Muhammad is a White Man?
-
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
-
Peace Marleya,
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.
I understand. It may take a while to get used to the site, but you'll figure it out. It took me a little while to get the quotes down too... )
In sura 72,vers 8-9,the Quran say that the jinns used to sit in the sky and listening in.
This is not literal. The translation of, "We touched the heavens..." and "We used to sit there" can be speaking of the jinns "sitting" or being in high positions.
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.I never said all white people act any particular way. I can't make determinations of all white people, not in terms of chosen behavior. Everyone governs their own actions, and there are some white people who try to help black people, and there are some white people who choose not to display racial dominance and supremacy, trying to demoralize black people and view them as inferior. I was only speaking about the general majority of them, not 100% of them.
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.This is false. Although the changing of environment would make small variations in the physical makeup of the people, it wouldn't completely change their genetic code. White people are not made like black people, and that's a fact. Since black people have dominant genes (i.e. dark skin, curly hair, etc.) and white people have recessive genes (i.e. pale skin, straight hair, etc.), two white people CAN'T have a black child, not naturally at least. White people also have recessive cells, and blacks have dominant cells in terms of blood and plasma. So, if all people have the same ancestors, then why do we have different blood types? Here's why White people contain recessive compounds in their blood. When it becomes mixed with a dominant blood cell through interracial breeding (i.e. A-Pos + B-Pos), it connects to the dominant blood cell and becomes a new cell (i.e. AB-Pos). If this feature gets recombined with another recessive gene and fixes to a new cell (i.e. AB-Pos + B-Pos), it forms a new genetic cell and blood type (i.e. B-Neg). Now, if this pattern is repeated enough times, the blood eventually develops a "fluid" blood type, building too many anti-A and anti-B bodies to connect, which creates the "O" blood type (i.e. O-Pos and O-Neg). That's why, in the instance of blood transfusions, people with type "O" blood can give blood to anyone, but they can't be given anything other than type "O". However, they can receive plasma from other groups, but they can't give plasma to any other groups. The changes in cell-dominance altered their genetic makeup. Nowadays, human blood has become so intermixed that everyone of every race has different blood types; there's not one specifically for blacks or one specifically for whites. They all got mixed up through years of intermixed breeding... Now, if Adam and Eve had the same blood type, which they obviously did, and they didn't have any recessive genes because they were the first humans, then how do humans today have different blood types? Where did this alteration come from? It obviously came from another person with a different cellular makeup intermixing with them, and this is compatible with the Jewish legend of Satan breeding with Eve.
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.This doesn't mean the Arab slave trade was based on race at all. The Arab slave trade was based on cultural dominance, since the people were trying to spread their power, influence, and religions throughout the world. They enslaved the people they conquered. This is not comparable to the American/African/European slave trade because it became based completely on race and color. And contrary to popular belief, racial enslavement STILL exists in the United States.
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.
This is ridiculous. Lighter-skinned black slaves were kept in the house to be subjected to their oppressor's dominance. There were no "white" slaves. The white people were the enslavers, not the slaves. When intermixed breeding occurred, if the baby was too dark to be white, then he was rejected and enslaved. If it was "white enough", sometimes they received special treatment, but this rarely happened. The death-tolls between white people and black people were NOWHERE NEAR THE SAME, and this is an outrageously ridiculous statement. How are you confusing the slave with the oppressor?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace to you Mister Bilal
Thank you for having understanding for my poor quoting skills )
Since I was very young I have red this kind of sayings,about black people Bilal.Race theories are old and mostly benefits the ruling majority.It doesnt make it truth still.
Your reasoning also,about white people,it just trying to tell me the same bs,that the white people tried to tell me,about my fathers people.Thats why I know that you are wrong.Because you sound like them,your reasoning is violent and "white".As a scintific consept,race is well past its sell,-by date.
I am looking for something else than segregation or degregation,that be of any human beings,based on race Bilal.
