Muhammad is a White Man?
-
Salaam Al Khidr,
Adam, according to the Qur'an, was indeed a black man. However, theoretically, all men stemmed from Adam, and everyone on the earth is part of his progeny; this also includes the European settlers and nations. So, where do you think the racial divide came from? If all men were originally black people (Nubians), how did white people get here? Are they from another progeny outside of Adam and Eve? Although it's easy to assume that the black Nubians migrated to different parts of the world, becoming isolated from the sun and paling their skin, and developing different languages, as many scientists today claim, there are clear distinguishments between blacks and whites that far surpass the color of skin; their behaviors are completely different as well. In many cases, Nubians and Caucasians (Europeans) seem like completely different species. What do you consider to be the stem of this racial divide, and why do you think black people and white people are so different from one another?
Peace,
Ahmad
As Salaamu Alaykum Ahmad Bilal
Yes definitely Adam according to the Qur?aan was a Black man. There are a lot of people who would like to deny this but yet they cannot dispute the clear and evident proof in the Qur?aan that Allah made Adam Black including the original race which you and I know that science has proven this especially with the scientific study/analysis of the DNA.
In the verse below Allah revealed that all races came from one man (Adam) and the scientific evidence of the DNA also have confirmed this verse in Al Qur?aan
Qur?aan 14
O people, Observe your Sustainer who created you from one being, 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.So all races/mankind came from one human being (Adam) again who was Black and this includes the white race. The Nubian race traveled to the 4 corners of the globe before any other race came into existence through this dominant gene of the Nubian (African) race. And it is true that Europeans were the last to come into existence, thus even Nubians traveled to Europe and developed civilization long before the Europeans came existence. Europeans have what you call the recessive gene which is the weakest gene and the African or Black race have the dominant gene which is the dominant or strongest gene from which all others came from and this is why Adam had to have been Black. And this verse refers to Adam and his immediate descendants as listed in this verse and there was definitely no European blood in this progeny here, they were purely Nubian (Black)
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch3verses3334progeny.jpg
Now one of your questions was how did they evolve or came into existence. You have presented the following
?Although it's easy to assume that the black Nubians migrated to different parts of the world, becoming isolated from the sun and paling their skin, and developing different languages, as many scientists today claim?
I believe what you presented here has a lot of truth and is a piece of the puzzle. There are a lot of factors involved here including the DNA. Check out this video by National Geographic and this video will also complete part of the puzzle to help answer this question. I do not believe this video presence the complete answers but it definitely adds scientific data that definitely helps in us completing this puzzle for the answers
The Search For Adam Special DNA Mysteries
http//www.guba.com/watch/3000114671?there are clear distinguishments between blacks and whites that far surpass the color of skin; their behaviors are completely different as well. In many cases, Nubians and Caucasians (Europeans) seem like completely different species. What do you consider to be the stem of this racial divide, and why do you think black people and white people are so different from one another??
I agree with you here there is something different about their behavior and ways which definitely sets them a part from all people of color. The Egyptians who are originally Nubians/Kushites/Kamites were so advanced that they developed ships and even traveled to America thousands of years before this Johnny-come-lately (Colombus) and the Egyptians (Nubians) did not come to America and enslave the native Indians, they were friends, they were family; the Nubians helped spread Islaam in America among them and you can also find pyramids and hieroglyphics that are practically identical to the ones in Africa (Nubia/Egypt). But when the Europeans evolved to the point where they can travel and when they came to America what did they do to the native Indians? When they traveled to Asia, Africa, India what did they do to the people of color? They did what we see them doing today and that is invade, conquer, colonize and enslave. I wonder why, it is only the white race that is trying to dominate this entire planet?
Brother, please forgive me if I have not answered all elements of your questions but hopefully I have provided some substance. Please download the pdf document entitled JINN and this piece of work of mines will also add some further dimensions to these questions and more
http//kushite.webs.com/jinn.htm
-
1528-29; 3871-72 "When your Lord said to the malaa'ika I have created a "bashar" from clay/clay of altered mud. So when I fashion him in his final shape and blow into him of my "ruu7", fall down in rostration to him". They prostrated to the result of this alteration in the bashar The insaanadam. Do you think from all the bashar in existance then, God made only one adam? And BTW, bashar is spoken of as a singular masculine. Does this mean there were no females among those bashar?
Salaam Samia and Progod
Samia when I read your post, it did sound like you were implying that there were more than one Adam. The verses that you quoted are in reference to only one Adam. Allah clearly states in the Qur?aan that He created all from ONE person/being (the Adam)
Qur?aan 14
O people, Observe your Sustainer who created you from ONE being, 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.And in this verse Allah used the word Waahid which means ONE.
