Muhammad is a White Man?
-
This is true to an extent, but like I said, it's already been scientifically acknowledged that white people and black people are INHERENTLY different from eachother. For starters, if you take a black child in an all-black community and then introduce him to a white child, he will most likely be accepting, wanting to make friends. However, if you take a white child in an all-white community and introduce him to a black child, he will most likely reject him because he looks different that the white child's other peers. This is a clear indication that white people are inherently racist, arrogant, and judgemental, just like the Quran describes Iblis/Satan.
Is the first sentence dealing with "scientific acknowledgement" leading to the next as evidence of the former? Where can I find these scientific studies that provide evidence for "white people" being inherently racist, arrogant and judgemental? And while you're at it, where are the studies that show "black people" aren't?
-
I've seen what you're saying about whites try to find superficial reasons to hate other people not like them. I'm not sure how frequent that is in non-European societies and this (like the 'white children raised in white society will be racist in a multicultural society' is the kind of thing that requires real-world experiments and studies. I don't feel comfortable resting on allegations based on what it seems like should happen, or what people may claim to have seen, etc. I'd like to see some decent research conducted on these things before we just say "this is built-in on whites."
Also, something else that puzzles me about your interpretation of the Qu'ran is the timeline. Do you believe, like the website claims, that dark-skinned humans are the original man (I'm not saying I do or don't, I don't have any opinion on the subject)? If the Jinns (uhm, "whites" existed prior to the creation of man wouldn't that mean white people predated "original man"? Does that make white people less human, or black people less original?
The thing with me is the Qu'ran puts such a deep divide between humans and jinns that for 1400 years it hasn't been inconcievable that Jinns were nonmaterial spiritual beings (almost as completely different from man as you can get). While I believe our cultural influences do create some strong differences between us, I don't think they are so deep that millions of people would mistake that difference for the difference between a physical and spiritual being. That type of difference which is beyond race, beyond species, beyond even the plant/animal distinction what is natural and what is supernatural. Reading the Qu'ran the way suggested draws such a racially polarized world that coexistence can only ever be a delusional daydream at best. It divides mankind into two groups at perpetual unending war (albeit with some on either side who see above it all, but nonetheless). Do you think that is acceptable? You don't think there's more to mankind than this?
Also, the way the website illustrates it it's got a pretty clear bias with "whites" being the "badguys" and the rest of the world being the victims. Sure enough, the Qu'ran depicts most Jinns as being evil with a small percent being repentant. However, the Qu'ran also overwhelmingly shows the ratio of bad to good leaning on the dark side in mankind. Just as in the communities of Jinns, the communities of mankind are depicted as being overwhelmingly evil with just a few decent folks. But the Qu'ran shifts the blame for their immorality and disbelief to Jinns, saying THEY are the ones leading men astray. It paints Jinns as mischevious devils, the inspiration behind all of the evil activities men participate in. To interpret the Qu'ran based on this will create a worldview that is inherently prejudiced and in many people would easily cause resentment and hatred toward whites. Do you think this is acceptable?
-
Peace Savage_Carrot,
Is the first sentence dealing with "scientific acknowledgement" leading to the next as evidence of the former? Where can I find these scientific studies that provide evidence for "white people" being inherently racist, arrogant and judgemental? And while you're at it, where are the studies that show "black people" aren't?
I didn't say that scientists agree that white people are inherently racist and discriminatory; this is a conclusion I've found to be true throughout my life and experiences with dealing with white children and adults throughout the world. I said white people and black people are "INHERENTLY DIFFERENT FROM EACHOTHER". I've done my own research, and I've also concluded that white people are generally more judgemental and unaccepting than blacks. Cultural science experts seem to agree with me on this issue as well. If you don't believe me, look it up. There are proofs of it everywhere.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
RSW
?The majority of whites did not participate in this?
This is a fallacy of the highest degree. Let me give you a quick analogy below, for example
The US gov. after slavery is still guilty of taking land from the Native Indians. If the present generation of white folks sit back and allow this gov. to do this and do not speak up and condemn this form of imperialism, then how can they (the present generation of white folks) say that they are any better then their forefathers who took this entire country away from the Native Indians!
Do you get my point.
You will notice that if something white folks disagree with for example, i.e. many of them support homosexuality, or maybe against inhumane acts upon animals by humans, companies, corporations, they will come out and march by the THOUSANDS but where are all these white folks standing up and marching against the inhumane conditions of not only Black and people of color in the US and throughout the world? They aren?t, this is the reality, the white race cannot escape their collective deeds and actions that they have committed on the darker peoples of the world. The majority of them (white folks) support policies (that are crushing people of color throughout the world) of their gov. regardless if its in Europe, Australia, US, etc. so the collect embodiment of them are just as guilty as the elite whom you speak of as the only perpetrators.