-
Peace,
I personally do not believe that Adam was the first man. I believe that Adam = Humanity and children of Adam = members of Humanity. This is the tribal reference, like Israel and Banoo Israel. According to the Quran there is not difference between israel and banoo israel, and I take it as so with Adam and banoo Adam. This would be the same with Ar-rum and banoo ar-rumi, etc. etc.
I agree that the mud was black, and I also would agree that when humans appeared on the planet they were black. I have always been taught that you can pull lighter colors out of the color black, but you cannot get black or brown from lighter colors. With that said, I believe that the original human beings were black but had enough latent genetic diversity that the earth's environment could stress our organisms to the point that our bodies specialized to the point of no return, eliminating our genetic diversity on the most part for genetic necessity. I think that is how we got to the point of no return when it comes to our 3 main races and their subgroups. If there is some more latent genetic diversity in us, in those elements of human race that are most 'pure' it will only be brought out through long and dire circumstances. If that diversity is gone those circumstances will destroy the people altogether.
All I can say is that atleast we have not gotten to the point that the donkey and the horse have gotten to, being so incompatible that their offspring is 99% of the time infertile.
But the best way to understand the original human being would be to mix everybody back up. In which case you would still get something black. Because there are more black genetically different subtypes (Veddoid, Congoid, Capoid, Australoid, Negrito and Melanesoid) than Caucasiod and Mongoloid types.
But only by mixing all these people up fully would we get the closest to the original human beings. I think the same thing goes for horses, dogs, cows etc. etc.
So I think the orignal black man had more genetic diversity within his genes than we realize, and more than any of us have today. That diversity has been eaten way (in different ways obviously) by the harshenss and longevity of the local environments our ancestors found themselves in. Some stayed black (which includes dark brown) but not as genetically diverse as our original ancestors. And some had their colors (skin, eyes and hair) extremely lightened like the Caucasiods and the Mongoloids (the Northern Europeans and the Eastern Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are the most pure examples of those two groups). Hair was another change. Even those black groups that have more straight hair usually will have curly to fluffy hair, which from what I have learned easily let's heat out, whereas straight oily hair keeps more heat in (caucasian hair typically gets very oily very fast which is why they wash it every single day. And maybe someone can brief me on japanese, korean and northern chinese hair types. I've heard from a hair stylist friend of mine that it just tends to be thicker than caucasian hair, but I don't know if gets as oily as fast).
I cosider Middle Easterners, North Africans, souther Europeans, Indians and South East Asians to be mixtures of Negroid and Caucasiod and Negroid and Mongoloid, so they will not exhibit characteristics from both groups.
Godless,
Anwar -
Peace Marleya,
Your reasoning also,about white people,it just trying to tell me the same bs,that the white people tried to tell me,about my fathers people.Thats why I know that you are wrong.Because you sound like them,your reasoning is violent and "white".
I'm only telling you the facts regarding ancestry; you can choose to acknowledge it, or you can choose to reject it. Just because a view is different than yours, that doesn't make it incorrect... And I wasn't saying anything about inciting violence against white people. That's outrageous. I just said we need to identify the problem so we can develop a solution for it.
I am looking for something else than segregation or degregation,that be of any human beings,based on race Bilal.
This is also an unrealistic view. The world is segregated. In terms of the United States, cultural and racial segregation never ended. That's why black people and white people live in completely different communities. That's why most of the time, if you go into a predominantly white community, it is an ALL WHITE community. White people are generally judgemental and unaccepting of black people living within their neighborhoods and communities. And contrary to your opinion, this IS based on race, and this leads to the 'segregation or degradation' mentality. Racial integration is a myth, and white people and black people are culturally incompatible at this point, based on the general white rejection of black people.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Dear Progod...
...it was very uplifting for me to read your post containing common sense, something that is sometimes amiss in the commentary and posting to this topic.
Peace upon you......Chris
-
Thanks Christoph.
By the way in my last sentence I wrote
I consider Middle Easterners, North Africans, souther Europeans, Indians and South East Asians to be mixtures of Negroid and Caucasiod and Negroid and Mongoloid, so they will not exhibit characteristics from both groups.