Salaam Progod
The Arabic word Bashar means man, a complete man and the Arabic word Al Insaan is a plural because it is in reference to a race, mankind. Note in Qur?aan 1528 Allah is referring to ONE individual and that is why he used bashar in this verse below
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch15v28hamaa.jpg
And in Qur?aan 1526 Allah used the Arabic word Al Insaan because He was telling the world that He created the human race our of Black Mud and below is the Arabic break down for this verse
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch15v26Arabicbreakdown.jpg
So in Qur?aan 1528 it is referring to one man and in Qur?aan 1526 it is referring to human race (which is a plural or collective); and we
don't see evidence that in Al Qur'aan that Allah created more than one Adam. -
Asalaam Aalaikum
Brotha Khidr
Where can we find the descendants of the the enslaved Africans taken by Arabs from the Arab Peninsula, speaking the Arabiyyan Saudi?
As we know, language is a clear indicator as to whether one was enslaved and brought from another land and assimilated with their oppressors language and customs.
Where can we make this determination regarding descendants of the enslaved Africans, country and language.
Salaam
They are all over, thus, the Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew, Amharic language started in Africa. The original Arabs are Black (African) and they live in Saudi Arabia to this very day; you can find Nubians (Africans) in Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Morrocco, Ethiopia who Speak Arabic and are Muslims, just to name a few places.
-
Peace,
Al-Khidr, thanks for the three posts but I'll have to beg to differ. Basharun can be one human being or the collective for all human beings. Same with Insaan. You can say 'Al-khidr huwa insaanun, lahu kullul-huqooq mustihaqqatun li ayi basharin aakharin'
That is Al-Khidr is a human being, and he has all of the rights that any other human being is entitled to.
So basharun (indefinite) is one person or some group of people, same goes for insaanun. When you put al in front of it that makes it humanity in general. Both of these words can be used in an individual and collective way. In the Quran you will aslo find insun, used as a collective only. And inseeyun used individually only.
I know you'll be hardpressed to accept that but just do the research, that way it won't become personal argument of my word against yours.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam
They are all over, thus, the Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew, Amharic language started in Africa. The original Arabs are Black (African) and they live in Saudi Arabia to this very day; you can find Nubians (Africans) in Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Morrocco, Ethiopia who Speak Arabic and are Muslims, just to name a few places.
Brotha Khidr, with all due respect 'They are all over' is NOT a valid response to the question I raised.
There are 80+ different dialects of Arabic.....
Gulf Arabic, Bahrani Arabic, Najdi Arabic, Hejazi Arabic, Sharqi Arabic, Yemeni Arabic Hadhrami Arabic, Dhofari Arabic, Omani Arabic, Shihhi Arabic, Ancient North Arabian (Safaitic, Lihyanitic, Thamudic, Hasaitic),Classical Arabic, Moroccan Arabic, Algerian Arabic, Tunisian Arabic, Andalusian Arabic, Libyan Arabic, Jebli Arabic, Jijel Arabic, Saharan Arabic, Hassnya, Maltese language, Siculo-Arabic, Lebanese Arabic, Syrian Arabic, North Syrian Arabic, Palestinian Arabic, Bedawi Arabic, Cypriot Maronite Arabic, Iraqi Arabic (Baghdad Arabic), North Mesopotamian Arabic, Egyptian Arabic, Sa'idi Arabic, Sudanese Arabic, Nigerian Arabic, Chadian Arabic, Khuzestani Arabic, Shirvani Arabic, Tajiki Arabic Uzbeki Arabic, Judeo-Moroccan Arabic, Judeo-Yemeni Arabic, Judeo-Iraqi Arabic (Baghdad Arabic (Jewish)), Judeo-Tripolitanian Arabic, Judeo-Tunisian Arabic, Nubi language, Babalia Creole Arabic, Juba Arabic
Speaking Arabic does NOT imply that a country was once enslaved and oppressed by 'Arabs'.
My question was relevant to the existence of descendants of slaves who have adopted the language, culture and practices of Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula. Where is the 'Arab' country, that these descendants of African slaves inhabit?
If you cannot identify these African slave descendants and the country that they inhabit and the language, culture and religious practices of their enslavers, then as Cheikh Anta Diop states?.
?The Arab conquests dear to sociologists are necessary to their theories but did not exist in reality. To this day NO reliable historical documents substantiate such theories?
-
Assalaam Alaikum @progod
Wa 'alaikumus-salaamu,
Thank you for your response.
@Progod, 'Iraqis' and 'Palestinians' are NOT 'Arabs'....by lineage or bloodline
I agree with you generally but that is not 100 percent true. Some of them are Arabs by bloodline. Just as some sudanese are Arabs by blood line as well, although they can be associated with other African tribes in their matrilineal lines. But i don't find any issues with that statement, outside of Arabia proper most "Arabs" are really Arabicized ethnicities that existed in those areas before the Arabs invaded them.
Iraqi's can be traced back to Chaeldeans, who enslaved everyone, and by the way they were 'black'.