Yeah, I get your point now. It'd be kind of inconvenient for all the individuals and businesses who have bought up this land in their game of "postindustrial economy" to have to give it back to who it really belongs to. but there's nothing "white people" can do about it anymore. Even if we got every white person to give up their private property there's still publicly traded companies and governments who own land and those are IDEAS, not people of a certain color. Also, should non-white people who have purchased land give it up? It wasn't bought with permission of it's owner. And the number of native americans remaining to the amount of land to be given back is now so wildly disproportionate that revoking ownership would leave a lot of homeless and poor people of all colors scrambling for a place to be, just so a few people could have what was taken from their ancestors.
I think the reason you don't see white people up in arms about this is because finding a solution is more complicated than "just give it back". With homosexuality the simple answer is "let them do what they want," with animal rights it's "just treat them right." With the land issue it's "We're going to have to radically change our whole world." The former make white people feel good about themselves and make them feel like they're progressive and making a difference (they're just deluding themselves anyway, waving a sign and voting doesn't change a thing), but the latter leaves them questioning the legitimacy of their entire lives. It's not pleasant to think about and part of white culture is ignoring what is not pleasant to think about (or adopting a meaningless political platform on the issue for the image and then doing nothing about it).
-
I didn't say that scientists agree that white people are inherently racist and discriminatory; this is a conclusion I've found to be true throughout my life and experiences with dealing with white children and adults throughout the world. I said white people and black people are "INHERENTLY DIFFERENT FROM EACHOTHER". I've done my own research, and I've also concluded that white people are generally more judgemental and unaccepting than blacks. Cultural science experts seem to agree with me on this issue as well. If you don't believe me, look it up. There are proofs of it everywhere.
You said it was scientifically acknowledged that "white people" and "black people" are inherently different...I would like to see the scientific proof is all. Second, this then is used to support your argument that "white people" are inherently racist, arrogant etc or there is no need to use "scientific acknowledgement" as a springing board. The last I read is that science doesn't support inherent differences in the human race that have to do with traits such as arrogance for example. If there are any scientific studies (even half way respectable by actually being published in a scientific journal even by a "cultural science expert" that provide evidence for these inherent differences, please do post.
Other than that, based on one's personal experiences, one might think that the world is flat but if they say it's scientifically acknowledged that it is so, I probably would ask for evidence that it is scientifically acknowldged and preferably evidence that is actually peer reviewed/rigourously examined and thus published and not like the studies like we did back in college, rounding up a few kids and asking them hot words (in psy for example) and insisting that it proved that they stole another kid's lunch money.
-
Al-Khidr,
As I said if I accused you of saying something that you didn't say I apologize for that. But as it concerns the fact of slavery, neither Europeans nor Arabs conquered Subsaharan Africa. How would you categorize the slavery that existed in Subsaharan African between those AFricans themselves. Would you deny that it ever existed when it obviously did? Again, if you look at history closer you will see how it was the rampant and badly managed slave trade that destroyed the African empires at that time to such a degree that subsaharan Africa was able to be conquered. And colonialism in Africa didn't start until the mid to late 1800's whereas the shipping of slaves to the Middle East, India and the Americas had been going on since the 1400's (the Arabs didn't buy nearly as many slaves as the Europeans did) and Africans were also traders, sailors and more on the trade routes from East Africa to Arabia and southeast Asia. There were African slaves as well as merchants, traders and other than that. I know the truth of the matter but how do you explain these things? And why are you mixing all of the issues. To have slaves doesn't mean that you had to have conquered anyone, you can just have bought them (at the root someone had to have done the conquering but it doesn't have to be the person who ends up with the slave). And the type of slavery that existed in Africa and the Middle East was not the type of slavery that existed in the Americas, i.e. chattel slavery. So your logic of the becuz Europeans and the Arabs had African slaves that means that they had to have conquered Africa is wrong. It can be clearly shown that by the time the Europeans conquered Africa the transatlantic slave trade had already been abolished, and even slavery in American was close to or in some cases already was abolished. And by the time the Omani Arabs had established their sultanate on the swahili coast, they had been already buying slaves for hundreds of years before. In addition to that, they never went beyond the swahili coast. And there are still plent of non-Arab swahilis living there. There are the majority. I beg you to look at the facts. Saying that the Europeans and the Arabs conquered Africa and took slaves from Africa after they had conquered it not only wrong but is in part Eurocentric myth. Just like the myth that Europeans invented the gun. The Moors invented the gun, and the Europeans just massively invested in it.
Godbless,
Anwar -
http//www.afrocentricnews.com/html/about_slavery.html
I did a brief search online for what I was talking about. And i found this article. I've read this before and I probably was thinking of you Al-Khidr (how sweet, right?) when I was reading it. So again I aplogize for putting words in your mouth. Everyone should read the article however. I try to find some more on this topic, that is maybe not as afrocentric, although the main point of the article (Arabs and Islam in Africa) I found to be true.
Godbless,
Anwar -
I thought it was the far-east Asians who invented the gun, and was spread to Asia and eventually Europe around the time of Genghis Khan (who reportedly used the early firearms in his conquests of Asia). http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firearms#East_Asia ?
-
I have not read all the posts in this thread,but I did read a lot of nonsens,about white people as jinns.