I meant
I consider Middle Easterners, North Africans, souther Europeans, Indians and South East Asians to be mixtures of Negroid and Caucasiod and Negroid and Mongoloid, so they can exhibit characteristics from both parent groups.
Godbless,
Anwar -
As Salaamu Alaykum To All
When the Pale Arab (who are European descendants) conquered Africa, East Africa (Saudi Arabia), once they obtained power, they began to re-write HIS-STORY through their fabrications of HADIYTH. They have changed the image of Prophet Muhammad and turned him into a white man, thus they have wrote tons of hadiyth actually stating that Prophet Muhammad is a white man. But, however, does this stand up to Qur'aanic evidence? I would like to announce a new site targeting this racism, that is very well hidden and disguised under Al Islaam. This website not only set's the record straight on this subject matter but it will also answer the constant question as to why Allah never sent a European Prophet. If you want the Cold Naked Truth visit the link below
http//kushite.webs.com
Salaams Br,
The actual word in the hadith which they translate as white is;
Abyadz = When he is free from defects/ white (qd-p69)
It does accur in the quran a number of times aswell, 3106 but qd explains it the best.
So i think it isn't or rather the colour is not what is being implied.
Salaams.
-
Salaam Simple,
The actual word in the hadith which they translate as white is;
Abyadz = When he is free from defects/ white (qd-p69)
It does accur in the quran a number of times aswell, 3106 but qd explains it the best.
So i think it isn't or rather the colour is not what is being implied.
You are correct in showing the word they translate as white. However, I disagree with your conclusion; those people are clearly speaking about Mohammed's skin color and complexion, and this is evident by the other hadiths showing Mohammed's disdain for black people. Others speak of Mohammed referring to black people in demeaning contexts. For example
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 256
Narrated Anas bin Malik
Allah's Apostle said, "You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin."There is a clear distinguishment between the white Muslims and the black people throughout the hadiths, and references to Mohammed's skin color being "white" are exhibited throughout the hadith and sunna books.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Salaam Simple,
You are correct in showing the word they translate as white. However, I disagree with your conclusion; those people are clearly speaking about Mohammed's skin color and complexion, and this is evident by the other hadiths showing Mohammed's disdain for black people. Others speak of Mohammed referring to black people in demeaning contexts. For example
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 256
Narrated Anas bin Malik
Allah's Apostle said, "You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin."There is a clear distinguishment between the white Muslims and the black people throughout the hadiths, and references to Mohammed's skin color being "white" are exhibited throughout the hadith and sunna books.
Peace,
Ahmad
Hi Ahmad,
Volume 1, Book 11, Number 662
This is how I read it- although, sorry, I am not an Arab- but you can check it.
?.Asmau wa Atiu wa in Astuamila Abdun habashee kaanna ra'sahu zabiatun.
Using lanes and qd.
Listen and obey one employed as a governor even a Abyssinian/black slave if he is a capable head/ chief.
Believe you me the devil is in the translation.
Thank God no Raisins !
Look at what they were making it out to be
The Prophet said, "Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief."
Salaam.
-
Salaams Br,
The actual word in the hadith which they translate as white is;
Abyadz = When he is free from defects/ white (qd-p69)
It does accur in the quran a number of times aswell, 3106 but qd explains it the best.
So i think it isn't or rather the colour is not what is being implied.
Salaams.
Salaam Simple
I just read your post and you got to be kidding. I am glad that you presented this to expose yourself. THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BEING IN DENIAL. Those hadiyths are talking about the physical appearance of Prophet Muhammad. You have to understand that words change in meaning and connotation depending on the context of the sentence or verse and the context of that Arabic word that is present in the hadiyth is clearly addressing the physical appearance of Prophet Muhammad and not his pure & righteous character. Take a look at one of the hadiyths that I presented on the website
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/Muhammad%20is%20white/Muhammadiswhitehadiyth1.jpg
Notice that this hadiyth says ?DESCRIBE him for me? and after this statement look at what this hadiyth says which clearly demonstrates that they are talking about the physical appearance of Prophet Muhammad and not his pure and righteous character
?He was white and his beard was black with some white hair?