Again, this is not true for all Iraqis and by the 800's AD they were already mixed enough to not be considered black anymore, like the Egyptians, who started off black but ended up not so black. But there were African slaves brought in while Iraq was under Arab rule, as well as the Black palestinians in the video who were brought from Sudan and ethiopia in the 1800's. So the ruling Arabs had those blacks brought into the Palestinian and Iraqi territories.
Reference 'Slavery In Babylonia' by Dandadev
http//palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php
The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.
'Palestinian' is also a 'mandated' term derived from the 'British Mandate of Palestine'
A "Palestinian" can mean a person who is born in the geographical area known prior to 1918 as "Palestine", or a former citizen of the British Mandate territory called Palestine, or an institution related to either of these. Using this definition, both Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews were called "Palestinians".
Thanks for the definition of Palestine, although it wasn't really necessasry. Actually much of Palestine was co-ruled by the Ghassanid Arab tribes when the Byzantines were in power pre-Islamically. The Arabs were not the dominant peoples in numbers but Arabs had settled in that area pre-Islam. The same goes for southern Iraq and the Lakhmid Arab tribes.
@Progod, Thus If you are correct, then those descendants of enslaved Africans in Iraq and Palestine were NOT enslaved by 'Arabs' but by arabic speaking descendants of Chaeldeans and Philistines who were NOT only 'Arabs', they were also NOT 'Muslims' either.
Again they were brought in the by the ruling Arab classes of the Arab/Islamic empires. The Umayyad and the following Arab empires.
Progod, to mention some Saudi, as black, implying and suggesting that he descends from African slaves is an assumption at best.
That's true and I wasn't assuming that although i can admit it sounds like that. However there are plenty of examples of Africans being brought to Saudi Arabia as slaves. But as I said there are also native black Arabs like the Mahra who were never brought into Arabia as slaves but are natives. They are in even greater numbers on the island of Soqotra which is also apart of Yemen. I even provided an Al-Jazeerah special on them on youtube.
A good website on the topic of Arab slavery is http//www.arabslavetrade.com/
EVERY BLACK human being does NOT descend from enslavement or oppression! Its amusing how people believe that the only way black people populated the earth is through enslavement and oppression. Grin
Of course. You are perfectly right, I am not sayng that that is the only way black people got to most places that they are now in the world. I believe that different blacks (Congoid, Capoid, Veddoid, Australoid, Melanesiod, Negritoid and the typical Bangladeshi/Dravidian blacks) who all originally came from a single stock of blacks, but diverged into subgroups of the black race ruled all of Africa, Arabia, and southern and southeast Asia in very ancient times and eventually mixed in with Caucasian and Asiatic invaders from the North giving us the general mixed looking populations of North Africa, Arabia and South and Southeast Asia. Mansa Musa of Mali sent Africans to the Americas before Columbus as a matter of fact. But the fact that Africans were again brought to the middle east and the Indian Subcontinent (and the Americas) through slavery is a fact, although it is completely wrong and ludicrous to make equal the Arab involvement in the trading of African slaves with the European involvement. But as the website clarifies the amount of Africans coming from Africa to Arab territories as slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries caused the word 'abd itself to be equated with blacks. Whereas the word mamluk has pretty much dissapeared from everyday usage of colloquial Arabics. The one thing that I will say was horrid about Arab slavery was the practice of making Eunuchs. Although if they survived they lived lavishly and in high positions afterwards, that is the most inhumane thing you can do to a man, without anesthesia.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Assalaam Aalaikum
You lost me, Chaeldeans nor Palestinians are 'Arabs' by any way shape of form. You seem to be confusing merchant and immigration patterns with some perceived idea that Africans were brought 'en'masse' as slaves to Iraq and Palestine.
Im still confused as to where these invasions of 'Arabs' occurred in Africa, without any documented account of any Arab invasions in Africa, then somehow returning to Iraq and Palestine, again without any documented account of these slaves imported from Africa.
Progod, with all due respect, much of what you have stated regarding Iraqi and Palestinian African slaves cannot and has not been supported by any accountable documentation.
-
If the below is what you think I said then it's no wonder your confused, because I didn't say that at all. As for Palestine and southern Iraq, not only were Arab tribes in these areas pre-Islam, the post-Islamic Arabs who came to fully rule the areas were the ones who brought in African slaves (as well as slaves from other ethnicities and races). So I agree with you that the majority of the population in Palestine and southern Iraq were not Arab, but it was the Arabs who came to rule these areas that brought in the slaves. Again those slaves came from Africa, Europe and Asia, but there most definitely were slaves from East Africa. It was the AFrican slaves from the Zanzibar called the Zanj who led the Basrah revolt in the 800's and ruled Basrah and the surrounding area for a number of years.