So the white people once sat in the heavens and listening to Gods command?Someone said that if you took a white child and let him grow up among africans,he would still feel better than them.That is a saying of someone with no experience
when it comes to children.The arabs was in Africa and fetched slaves,for many centuries.Black historians say that Africa would had the manpower to stand the white people when they came if
it was not for the slavetrade that had existed for hundreds of year.
In year 900,there was a slave uprising in Baghdad,that was the main capital for muslims.Their leader called Zanj,took his soldiers of slaves,and was on the brink of
taking the town,before they were beaten.From that time,the arabs were more carefull with to many man slaves.Arab slave trade was as inhuman as the white peoples
slave trades.The arabs kept white slaves also at that time.Many of them were castrated,the white man got his balls cut of,but with the black man,they cut it all of.People
died as flies of course.Another thing that was different,with arab slavetrade,was that when the white people took two men for each woman,that was opposit for the arabs,
they took two woman for every man.
The light skinned woman,worked in the houses,the darker once in the field.Sheiks had thousands of slavegirls that they had sex with.
One famous Iraq sheik had 17 000 slavegirls in his harem.When the white people started they slavetrade from Africa,they had allready practised the prosedure on other white people and the red indians.The black man inherited
his chains from the pioneer bondsmen,who were red and white.
The plantation pass system,the fugitive slave law,the use of the overseer and the house servant and the uncle Tom,the forced separetion of parents and children
on the auction block and the sexual exploitation of servant women,the whipping post,the slave chains,the branding iron,all these mechanisms were tried
out and perfected first on white/red men and women.Cheap labour,and mony making is the reasons,of the exploitation of any human being.There is not enough for all the human beings to live like
queens and kings,so somebody,have to be living a very cheap life,for some of us to live a luxurious life.Every human being have their african secuenses in their dna.From white norwegians to aborigines.The african is the race with most
mutations,and therefor the oldest race in this world,but every human is from Africa,the white people also. -
Peace Savage_Carrot,
You said it was scientifically acknowledged that "white people" and "black people" are inherently different...I would like to see the scientific proof is all. Second, this then is used to support your argument that "white people" are inherently racist, arrogant etc or there is no need to use "scientific acknowledgement" as a springing board. The last I read is that science doesn't support inherent differences in the human race that have to do with traits such as arrogance for example. If there are any scientific studies (even half way respectable by actually being published in a scientific journal even by a "cultural science expert" that provide evidence for these inherent differences, please do post.
Other than that, based on one's personal experiences, one might think that the world is flat but if they say it's scientifically acknowledged that it is so, I probably would ask for evidence that it is scientifically acknowldged and preferably evidence that is actually peer reviewed/rigourously examined and thus published and not like the studies like we did back in college, rounding up a few kids and asking them hot words (in psy for example) and insisting that it proved that they stole another kid's lunch money.
From this perspective, I see that you haven't done any research on this basic concept. White people and black people are inherently different, but many white people refuse to acknowledge this reality. I've done research on this myself, and I've also spoken with several cultural science experts on the issue, and they all agree that there are obvious psychological, emotional, and social differences between blacks and whites. To get a full picture on this ideology, it's best to analyze both respective opinions on the issue of racial separation and divisibility. Here are a few websites I found pretty interesting on the issue
http//inverted-world.com/index.php/articles/articles/the_reality_of_racial_differences/
http//www.crusader.net/texts/bt/bt00.html
http//www.human-nature.com/nibbs/03/jensen.html
http//www.stormfront.org/racediff/equality.html
http//www.cpsimoes.net/artigos/bell_mainstr.html
http//psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
Now, if you read through many of these, you can see the outrageously ignorant views of these white people, who insist on characterizing black people as INFERIOR to the "white race". This is a basic view of their ignorance and arrogance, which is the true nature of Satan's offspring. In some of the other articles, though, a few of the authors give unbiased views on the real source of the problem; it's not only environmental diversity, black and white people are biologically different, and this affects their thinking and reasoning, their growth and performance, and it also affects their self-portaits of their own personal characters, white people viewing themselves "higher" than blacks. Because of their degradation of the black race, they have imposed a self-hatred mechanism on black people, forcing many of them to feel "inferior"/lower than white people, which is why so many of them resort to self-discrimination and servitude. In other words, white people have hated black people so much for so long, they've actually forced black people to hate themselves. That's why, in order to be accepted by white society, many black people have resorted to self-reform, trying to look, think, and behave like white people. Personally, I think you should look at the video Brother Al Khidr posted by Minister Louis Farrakhan ("NOI" on blacks being stripped of their culture and being forced to take on white culture, including it's beliefs, languages, and characteristics.
And the reason I characterize the distinction of blacks and whites as "them & them" instead of "us & them" is because I'd rather look at the situation from an unbiased perspective, without placing myself in a particular racial group. In my opinion, both groups are equal; but again, that's just my opinion, and it's NOT compatible with reality. And the reality is the two groups are not equal. That's why cultural integration is a DISASTER; the two groups are not socially compatible, and they never will be unless the white race (the general majority) becomes more accepting of black people in mainstream society.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Marleya,
I have not read all the posts in this thread,but I did read a lot of nonsens,about white people as jinns.