The Arabic word that is used in this hadiyth is describing his complexion as a white man and his beard with some white hair, it is NOT talking about anything of his pure & righteous character. Simple, you are in complete denial and I will tell you just like Ahmed Deedat tells Christians REMOVE THE SPIRITUAL BLINKERS FROM YOUR EYES SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE TRUTH. Now take a look at these two hadiyths and the Arabic word used in the hadiyth which again is describing the physical appearance of the Prophet Muhammad and not talking about his pure and righteous character because that is not the connotation of this word and a blind-fool can see this
a-mile-away but racism dies hardhttp//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/Muhammad%20is%20white/2hadiythMuhammadiswhite.jpg
You have highlighted Qur?aan 3106 and the Arabic word in this verse is ?tabyaddu? and the connotation and form of the hadiyth in the way it (the hadiyth) uses this word is different from the Qur?aanic context and any body can see this for themselves. Go back and read the website again that I posted and read all those hadiyth (without your spiritual blinkers) and you will have to come face to face with reality that those hadiyths are addressing the physical appearance of Prophet Muhammad, it is just so happens that those hadiyths are false which depicts Prophet Muhammad as a white man instead of a Black man who is of Nubian (African) descent. Harun Yahya on his website first quoted a hadiyth which debunks the fact that Prophet Muhammad is Black which I quote here again from his website
Anas bin Malik (ra) says
"The Messenger of Allah, was not excessively tall or short. He was not very pallid nor dark. He did not have curly hair or lank hair. Allah commissioned him at the age of forty. He stayed in Mecca ten years and at Medina for ten years and Allah the Mighty, the Majestic made him die when he was sixty. There were not twenty white hairs in his hair or beard, may Allah bless him and grant him peace."
Malik's Muwatta Hadith, Volume 49, Number 1
Notice that this hadiyth eliminates the Prophet Muhammad from being dark skinned and having curly (kinky or wooly) hair. This is a perfect example of these so-called imposter pale arabs re-writing their HIS-STORY and removing the original Black presence out of History. On this same website he quoted another false or fake hadiyth which states that the Prophet Muhammad is a white man
"When Ali (ra) described the Prophet (saas) he said
'He was neither very tall nor excessively short, but was a man of medium size. He had neither very curly nor flowing hair but a mixture of both... He was reddish-white, he had wide black eyes and long eyelashes. He had protruding joints and shoulder-blades? Between his shoulders was the seal of prophecy... He had a finer chest than anyone else, was truer in utterance than anyone else, had the gentlest nature and the noblest lineage. Those who saw him stood suddenly in awe of him and those who shared his acquaintance loved him. Those who described him said they had never seen anyone like him before or since'."
Tirmidhi Hadith, Number 1524
This hadiyth states that the Prophet Muhammad was ?reddish-white?, which is a common color/complexion among the white or caucasian race and this hadiyth also states that the Prophet Muhammad does not have curly hair further eliminating any form of kinky or wooly hair. Simple, can you see ?reddish-white? in this hadiyth? It is talking about the complexion of the Prophet Muhammad and again not his pure and righteous character. WAKE UP! Go back to the website below and read all the hadiyths again without the spiritual blinkers
http//kushite.webs.com
But you know what Simple, I?m glad that you opened up by saying that ?you think? because your argument was nothing more than just that.
Now look what Al Jahiz (776 A.D. - 868 A.D.) who was a multi-talented writer and scholar of the 9th century Islaamic World recorded that the Prophet Muhammad's father Abdullah; his grandfather, Abu Muttalib and his cousin and son-in-law, Amiyru'l Mu'iniyn Ali were all Nubian (Black men). Below is taken from Al Jahiz book entitled, The Glory of the Black Race
"Abdullah Ibn Abbas was blackest in magnificence, and the family of Abu Talib were the most noble men; and they were Black, with Black"
Abdul Muttalib (497-579 A.D.), son of Haashim (464-510 A.D.), was the grandfather of the Prophet Muhammad. Now if he had ten (10) sons, one of those sons being Abdullah (545-570 A.D.), the father of the Prophet Muhammad, then it is only logical that Abdullah is Black. Abdullah is described as being "Black as night". So we can therefore say that his son Muhammad was Black also. In another excert from this same book The Glory of the Black Race by Al Jahiz, he states
"Abd Al Muttalib fathered ten lords, Black as night and magnificent."