Iraqis and Palestinians are now Arabs mainly because of the fact that they have been Arabized. But Arab patrilineal heritage makes you Arab as well. Which is the main reason why Arab has never been and never will be a race. Because your matrinlineal line could be composed of races from around the world but if you have an Arab in your patrilineal line and you are apart of a society that speaks Arabic or some evolved colloquial Arabic dialect then you are an Arab, whether your matrilineal line was chaldean, philstine, nubian, berber or all of those combined. Or you could have no tie to any tribal Arab but can effectively fake it until you make it like those people with names like Bukhari (from Bukhara in Tajikistan I believe) and Sijistani (from sijistan in persia). You get me now? ON the most part I agree with you I just beg to differ on some of the specifics.
As it concerns the invasions of Arabs. They invaded Iraq, Syria, Palestine, upper Jordan, Lebanon, Persia, western India, Egypt and north Africa. In all of these cases although there were battles the conditions favored the Arabs over the rulers at the time Persia, Byzantine and Rome. In many cases from what I know the Arabs actually had help from the natives in order to oust Byzantine, Rome and Persia from certain lands because they were cruel and crumbling empires. And it was only through forming alliances with other berbers that they were able to conquer North Africa and with Copts and other Nubians that they were able to conquer Egypt and Northern Sudan. And when I say conquer and invade I DON'T mean slaughter and replace. So I would say the only true Arab invasions of pure Arab might were limited to the middle East proper itself. Even to conquer the parts of india that they did they needed help from the local populations of persians. They also cooperated with Berber tribes to conquer Ghana in Mauritania/Senegal and even Spain was for the most part a Berber invasion with Arab co-leadership.
So I am not saying that the Arabs had a slave endeavor in Africa equal to that of the Europeans, not at all. And it is known to all that the Arabs traded in slaves from all the ethnicities available, even their own. All i am saying is that Arabs certainly did trade in African slaves, mainly on the east coast of Africa and remnants of the descendents of those African slaves can still be found in the territories that the Arabs ruled (even if they weren't the majority of the population, or the native population). Also the linguistic remnant of Black African slavery being a significant phenomona in Arabized territories in the Middle East atleast after the 1800's after the Portugese became active on the East Coast of Africa (and incidently with the onset of European Colonization), as well as in North Africa is the use of the word 'abid. But in Basrah and Palestine Arabs were present in significant numbers since before Islam. The Ghassanids and the Lakhmids are proof of that. If you don't believe me you can look that up yourself, or we can just leave it at that.
A good deal (not all) of the Black presence in Baluchistan and the Sidis in India is also from this trading of East Coast Africans who were employed in Arab armies and settled in India and Baluchistan afterwards in significant numbers so that there are communities of them.
But please don't try to say that I am assuming that any black presence in the Middle East, North Africa and India and lower Persia is from slave trading. I DO NOT THINK THAT. But you can't ignore the fact that this is part of the reason for the persisting black presence in these areas, along with the malicious racism against Blacks brought to these areas by European colonists, which has impeded their mixing in with the non-black populations in a negative way. Note non-black here does not mean that they do not have Black admixture.
Godbless,
AnwarAssalaam Aalaikum
You lost me, Chaeldeans nor Palestinians are 'Arabs' by any way shape of form. You seem to be confusing merchant and immigration patterns with some perceived idea that Africans were brought 'en'masse' as slaves to Iraq and Palestine.
Im still confused as to where these invasions of 'Arabs' occurred in Africa, without any documented account of any Arab invasions in Africa, then somehow returning to Iraq and Palestine, again without any documented account of these slaves imported from Africa.
Progod, with all due respect, much of what you have stated regarding Iraqi and Palestinian African slaves cannot and has not been supported by any accountable documentation.
-
Moin, Moin Sis and Bro.
Regarding the Prophet who cares about his skin. The message is important and according to this you character makes you superior to others.
Regarding the "Black" One wrote their behavior differs from the rest of the races. In what sense? I'm a "White" from Europe and the behavior of French differ from German differ from Spanish differ from Norwegian differ from Polish and so on and on. More something cause of culture than skin!
Regarding ADAM I am sure the name refers to "mankind" in general and not to one individual. Why? Coz to generate a nation from only a couple there must be a lot of incest going on. And ALLAH clearly prohibited in the Quran to marry one sister (or brother).
Peace be upon you....CHRIS
-
Peace,
Al-Khidr, thanks for the three posts but I'll have to beg to differ. Basharun can be one human being or the collective for all human beings. Same with Insaan. You can say 'Al-khidr huwa insaanun, lahu kullul-huqooq mustihaqqatun li ayi basharin aakharin'
That is Al-Khidr is a human being, and he has all of the rights that any other human being is entitled to.
Thanks progod, you explined it well.
I would like to add that even in Arabic of today, we say "ghair saali7 lilistihlaak alaadami " meaning "not suitable for human consumption".
-
Assalaam Aalaikum @progod....