So the white people once sat in the heavens and listening to Gods command?Where does the Quran say that all the jinns used to sit in the heavens and listen to GOD's commands?
Someone said that if you took a white child and let him grow up among africans,he would still feel better than them.That is a saying of someone with no experience
when it comes to children.You've gotta be kidding me, Marleya... Show me ONE white person in Africa who doesn't feel socially, culturally, mentally, and physiologically superior than the black African people, and then you may have a case. Until then, you're speaking foolishness. Africa is plagued with disease and pestilence, poverty, social conflict, and starvation. So, with all the white people over there (i.e. British, American, French, etc.), why aren't they helping? Instead, they're only colonizing, trying to take over the area, implement their own beliefs and policies, and control the African people, just like they did during the slave trade. They just put a new name on it, and they use forced poverty and starvation as weapons instead of whips and chains... Do you think white children are TAUGHT this stuff? From who, and where did those people learn it from? The reality is that it's an inborn trait, and white people are biologically inclined to exhibit these qualities. And even though some of them choose to overcome these racist tendencies and equalize everyone, the vast majority of white people choose to maintain this twisted mentality. That's why the world is the way it is today...
The arabs was in Africa and fetched slaves,for many centuries.Black historians say that Africa would had the manpower to stand the white people when they came if
it was not for the slavetrade that had existed for hundreds of year.
In year 900,there was a slave uprising in Baghdad,that was the main capital for muslims.Their leader called Zanj,took his soldiers of slaves,and was on the brink of
taking the town,before they were beaten.From that time,the arabs were more carefull with to many man slaves.Arab slave trade was as inhuman as the white peoples
slave trades.The arabs kept white slaves also at that time.Many of them were castrated,the white man got his balls cut of,but with the black man,they cut it all of.People
died as flies of course.Another thing that was different,with arab slavetrade,was that when the white people took two men for each woman,that was opposit for the arabs,
they took two woman for every man.
The light skinned woman,worked in the houses,the darker once in the field.Sheiks had thousands of slavegirls that they had sex with.
One famous Iraq sheik had 17 000 slavegirls in his harem.What is the point of stating this? Black Africans couldn't stand up their white oppressors because they were not as culturally and technologically advanced in terms of weaponry. Also, the enslavement of the black Africans led many of them to feel "secure" in their enslavement, even to the point where they were willing to fight against their own people to aid their white oppressors... And you can change that "hundreds" to "THOUSANDS" - slavery has existed for THOUSANDS of years. And also, you can't compare the Arab slave trade with the European slave trade because they were completey different.
When the white people started they slavetrade from Africa,they had allready practised the prosedure on other white people and the red indians.The black man inherited
his chains from the pioneer bondsmen,who were red and white.
The plantation pass system,the fugitive slave law,the use of the overseer and the house servant and the uncle Tom,the forced separetion of parents and children
on the auction block and the sexual exploitation of servant women,the whipping post,the slave chains,the branding iron,all these mechanisms were tried
out and perfected first on white/red men and women.This is an interesting theory, but it's incorrect. White people never enslaved themselves. The first racial enslavement by the Europeans took place among the Africans. They started off by capturing them and forcing them to work as "indentured servants", slaves for a time period until they were released. They claimed this servitude was not specifically for black people, and anyone could've become an indentured servant for a time period (I disagree with this theory). However, once they realized how productive the black Africans were, the new American states/colonies of Maryland and Virginia created a law to make black people indentured servants for LIFE. They also made racial intermarriage illegal, which subjected all black people to servitude, including the children of slaves. None of these were practiced on "white/red men and women".
Cheap labour,and mony making is the reasons,of the exploitation of any human being.There is not enough for all the human beings to live like
queens and kings,so somebody,have to be living a very cheap life,for some of us to live a luxurious life.This is ridiculous, and it doesn't justify enslavement at all. That's like saying, "If there are free people, there must be slaves," and that's completely illogical. People form their own standard of rich and poor classes of society. Before those white people went through subjective lands and "took over", there were no differentiating classes of rich and poor; everyone was equal.
Every human being have their african secuenses in their dna.From white norwegians to aborigines.The african is the race with most
mutations,and therefor the oldest race in this world,but every human is from Africa,the white people also.To say someone is from Africa is not really saying anything. Nobody ever disputed the origins of the human race in terms of location. Determining the race of white people in terms of ancestry is completely different because, based on genetic reproduction, white people and black people don't have the same ancestor (i.e. Adam).
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
What is the point of stating this? Black Africans couldn't stand up their white oppressors because they were not as culturally and technologically advanced in terms of weaponry. Also, the enslavement of the black Africans led many of them to feel "secure" in their enslavement, even to the point where they were willing to fight against their own people to aid their white oppressors... And you can change that "hundreds" to "THOUSANDS" - slavery has existed for THOUSANDS of years. And also, you can't compare the Arab slave trade with the European slave trade because they were completey different.What is the point of stating this? Black Africans couldn't stand up their white oppressors because they were not as culturally and technologically advanced in terms of weaponry. Also, the enslavement of the black Africans led many of them to feel "secure" in their enslavement, even to the point where they were willing to fight against their own people to aid their white oppressors... And you can change that "hundreds" to "THOUSANDS" - slavery has existed for THOUSANDS of years. And also, you can't compare the Arab slave trade with the European slave trade because they were completey different.