Al Jahiz's book was written before the pale arabs fabricated 90% of their hadiyth. This is the book that the present Saudi Arabian so-called government banned from their country because they do not want the truth being exposed.
Al Jahiz
http//www.cwo.com/~lucumi/jahiz.htmlBelow is taken from the following book which proves that the original Arabs who are Black (African) was the first to inhabit Saudi Arabia, the Europeans are just a johnny-come-lately
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/Muhammad%20is%20white/AfricanPresenceinEarlyEuropebookcov.jpg
?Arabia itself had first been populated by black people. As Drusilla Houston states in her classic text, Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire, ?the Cushites were the original Arabians?,? for Arabia was the oldest Ethiopian colony. According to Houston, ?Ancient literature assigns their first settlement to the extreme southwestern point of the peninsula. From thence they spread northward and eastward over Yemen, Hadramaut and Oman.?This book can be obtained here
http//www.journalofafricancivilizations.com -
Salaams Al-Khidr,
Sorry Br but you are wrong.
One man translated the hadith books and with it they made and are still making millions- that is all - it seems anybody is interested in, making millions.
The bukhari works is a great collection but simply mistranslated Br.
And certainly isn't talking about how long the beard should be or should be at all.
I can say if you care to talk about one small hadith fine we can talk about it but not a whole lot of them- simply don't have the time.
confused
Thanks.
God Bless you.
-
Peace,
I want to say a few things.
First white, among the Arabs is not white like the Europeans. White like the Europeans is shuqr and ashqar and not Abyad and beed. Reddish-white as well according to the Arabs is not the white of pink Europeans. Red Arabs are light brown Arabs who are in between white and dark brown, but still being brown skinned. White Arabs are slightly tanned Arabs, who are not as white as Europeans but the same color of what we Afro-Americans would call Red-bones, or light bright. it only refers to skin color AND not blood line. Again the white and pinkish white of Europeans is shuqr or ashqar not Abyad.
Secondly I'm not sure if grey-bearded is a meaning that can be found in another dictionary but shamita as I have it means grey haired (in the head). I also agree that hadeeths are largely mistranslated as well.
Lank means very straight. So those hadeeths are saying that he was not pale (pallid) and that he did not have very straight hair either. So he was NOT white like the Europeans and his hair was probably wavy according to those accounts. Also if his armpits being white was different from the color of his obvious body parts (face, arms etc) then that goes against the hadeeth that says he was white and atleast lends more to the possiblity that he was red (which means reddish light brown NOT European Pink).
As it concerns the term bashar being used for more than one person in the Quran I came accross an example of this morning 518. It's translated as 'nay you are men.' (bal antum bashar)
And as it concerns Al-Jahiz, he claimed to have only accepted mutawaatir hadeeth. The Hadeeths that were quoted above were most likely Ahadi, so I would accept al-Jahiz's word over those hadeeths.
Lastly that picture is a European depiction of a Moor. I'll find Jahiz's quote where he says a number of Arab tribes are black. But the fact that they were the original Arabs is also proven by the presence of the Black Mahra. The Arabs of Muhammad's (God bless him) day emerged as a general mixture of Negroid and the Caucasiod elements that came from the North. So if Muhammad was light-skinned or dark-skinned that does matter much to me, but to conclude that he was Caucasian from those quotes is to totally misunderstand the word white within the context of the Arab color scheme. For instance my wife is from the Dominican Republic where blanco (very light skinned) is not the same as gringo white, which is called 'color gringo' to differentiate it from native Dominican white. It's the same for us Afro-Americans with red-bones and very light skinned light brights who we might call white but we don't mean Euro-white.