Again, your mixing linguistic determinations as to whether one is 'Arab' and genealogical references, regional and tribal designations and conflicts between social, economic and political entities.
Your in Zanzibar, East Africa, Spain Europe and Africa making assertions that 'Arabs' from the Arab peninsula 'invaded' these areas. You even mixed Semetic Arabs with spear heading the European/ Byzantine engagements in Spain and Europe, which historically is NOT true! (Mainly Berbers and Moors not Semetic Arabs, Hannibal and Tariq were NOT Semetic Arabs!)
There is no documented historical, archeological, socio-political, or linguistic evidence that Semetic Arabs from the Arab peninsula 'invaded' Africa, West Coast of Africa, Interior of Africa or Southern Africa and enslaved the populous, gave them Arabic and Islam, and then marched them 'en masse' back to the Arabian peninsula.
Cheikh Anta Diop, who himself is a 'native' African from Tooba (interior of Senegal), with a historical lineage that is fully documented and traced to Narmer (Nubian Pre-Dynastic) and the Badarian Tribe, going as far back as 30,000+ years states...
?The Arab conquests dear to sociologists are necessary to their theories but did not exist in reality. To this day NO reliable historical documents substantiate such theories?
Here is the archeological evidence that 'Allah' was an aspect of worship in Pre-Dynastic Nubia, 6000 - 10,000 BEFORE Arabs of the Arab peninsula. The Muslim Brotha speaking in the video is Badara Ndaw, he is also from Tooba, and from the same lineage (Joloof Empire) of Diop and the people mentioned in the Quran.
Allah in Pre Dynastic Nubia Temple of Ptah http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS9YU1HmapU
What! Are they better than the people of Tubba and those who were before them? We destroyed them because they were guilty of sin.
The Companions of the Wood, and the People of Tubba / Tooba'; each one (of them) rejected the Messengers, and My warning was duly fulfilled (in them).
-
Peace,
Again, your mixing linguistic determinations as to whether one is 'Arab' and genealogical references, regional and tribal designations and conflicts between social, economic and political entities.
This is your claim. I beg to differ.
Your in Zanzibar, East Africa, Spain Europe and Africa making assertions that 'Arabs' from the Arab peninsula 'invaded' these areas. You even mixed Semetic Arabs with spear heading the European/ Byzantine engagements in Spain and Europe, which historically is NOT true! (Mainly Berbers and Moors not Semetic Arabs, Hannibal and Tariq were NOT Semetic Arabs!)
Now this is mixing! Mixing Semetic Arabs with spear heading the European/ Byzantine engagements in Spain and Europe? What does that even mean? When did I say that the Arabs spear headed the European/Byzantine engagements in Spain and Europe? And what European/Byzantine engagements in Spain and Europe? The Byzantine empire ruled Palestine and Syria pre-Islam. They ruled these two areas via the Ghassanid Arabs actually. The Arabs after islam fought the Byzantines and took Palestine and Syria from them on their own. And did I not say that the Arabs were co-rulers and co-conspirators of the invasion of Spain(note the prefix co-)? Didn't I say that the invasion of Spain was mainly a Berber endeavor? Yes I did. So why are you accusing me of saying things that I didn't say? The Moors included Berbers and just about all Subsaharan Muslims at the time. The Moors of Mauritania today are only a small portion of who were considered Moors before. Hannibal was a Carthaginian and was way before the Muslim Moors. Let's not confuse the Muslim Moors (of whom Arabs were also included) with the ancient Moors (who were North Africans, North West Africans and surrounding Saharan and Subsaharan Africans. Ethiopians were more specifically Abyssinians, Nubians and the surrounding Saharan and Subsaharan Africans) Yes, Tariq, the general who masterminded the invasion of Spain, was a berber, but Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I who ruled Spain was indeed Arab. But if you were to observe more carefully Arab conquests it was common place for the non-Arab natives (and later on slaves from Europe, African and Asia) to be the major forces in the armies that Arabs used to conquer other North Africa Spain, Persia and India. Which is why I used the words co-invaders and co-conspirators in conquest. They get all the credit but only did the work when it comes to the Middle East directly above Arabia, Egypt (where they were pretty much welcomed by the natives) and the adjacent parts of North Africa.
There is no documented historical, archeological, socio-political, or linguistic evidence that Semetic Arabs from the Arab peninsula 'invaded' Africa, West Coast of Africa, Interior of Africa or Southern Africa and enslaved the populous, gave them Arabic and Islam, and then marched them 'en masse' back to the Arabian peninsula.