I disagree with this. It was the unregulated slave trade where Africans sold Africans (east coast and west coast) that weakened the African empires to a point that the Africans couldn't resist the Europeans. And Europeans didn't enter the continent until colonialism which was the mid 1800's at the earliest. The musket gun of the early days was not that much of a technological advance, and Africans had access to guns as well. Especially seeing that Africans sold other Africans for guns among other things. And there was also trade with North Africa where guns were also available. In addition to that West Africa had ironworks as well, so it wouldn't have taken much for West African empires to manufacture guns to use. It was the complete depletion of man power through the unregulated slave trade that brought the Europeans in and the fall of Africa.
Also, it is known that Europeans typically enslaved the Slavic peoples from which we get the word Slave. And it is a fact that Europeans as all other people enslaved their captives of war. The Arabs' slave trade as well was no more than the buying of slaves on the coast from other Africans. The difference is that Europeans racialized slavery and made slaves less than human. Arabs never racialized slavery and did not make their slaves less than human, although many were treated that way (european, asian, arab and african). And the Arabs never conquered Subsaharan Africa. Only North Africa. But they melted in with the people their and had an ethnicity that easily assimilated the locals if they chose, Europeans did not. The issue of Eunuchs is horrible but went on way before the Arabs. And I have seen no evidence of African Eunuchs having all their genitals cut off and European Eunuchs only their testicles cut off.
Europeans also preferred slaves from Africa becuz they were more skilled. Many had historically been rice farmers (this was the Carolinas' main crop during the early parts of American slavery), cattle herders, carpenters and had all sorts of other skills, and even soldiers. West Africa was highly civilized as opposed to what it became after the slave trade and European colonialism had devastated it.
As for the gun I can respect what wikipedia has to say. i had a history teacher back in high school who told me that the moors brought the gun to Europe. So maybe they didn't exactly invent it. But the chinese didn't invent the gun either, but the gun powder. So it was probably somewhere in between Northwest Africa and China where the weapon first took form. But we know that the Europeans didn't invent it, but they did capitalize on it more than others, or so it seems.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
I didn't say that scientists agree that white people are inherently racist and discriminatory; this is a conclusion I've found to be true throughout my life and experiences with dealing with white children and adults throughout the world. I said white people and black people are "INHERENTLY DIFFERENT FROM EACHOTHER". I've done my own research, and I've also concluded that white people are generally more judgemental and unaccepting than blacks. Cultural science experts seem to agree with me on this issue as well. If you don't believe me, look it up. There are proofs of it everywhere.
Ahmad I think you should realize what you said here. Cultural science experts seem to agree with me on this issue as well. Cultural scientist wouldn't make a statement about the innate (i.e. genetic) characteristics of people, but the characteristics of CULTURES. So the differences are CULTURAL, not innate in the people. Culture is learned. That means that those children learned their behaviors from their cultural teachers, i.e. parents, teachers, family, friends, TV and other role-models. So you admit here that the issue is cultural, so stop saying that it is innate. At best you can only say that the issue is innately cultural, but not innate to the White American ethnicity or the Caucasiod race as whole.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
RSW said
I think the reason you don't see white people up in arms about this is because finding a solution is more complicated than "just give it back". With homosexuality the simple answer is "let them do what they want," with animal rights it's "just treat them right." With the land issue it's "We're going to have to radically change our whole world." The former make white people feel good about themselves and make them feel like they're progressive and making a difference (they're just deluding themselves anyway, waving a sign and voting doesn't change a thing), but the latter leaves them questioning the legitimacy of their entire lives. It's not pleasant to think about and part of white culture is ignoring what is not pleasant to think about (or adopting a meaningless political platform on the issue for the image and then doing nothing about it).
I agree with this completely. Well said and very, very true.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Ahmad Bilal,
This is not completely true. In many parts of the world, especially parts of America, there are no black people. However, even though the younger generations of those people have never even seen black people in their life, if you integrate them into a multi-cultural society, they show clear signs of racism and discrimination. This shows that their prideful, judgemental attitude is not based on environment or surroundings; it's an inborn trait that they choose to exhibit.