Also if someone can scan the Arabic of the raisin-head hadeeth (which could be referring to color and not to wrinkliness) I'd appreciate it. I'd like to read the Arabic. Thanks Khidr for scanning the Arabic as well.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam Progod
The Prophet Adam could never be used as a collective or a plural because
(1) the Arabic word basher used in the verse below is singular (basharaan)
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch15v28hamaablack.jpg
(2) Not, I nor we but Allah, Himself in the Qur?aan says that Adam is Waahid (ONE)
Qur?aan 14
O people, Observe your Sustainer who created you from ONE being (Adam), and created from it its mate, then spread from the two many men and women. You shall regard Allah, by whom you swear, and regard the parents. Allah is watching over you.Qur'aan 7189
He created you from ONE person (Adam)?.http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg185508#msg185508
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg185187#msg185187
And the verse that you highlighted in Qur?aan 518 the form basharun is used and the context is different and plus Adam is not addressed in this verse unlike the verses I provided up above which clearly demonstrates that the Prophet Adam is ONE and not a plural or a collective.
-
Khidr,
That is your INTERPRETATION, and you are entitled to it but you have not PROVEN that Adam is that nafsun in 14 and in Surah 7. Some people have referred to that as a cell. Not to mention all of the other things nafs can mean. The parenthesis say Adam but you and I know that Adam is in parenthesis because the word is not there.
And the context is different but the word is the same. That was just to show you that basharun can mean more than one human being. That is all I was trying to show you. I have other clues that point to the same thing in the Quran like 711 and the use of antum. It is very easy to see the word nafsun in a way that does not mean a person. I only see a possible issue with the abawaikum verse (I can't remember the number) but I need some more evidence of abaa in a non person way or even a Quranic evidence that points to two different abawaani. Anyway, this is sort of off topic to a degree. It's connected, but loosely. I think we might have to start another topic to have this conversation.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam Progod,
That is your INTERPRETATION, and you are entitled to it but you have not PROVEN that Adam is that nafsun in 14 and in Surah 7. Some people have referred to that as a cell. Not to mention all of the other things nafs can mean. The parenthesis say Adam but you and I know that Adam is in parenthesis because the word is not there.
I have to agree with Brother Al Khidr on this one. The scriptures literally say that Adam was WAAHID, or one. And as descendants, we were all created from this "waahid". Now, whether you wish to apply this to the man "Adam" or not, it doesn't change the fact that all humans came from ONE PERSON. All it means it that we are descendants of ONE MAN with a different name; the circumstances don't change at all.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Salaam Progod,
I have to agree with Brother Al Khidr on this one. The scriptures literally say that Adam was WAAHID, or one. And as descendants, we were all created from this "waahid". Now, whether you wish to apply this to the man "Adam" or not, it doesn't change the fact that all humans came from ONE PERSON. All it means it that we are descendants of ONE MAN with a different name; the circumstances don't change at all.
Peace,
Ahmad
Alhamdulillah brother Ahmad Bilal, you made it so much more clearer. Just like you have said it does not matter what name you want to give the person because Allah says we came frome ONE (Waahid) person and Anwar is trying to say this person means a collective or plural which is clear that its not the case. I find this distortion to be very common among the progressive moslem sect.
-
Peace,
Again that nafs has been understood as a cell, and maybe even other things. So taking that nafsun as Adam is an interpretation. It does not say person. it says nafs.
What can nafs mean? One of the books I have called dictionary of the holy Quran gives soul, self, person, self, spirit, mind, inner desire or feeling, punishment, vital principal, blood, spirit, person, individual, intention, desire, pride, scorn, stomach, essence, constituent of the affair, the very thing, the thing itself, the reality (behind), heart, life, spirit, body, contention, trhought, carnal life, sensual appetite, face, substance, greatness, nobility, glory, scarcity, absoluteness, unseen, hidden reality which is beyined human perception, requital, brother, brother in faith, human being, principle of a person, pride.
So can you see now how assuming that that nafs is even a person can be a big jump? It doesn't say Adam. Now it could be, but I'm leaning towards the side that Adam was not any one person, but is all of us.
Godbless,
Anwar