Why do you keep repeating these same things as if I said that? You are giving generalizations and I am giving specifics. The Arabs did invade NORTH AFRICA. But as I said they had help from natives. The Arabs also sent other bands of Arabs (usually Yemeni) to crush rebellions in North Africa. The Banu Hilal (one of the first sent) and the Banu Hassan (one of the last) are two Arab tribes that were sent to North African to crush Berber rebellions. The Banu Hassan are the reason why Mauritanian Arabic is called Hassaniyyah. I never said blacks were enslaved and marched in mass back to the Arabian peninsula. Most descendents of Africans in Arabic speaking lands today were actually brought there through ship from the East coast of Africa. But the Arabs Never conquered West Africa, the Interior of Africa or Southern Africa. They did however conquer Northern Africa. Islam and Arabic were brought to subsaharan Africa through Muslim African (not Arab) conquests in Subsaharan Africa, trade, alliances, and genuine conversion. You also fail to recognize that because the Arabs conquered all of the Middle East and North Africa, the descendents of African slaves that they bought (from other Africans) can be found in all of these formerly conquered Arabs in the middle east and even north Africa. BUT again i want to clarify (before you accuse me) that that does not mean that all blacks found in the Middle East and north Africa come from slaves brought in from subsaharan Africa. I hope you read this well and won't accuse me of the same things that i have addressed.
Cheikh Anta Diop, who himself is a 'native' African from Tooba (interior of Senegal), with a historical lineage that is fully documented and traced to Narmer (Nubian Pre-Dynastic) and the Badarian Tribe, going as far back as 30,000+ years states...
That is great. I have been to Senegal but not Tooba unfortunately. It is where Cheikh Ahmadou Bamba is buried. And maybe even Cheikh Fall. I agree that the ancient egyptians were Black Africans. In the north now, they have mixed so much with greeks, Romans and others that they are not so black anymore. Southern Egypitans are characteristically more black, nubians and non-nubian alike. And interestingly enough the Nubians of southern egypt and northern sudan who used to be drawn as coal black generally on ancient Egyptian walls are now (through mixing with lighter peoples) typically the dark reddish brown that the ancient Egyptians typically drew themselves as on those walls. Which proves that even though the egyptians through mixing were becoming lighter for a very, very long time they were still remained as black as the Modern Nubians are today.
?The Arab conquests dear to sociologists are necessary to their theories but did not exist in reality. To this day NO reliable historical documents substantiate such theories?
Again I never said that the Arabs conquered any place in Subsaharan Africa. They did not conquer Subsaharan Africa. The only thing that could be considered close to that is the Omani Sultanate on the Swahili coast. But there is no record of any wars and that seems like it was a peaceful transition, probably welcomed by Swahili Muslims.
Here is the archeological evidence that 'Allah' was an aspect of worship in Pre-Dynastic Nubia, 6000 - 10,000 BEFORE Arabs of the Arab peninsula. The Muslim Brotha speaking in the video is Badara Ndaw, he is also from Tooba, and from the same lineage (Joloof Empire) of Diop and the people mentioned in the Quran.
I'll check out the video, but there is not need to try to prove that Nubians used the very word Allah. Because that would have to imply that th word for any diety Ilaahun also existed because Allah comes from the compounding of al-ilaahu (the god) into Allahu (God as a personal name). Many traditional African religions believe in a supreme diety. Olodumare is the supreme diety of Ifa among the Yoruba and this is typical of almost all traditional religions. Even the non-Christian and non-Jewish "pagan" Arabs believe in the the supreme diety which was Allah for the reasons I explained above. Eelu (related to EL) and Ar-rahmaan were also names of the supreme diety/intelligence.
Allah in Pre Dynastic Nubia Temple of Ptah http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS9YU1Hm
I don't believe that guy about the alif, lam, lam and ha. That is just not there. And Arabic is written in the other direction. Now I do believe that Wolof is related to Khemetic but what that guy is trying to say I do not accept at all. Where are the Senegalese scripts written in Khemetic? They don't exist. And the word Allah can be explained very well, but it's not on that wall. In addition to that, to compare Wolof to Khemetic we need to check with all of the other languages of the Sahel. Cheikh Anta Diop did that, this guy is not. In adition to that Wolof has Arabic influence like every other non-Arabic language that has Muslims as its main speakers. In Wolof they say wakht for waqt and they use walla for 'or' just as in a number Arabic dialects. Cheikh Anta Diop said that the languages of the Sahel are related to Khemetic but the did not try to go into the linguistic non-sense that this guy is talking about. This dude is talking a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with facts but are mostly his personal opinions and he tries to relate them to the world of today that has nothing to do with linguistic facts and evidence. As much as I like Senegal and Senegalese this dude is (very confidently) talking alot of trash, along with a few facts here and there. I can't believe you posted that video as proof of anything. Since when has the world Allah been written from left to right? That is the first major error he makes. And look how he goes over the non-existent lam in the same place twice. Is he joking? Are you joking?
Godbless,
Anwar -
Assalaam Alaikum
@progod...
I gotcha, I see your problem...
@progod your statement 'arabic is written in the OTHER direction' indicates to me that you are not well versed in Kemetic languages or Semetic languages, and there relative differences.