This does not show that the racism is inborn. It shows that these people are still being taught white supremacist messages and lessons from the more racist cultures of their grandparents and great grandparents. Also these people don't live in a vaccuum completely either. They still have television. But the most important thing to remember is that they descend from individuals who came from areas where there were black people. You'd be suprised to find out where the grandparents or greatgrandparents of those people came from. You will often encounter that they have ancestors that came from the the deep south or the East coast, where slavery was the the law of the land and where white-supremacy was encouraged in order to keep Afro-Americans and poor whites from uniting against the wealthier white individuals in control (in addition to the racist cultural attitudes Europeans came to the Americas with from Europe's interaction with the Moors). So the chain has not broken and these people learn these things thinking that they are harmless and they lay dormant until they encounter black people and all the racist crap they were taught in the absence of black people comes to the surface. And people like you and I are shocked and rightfully offended. Even today you can go to areas in the south that are mostly white and find some of the most racist white supremacists. Why? Because they are continuing the culture of their ancestors and finding solace in racism and white supremacy for their insecurities and poverty. People (especially Americans) love to hate and blame someone for their troubles. We even find that in the Quran, where some people called the messengers sent to them bad omens and blamed them for the bad that was happening to them. In some cases blame is warranted. White supremacy definitely needs to be blamed for alot, but white supremacy was encouraged in early America in order to make all whites (even podunk ones) feel better than blacks, to hold blacks back even when it came to blacks working together with each other, and in order to cause a divide that would keep everybody in a bad situation exploitable, and everyone in a good situation (relatively) safe. I admit that most of its damage was done in the past, but that damage has had long lasting affects. And it cannot be doubted that there are still remnants in the general American culture that are enraging and disgusting to those who don't have an investement in that way of thinking (most of whom ARE White Americans).
Racism exists in all countries of the world, and it is exhibited strongest by white people. Also, you have to realize that white racism is reflective, and they tend to show discrimination against their own people if no black people are available. That's why brunettes hate blonds, Italians hate Irish and Scottish people, blue-eyed people hate brown-eyed people, etc. This has been mimicked by black society as well, and it's starting to become more prevalent that lighter-skinned blacks are showing discrimination toward darker-skinned blacks. In any case, the social viewpoint is "lighter is better". This happens inside and outside the United States, and it seems to be a growing trend. Because many black people have become so unaware of black history and culture, they mimick the characteristics of their white counterparts, even to the extent of lighter-skinned blacks hating darker-skinned blacks. This is especially becoming extremely prevalent in intermixed (black and white) people, who think they are a "better breed" than black people.
It's true white supremacy is a legacy of Europe. So wherever you find descendents of Europeans you will find White-Supremacy. The Tazmanians got completely wiped out becuase they were the blackest of the Aborigines. The light skinned-dark-skinned issue was much more severe among Afro-Americans pre-60's. It has gotten much better. What has gotten worse has been dark-skinned prejudice agains light skinned Afro-Americans, as well as the mixed (mulatto) attitude towards being black. Many mixed individuals would rather be considered white if possible (but most know they can't and are vexed about it) and they refuse to understand what it means to be Black in America (which doesn't discount European or Native American admixture). But to give them some slack they catch hell from dark-skinned Afro-Americans without having been cultural prepared for it, like traditional light skinned black families or black families with light skinned and dark-skinned siblings, cousins etc. So they kind of don't get it and feel rejected by both the white commmunity and the black community, and whereas the black community is more vocal about the color differences between us there is a place for all of the colors in the scheme. White people's color scheme is only based on European lineage. Latin Americans are still pretty bad with the lighter is better legacy that the Spaniards and Portuguese left them. In the case of Mexico and Cuban-Americans this issue was made worse by influence from White Americans. And in Argentina it was made worse from the influx of Europeans (German and Italian) into the country.
But I still don't agree with this Jinns as white people theory. First, Jinns are created from fire and people from mud (meaning that jinn are not soil-based creatures, like humans are.) And it is obvious that white people are soil based creatures as well. Secondly you can take elements out of the soil in certain ways to change its color. And that is a good analogy for how white people became white. They had a certain element (melanin) reduced. And we could get into more specifics but there is no Quranic evidence or any evidence at all that suggests that white people weren't derived (whatever the process might be) from that same black mud that black people were made from. And what about Mongoloids, i.e. non-black Asiatics? What are they according to the White People = Jinn theory?
I've always understood that all living breathing things were created from that mud that the Quran talks about, especally the animal word, and that these were the forms we were given to inhabit on earth. If you look at it we are all flesh and blood. In truth, the colors between man are just as the Quran describes, and no different than the colors of cows. It would be absurd to assume that different breeds of cows (or horses even) have their origin in different species of animals altogether. Same goes for dogs. They are the same types of animal and none is innately more tied to Shaytan than the other just because of color hair texture, length, eye color hight, stature or facial build. And we are all people. Our faults and evils lay in our cultures, AND our personal actions and beliefs.
I also don't believe that Iblis is the father of the Jinn. I believe that he is an unseen fallen angel, and that jinn = unseen. In that I believe that some angels can be seen and other cannot be seen. Which ones can we see? The same ones that you look at everytime you look at your hands or the ground beneath you. How that exactly works I cannot tell you but I know it can work. Just like a computer full of parts can create images, the angels can take the form of all that we see, feel, breath and use. And this is not every angel but just those whose job this is. I think all aspects of the universe are the forms of angels submitting to God's will and to humanity according to Gods will. That is, except those unseen things that are not angels. And the fallen angel Iblis is doing as God wills him to do, but his sin is his gripe and his unwillingness to obey God and respect humanity. But the physical angels is how I see that on the day of judgement our very skins will bear witness against us. And that is how I have come to understand these things up unto this point.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
I disagree with this. It was the unregulated slave trade where Africans sold Africans (east coast and west coast) that weakened the African empires to a point that the Africans couldn't resist the Europeans. And Europeans didn't enter the continent until colonialism which was the mid 1800's at the earliest. The musket gun of the early days was not that much of a technological advance, and Africans had access to guns as well. Especially seeing that Africans sold other Africans for guns among other things. And there was also trade with North Africa where guns were also available. In addition to that West Africa had ironworks as well, so it wouldn't have taken much for West African empires to manufacture guns to use. It was the complete depletion of man power through the unregulated slave trade that brought the Europeans in and the fall of Africa.
