the natives and now are exploiting them. The pale arabs like those from the house of saud are caucasoid khazarians.
-
What is this arrogancy you are showing towards people who think differently. You want to shut me up? Come to my place and try it, maybe you will be on the right track again after the beating. Dont tell people to shut up, you ignorant fool. My knowledge is based on sacred texts, books and the MOST HIGH. Whats yours? On some authoritative pseudo-scientific low-egos who think to know better while they are pathetic and compulsive liars- suckers of this $ystem? Like yourself? Maybe you did indeed evolve from a monkey based on your trust in modern "science". I AM THE SON OF ADAM WHO WAS CREATED GODLIKE FROM THE MOST HIGH! OK?! Go back to your government controlled indoctrination centers and dont bother me with your euro-centric bullshit.
Dont judge, if you dont want to be judged.
-
Wow, how silly can humans get ?!?! You have access to all the information youw ant yet you 're still stucked in mythology. Pseudo-science you say hahahahahahahahahaahha, look who's talking bro. Ishmaelites, Nephilim, you serious ???
This is not about thinking differently, this is about hard facts. Go learn population genetics and come back to me, I promise it will be helpful, nothing to do with the government lol. You can even have DNA tests yourself and many people can use your raw data to help you understand. I'll give you a good way to begin start reading about uniparental lineages Y-DNA and mtDNA, Don't talk, just do it, didn' t mean to be rude, but this is seriously hilarious bro. What I can tell you for a fact is that the arabian peninsula was never settled by people of recent sub-saharan ancestry aka Blacks. The last contribution was from the islamic/arab slave trade, this is why you see many coastal Yemenis that are heavily negroid but you never see them in the highlands amon the real Yemenis. North Africans also were not black, this is proven by so many ways. Ancient Egyptians were not black, this was also confirmed from genrtic testing of ancient remains. This has nothing to do with euro-centrism bro, I'm myself north african and we're not white lol. We're an ancient mix, but there is genetic continuity in the Maghreb since the upper paleolithic with the Iberomaurusians from whom some remains were also tested. We're partly black though, around 15%...
-
You are putting modern paradigms above the scriptures including the Qur'an - the Qur'an gives us hints about the Nephillim (Giants). The history of David fighting Goliath is also in the Qur'an - the middle east at that time was filled with Nephillim nations, thats why the Most High used the (true) children of israel to annihilate them because they had manipulated DNA. There are archeological findings of the remainings of Giants. You see in every Mythology the appearence of Giants or Titans. Hud and the 'Ad were all Giants, they were annihilated by the Most High (exceot Hud and those who repented) and there are archeological findings of their skeletons which are of course suppressed because it harms the agenda of the psychopaths reigning over you. The Flood happened because nearly the whole population had manipulated DNA - those Titans were extremely wicked and these genes were transmitted post flood through the maternal line.
Ive gone through your Posts and i see that you dont believe in the most the Qur'an states or you twist the meaning so it fits the modern paradigms which are in essence anti-God.
Read this if you dare - why do you think it was removed from the Bible canon by the Greco-Romans??? It also exposes their Pagan-Religions
http//sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm
-
Wow, how silly can humans get ?!?! You have access to all the information youw ant yet you 're still stucked in mythology. Pseudo-science you say hahahahahahahahahaahha, look who's talking bro. Ishmaelites, Nephilim, you serious ???
This is not about thinking differently, this is about hard facts. Go learn population genetics and come back to me, I promise it will be helpful, nothing to do with the government lol. You can even have DNA tests yourself and many people can use your raw data to help you understand. I'll give you a good way to begin start reading about uniparental lineages Y-DNA and mtDNA
The problem with both Y-DNA and mtDNA tests is that they do not take into consideration of say your great great great grandmother on your father's side or great great great grandfather on your mother's side so these DNA lineages don't really say much in the end.
-
The problem with both Y-DNA and mtDNA tests is that they do not take into consideration of say your great great great grandmother on your father's side or great great great grandfather on your mother's side so these DNA lineages don't really say much in the end.
It doesnt, that's true. But right here we're talking about population profiles, not individual ones. In this case, uniparental lines can give you a good picture of the overall ancestry of the population. Arabian populations that were not affected by the recent islamic slave trade have very few sub-saharan lines among them. Highland Yemenis for instance have almost none, whereas nearby Hadramis unsurprisingly have loads of them.
Or if you want to close the case, just look at the autosomal (complete ancestral) profile. It would yield the same results. These idiots are claiming that Arabians are black, what a load of bullcrap seriously. Even east african hamites can hardly be considered black lol, let alone ancetral Arabians.