Arabic Saudi or Middle Eastern 'Arabic' is written 'right to left'.....and in some writings is bidirectional 'left to right'
Kemetic language, determinatives and phonetic references are written 'left to right'.
In this case as reflected on the video, its read vertically with the other determinative's and phonetic references, which denotes Pyramid Text.
Now your in North Africa, which you got half way correct, Arabs did enter North Africa, and were met with opposition from the Byzantine army, along with Africans fighting with and in support of the Byzantines!
Hence, the fallacy, that Arabs entered 'Africa' and fought Africans and 'enslaved' them, even though they were fighting in support of their own enslavement!
Sounds familiar huh?
-
"When did I say that the Arabs spear headed the European/Byzantine engagements in Spain and Europe? "...."even Spain was for the most part a Berber invasion with Arab co-leadership"
uuh Im sure we can identify the Berber and Moorish 'leadership' as Hannibal and Tariq....not sure about the Semetic Arab 'co-leadership'
-
MTR,
@progod...
I gotcha, I see your problem... Wink
@progod your statement 'arabic is written in the OTHER direction' indicates to me that you are not well versed in Kemetic languages or Semetic languages, and there relative differences.
Arabic Saudi or Middle Eastern 'Arabic' is written 'right to left'.....and in some writings is bidirectional 'left to right'
My problem? All Arabic is written from right to left. ALL ARABIC. And NO Arabic is bidirectional. If Khemetic is left to right that's fine, but if you didn't notice, that guy was saying Arabic letters, while reading Khemetic. That is dead wrong and you know it. Allah is never read from left to right. And Khemetic doesn't use Arabic letters. In addition to that, as I pointed out there is no alif there, nor are there two lams (he goes over the same spot twice). The fact that those people believed him shows that they are a bunch of ignoramuses (ignorami?). I think if the Egyptians were using Arabic letters they would have been able to write them correctly. And as I said again Arabic goes from right to left, that dude is clearly going from left to right. Don't fall for the tricks, man. That guy is spitting non-sense. It's not my problem, it's his cuz he's lying, and yours for believing a lie.
Kemetic language, determinatives and phonetic references are written 'left to right'.
That's fine for Khemetic, but that dude is using Arabic letters, and the Arabic word Allah. Besides that, written Khemetic (the type that uses letters) doesn't even look like that! Here's a link to show you what those letters should have resembled if the purely phonetic alphabet had been used.
http//bancroft.berkeley.edu/Exhibits/anthro/pics/large/medical_papyrus.jpg
Also I did some more research on hieroglyphs as well and the L sound (whch we would see if the word there is Allah) corresponds to a lion laying down. (Go to http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs ) and scroll down to 'additional signs', and see the L sound in the words Cleopatra and Ptolmiis (a little further below under 'spelling'. There is obviously no 'L' sound in the inscription on that video.
The Egyptians would have been fully capable of writing their purely phonetic letters accurately on that wall. So that guy is obviously lying. And again you can't pull Arabic letters out of that carving, because first it's in the wrong direction and second, the Arabic letters are in no way written there.
In this case as reflected on the video, its read vertically with the other determinative's and phonetic references, which denotes Pyramid Text.
Well you need to check your video because he reads Allah horizontally from left to right.
Now your in North Africa, which you got half way correct, Arabs did enter North Africa, and were met with opposition from the Byzantine army, along with Africans fighting with and in support of the Byzantines!
I agree. But as I have read the Berbers (in general, not 100%) favored an Arab empire with a reputation of being more tolerant to all Christian sects than the Byzantine empire. Add to that the non-Christian Berbers who were persecuted under the Byzantines and you have the making of a Berber-Arab alliance. But the Arabs subsequently did have to crush a few Berber rebellions against them. And yes the I do believe the Berbers are African, but all of them are not Black. They had mixed over time with Romans, Byzantines, Greeks and Vandals. So whereas there are a number of Berbers who are still visibly black a number of them have mixed so heavily that they are no more than 5-40% Black, which makes them look like what most people would say are dark skinned whites, i.e. mediterraneans. This same kind of mixture between blacks and whites creates the more European looking Hispanics of Latin America as well (And of course this type of mixture has produced the light skinned Arabs). And these mixed light skinned Copts, Berbers and Arabs that moved more into the interior of Africa and mixed with the more black elements in Ethiopia, Mauritania, the Sahel region, and even Somalia has created the more light skinned blacks to be found in all of these lands among the Amhara, Tigranya, Fulani, Mauritanians, Somalis, Omoro, Eritreans, Nubians etc.
Hence, the fallacy, that Arabs entered 'Africa' and fought Africans and 'enslaved' them, even though they were fighting in support of their own enslavement!