Also, it is known that Europeans typically enslaved the Slavic peoples from which we get the word Slave. And it is a fact that Europeans as all other people enslaved their captives of war. The Arabs' slave trade as well was no more than the buying of slaves on the coast from other Africans. The difference is that Europeans racialized slavery and made slaves less than human. Arabs never racialized slavery and did not make their slaves less than human, although many were treated that way (european, asian, arab and african). And the Arabs never conquered Subsaharan Africa. Only North Africa. But they melted in with the people their and had an ethnicity that easily assimilated the locals if they chose, Europeans did not. The issue of Eunuchs is horrible but went on way before the Arabs. And I have seen no evidence of African Eunuchs having all their genitals cut off and European Eunuchs only their testicles cut off.
Europeans also preferred slaves from Africa becuz they were more skilled. Many had historically been rice farmers (this was the Carolinas' main crop during the early parts of American slavery), cattle herders, carpenters and had all sorts of other skills, and even soldiers. West Africa was highly civilized as opposed to what it became after the slave trade and European colonialism had devastated it.
This still doesn't show the equal reflection of the slave trade. Plain and simple, the Arab slave trade didn't have anything (per se) to do with race. The African/American slave trade had everything to do with race. This is one basic, obvious indication that the two weren't even related.
Ahmad I think you should realize what you said here. Cultural science experts seem to agree with me on this issue as well. Cultural scientist wouldn't make a statement about the innate (i.e. genetic) characteristics of people, but the characteristics of CULTURES. So the differences are CULTURAL, not innate in the people. Culture is learned. That means that those children learned their behaviors from their cultural teachers, i.e. parents, teachers, family, friends, TV and other role-models. So you admit here that the issue is cultural, so stop saying that it is innate. At best you can only say that the issue is innately cultural, but not innate to the White American ethnicity or the Caucasiod race as whole.
This is incorrect. "Culture" has more than one definition. Cultural science experts deal primarily with the environmental stimulants of a group of people, based on education and development through religion, philosophy, and all kinds of other family-oriented factors in their upbringings. However, this could also be used to separate the environmental factors from the inborn traits, and that's what I was talking about. Many cultural science experts agree that racial and stereotypical discrimination is only PARTIALLY based on upbringing and environmental factors, and the rest is based on heredity. And this racist mentality is reflective in NEARLY ALL of white American society. You think this is coincidental, and that everybody just happened to be watching the same television programs?
I still don't agree with this Jinns as white people theory. First, Jinns are created from fire and people from mud (meaning that jinn are not soil-based creatures, like humans are.) And it is obvious that white people are soil based creatures as well. Secondly you can take elements out of the soil in certain ways to change its color. And that is a good analogy for how white people became white. They had a certain element (melanin) reduced. And we could get into more specifics but there is no Quranic evidence or any evidence at all that suggests that white people weren't derived (whatever the process might be) from that same black mud that black people were made from.
I never said white people are jinns; I said Adam was created from black mud. So, if Adam was black, and he was physiologically incapable of producing pale-skinned, blonde-haired, blue-eyed offspring, then where did white people come from? The question is still raised, and one must form a compromise between the two based on facts. If Adam was black, then he couldn't have produced white children. If Adam was white, then he couldn't have produced black children. Either way, one group is descended from Adam, and the other group is descended from someone else.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Ahmed Bilal
I have a problem with the quoting and have a very large textbox,that I can not fix,so I dont qoute you.I will try to answer still.
In sura 72,vers 8-9,the Quran say that the jinns used to sit in the sky and listening in.
My mother is white,and she still live there in Africa,like anybody.She goes to her ricefarm,and vegetable garden and do exactely like her black
sisters do.If it was not because she is white,you wouldnt see that she is not born in the country.I have met many white people living in Africa,
and not in the way you say all white people live.You say that white people and black people,dont share the same ancestor?Where did you pick up that one.It was enviroment and food,that changed
the features of humanbeings.How can to white people have a black child for example?And that happens.Because far back in their ancestors thay have
genes from black people.How can you say that the arab slavetrade was any different than white slavetrade?Not build on race?
Abd,means slave in arabic,and is a the word used on the people suffering in Darfur.Black people are abd,when it comes to arabs.
Do you know when arab countries stopped their slavetrade?In the 1960s,but take a good look at arab countries today,and you will
find slavery in all its shame.The lightskin slaves were the ones in the houses,the darker ones in the field.The brutality and deathtolls were the same as with the white people.