Again I never said that Arabs entered Subsaharan Africa, fought African there and enslaved them. They did enter North Africa, fought and made alliances with North Africans. Whether they enslaved their captives of just bought slaves from the local slave markets we will never fully know. If they had enslaved their North African captives then that would have been unquranic. But we know that the early Arab empires were especially unquranic in many ways. But were also have no proof that the Arabs purposefully enslaved Berbers in any substantial number. So it we have to assume that whereas the there may have been some Quranic abuses where Berber captives of war were enslaved the main source of North African slaves for Arabs came from North African slave markets that had been long established.
"When did I say that the Arabs spear headed the European/Byzantine engagements in Spain and Europe? "...."even Spain was for the most part a Berber invasion with Arab co-leadership"
uuh Im sure we can identify the Berber and Moorish 'leadership' as Hannibal and Tariq....not sure about the Semetic Arab 'co-leadership'
Hannibal was hundreds of years before Tariq. So what is the point of putting Hannibal into this conversation? The Arabs weren't in North Africa when Hannibal was alive.
But as for Tariq, although he was the main general behind the invasion of Spain, the people who ended up being the Caliphs of Spain were Arabs from the Umayyad family, and not the Berbers. So although the Berbers played a major role in the leadership of Spain, if Arabs were the Caliphs then how can we not call that (at the very least) co-leadership? If we take it at face value, the Arabs were the leaders of Moorish Spain by virtue of being the Caliphs. But we are being more intelligent than that and considering the majority Moorish role in the invasion (this being a Berber endeavor) and rulership of Spain as well as the later waves of Moorish (Berber and non-Berber West African) Almoravids and Almohads.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Assalaam Alaikum @Progod
Speak what you KNOW not what you THINK....
Your all over the place....you have confused yourself!...Your so 'stuck' on 'Arabs'....
Its Pyramid text, Kemetic NOT 'Arabic'!
'Pyramid Text' is Pre-Dynastic and flows vertically, Demotic and Hieratic text flows horizontally and denotes Dynastic periods
Its symbolic and a paleo-linguistic reference, its NOT 'dialectical'
Another point, 'Egyptians' are NOT 'Nubians', Nubia existed 100,000's of years BEFORE Egypt!
-
Assalaam Alaikum @Progod
Speak what you KNOW not what you THINK....
Please watch your tone, sir. I am doing just that, so calm down.
Your all over the place....you have confused yourself!...Your so 'stuck' on 'Arabs'....
Its Pyramid text, Kemetic NOT 'Arabic'!
You obviously did you watch your own video, cuz that guy is treating that heiroglyph as if it were Arabic, and that is wrong. If he had not done that we would not be discussing Arabic and Khemetic in the same paragraph. I am not all over the place, and I must have confused you, cuz I'm not confused at all. And how exactly am I stuck on the Arabs? I have this whole time been giving credit to the Africans for the actual roles that they played in Moorish Spain and in Moorish civilization as whole. No they were not the founders or mainstay of Moorish culture, but they did play their part in it. And even you cannot deny the fact that the Arabs were the Caliphs, and that includes them in Moorish history much to your chagrin. So how can I be stuck on Arabs by telling the truth about the Arab role in Moorish civilization? I never said the Moors were all Arabs. But I am saying that the Arabs played a definite part in Moorish civlization. You are so anti-Arab that you can't give the Arabs the little bit of credit that they do deserve when it comes to Moorish civilization. Hate is blinding you, and that is unfortunate.
'Pyramid Text' is Pre-Dynastic and flows vertically, Demotic and Hieratic text flows horizontally and denotes Dynastic periods
And that is great, but if you know that then why did you post that video with the guy horizontally reading (what you insinuated was a) pre-dynastic text when it is supposed to be read vertically? That is your fault, not mine. Don't get mad at me. It looks like you are all over the place but trying to put your errors on me.
Its symbolic and a paleo-linguistic reference, its NOT 'dialectical'
What does that have to do with anything? I think you are abusing linguistic terminology here, and I were to correct you I'm sure you'd try to take me for a long ride to nowhere, and I don't want to go down that route. All I have to say is watch your video again, dude, he is pointing out letters.
Another point, 'Egyptians' are NOT 'Nubians', Nubia existed 100,000's of years BEFORE Egypt!
Hundreds of thousands of years before Egypt? Really? Now your getting ridiculous. Maybe you are basing that statement on some alternate definition of Nubia, besides the actual civilization in southern Egypt and Northern Sudan. If so, be straight-forward and please don't try to employ tricks in this discussion. From what I know the people of Nubia are the forefathers of Egypt, but both of these two civilizations started peaking around the same time, and Egypt on the most part became the more powerful of the two for a longer period of time. Obviously it didn't maintain that power, because Nubia conquered Egypt for a time and then Nubia remained as a Christian empire whereas the Egyptians faded out, became Copts and culturally psuedo-Greek
Godbless,
Anwar -
Dont get it twisted, you have been dealt with. Your not that tight.
You appear to be victimized by the 'Crayola Crayon' mentality.