-
I never said white people are jinns; I said Adam was created from black mud. So, if Adam was black, and he was physiologically incapable of producing pale-skinned, blonde-haired, blue-eyed offspring, then where did white people come from? The question is still raised, and one must form a compromise between the two based on facts. If Adam was black, then he couldn't have produced white children. If Adam was white, then he couldn't have produced black children. Either way, one group is descended from Adam, and the other group is descended from someone else.
This is a very interesting point. I admit that your solution doesn't satisfy me (a casual analysis tells me whites and blacks have far too much in common to be completely unrelated), so I would like to humbly recommend reflecting on our data. Why does one group have to be descended from someone else? If that was the case, how is it these two groups are able to reproduce to create offspring exhibiting traits of both races? Did humanity exist prior to Adam?
Based on what we know about recessive/dominant genes, whatever genes Adam & Eve had are the genes we should all share, but we are not all one color. Off the top of my head I see two possibilities
- Our understanding of genetics is wrong.
- Our understanding of Creation is wrong.
For the first, think the most common explanation is genetic mutation. Supposedly, we were all one color and mutated "randomly" (or by intelligent design, your flavor), some colors being more adapted to some climates than other. I believe this is also supposed to be how other species got their different colors (some other mammals come immediately to mind). At this point the original color is irrelevant because it could have been any shade, mutations are radical and the original could even be completely lost. Keep in mind according to the same scientists that bring us what we know about recessive and dominant genes, we get the story of all the wildly diverse life on earth evolving from a single event in early Earth history. Even Kangaroos and Koalas (two COMPLETELY different mammals) are supposed to come from the same 'possum-like' creature. Race is just one small part of genetics, and genetics are known to change overtime, sometimes rapidly. We still share more in common between races than we do with other mammals, and it makes more sense to look at what we HAVE in common and say "Adam is the father of our species" than to look at what we DON'T have in common and say "Adam is the father of one of us, but not both." Our similarities outweigh our differences compared to the rest of Creation by a landslide, I have no doubt that you and I must have come from a common ancestor.
I won't be so bold with conjecture on the second item, but none of us were witness at Adam's creation and we don't know if there were any special conditions, metaphysical aspects involved, extended periods of development, etc. I don't know how GOD works on these things. I think the possibility of GOD creating man out of mud (whatever the color) and breathing life into him is just as likely as causing his offspring to be different colors, irregardless of genes. If we believe in the miracle of creation we also owe it to GOD to believe in the possibility of other miracles . But I don't want to leave off this post talking about magic. If GOD made two different races of carbon-based bipedal mammals with opposable thumbs, advanced thinking and communication abilities; why do you think GOD would have chosen to make them capable of reproducing with each other? I think the theory that GOD created one "human race" capable of all types of different colors is more likely, and that mankind themselves create the color divisions for social manipulation ("Us vs. Them" in order to assert and maintain control of power and resources.
-
Moin, Moin...
...that post is dripping full of Rassism and Ignorance. Disgusting to see how "God alone" muslim interpret the scripture to fit their view of a black and white world.
Remember that Quran was for mankind? Of course you do! So you have to make a divison! Al-Insan are the black and Al-Jinn are the white?! How convenient to find some ayat speaking about the creation of man from black mud. Maybe you forgot about the ayat where Allah tells us that His book consist of governing verses and allegorical verses but for those humans who have desease in their hearts they will follow the allegorical verses to deviat people from the path.
You should interpret that "Black Mud" allegorical and not literal.
This ignorant attitude helps you surely to feel supreme towards your white Sis and Bro. Please remember Allah created us as many nations and tribe so that we know each other and in His eyes the best of us is the one with best conduct and the palest or darkest skin!Your ignorant view contains the seed of fanatismus. How long will it take until a people of the Al-Insan goes on a killing spree to rid this world of the devillish Al-Jinn thinking he has the divinely ordained supremacy? And this Jinn are not human, so what?
Your ignorant worldview and interpretation of the scripture that should bring unity, equality, justice and brother(sister)hood to mankind is a disgrace to your God given intellectual abilities. At this place be reminded how Allah defines a human being Allah tells us to us our reason and thinking. People who do not use it are less than cattle.Surely are your historical informations correct but your Ignorance is neither constructive to change this history to a better tomorrow nor will help mankind to judge their fellow man according to conduct and not colour of skin.
And at last for all the muslims who think that Adam was a single man with one wife a good bye story
"And Adam decended to earth and together with his wife builded a cosy home. Because they where the ONLY HUMANS on earth they wanted to populate this vast empty earth and endowed with Adams potence and his wife fertility copulated wildly and brought forth numeros children. When the time of mature came for all this SISTERS AND BROTHERS FROM THE SAME FATHER AND MOTHER, like their parents they wanted to populate this vast and empty earth and so SISTER COPULATED WITH BROTHER and from this incest sprang forth the next generation to copulate and populate.
But after a few thousand generations Allah our creator has send down a scripture to prohibit a Brother to copulate his own Sister to populate this vast empty earth, but to late. Because of the incest in the first generations "Al-Insan" already gone "All insane".
And whoever believes this Adam story takes his meal in the pasture.Peace be upon you.....Chris