Muhammad is a White Man?
-
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.
-
Salaam Anwar/Progod
You have said
?If you think Africans are immune to greed, selfishness and evil, go to Africa today and look at the African leaders today. You may say they are being manipulated by Europeans and that is probably more fact than false but the many Africans that are accomplices to injustice in Africa and the Americas today makes it clear that Africans have and will continue to play their negative roles (as well as positive) in the world. Like every other people. Go out in the streets and look at American blacks. Even look at the nation. There are too many corrupt people in the world black, and every other ethnicity to expect a utopian community from any particular ethnicity.
To copy your style of speaking, the pale European was not able to conquer Africa until Africa had hurt itself through greed and imprudent and unregulated trade of its human resources to the point where the empires that kept the pale Europeans from stepping a foot on Africa couldn't defend themselves and were left to petty fights among struggling city-states and empires/dynasties. That is why the Europeans came in and were ablet o colonize and abuse Africa. And by that time the Europeans weren't interested in trading slaves in Africa but in conquering, pillaging, stealing and erasing and rewriting Africa's real history. That is the truth, believe it or not. Call me an uncle tom or not.
Despite Africans selling other Africans into slavery they had no idea of how the Europeans would end up treating those Africans. In Africa slavery was not chattel slavery and more like indentured servitude where slaves where still human beings and also had rights.?
SPOKEN JUST LIKE A TRUE UNCLE TOM?. And I hope the conscious one?s caught him when he also tried to water down slavery in Africa as into indentured servants. Slavery is not indentured servants, slavery is a system that is far more worse than that and we never sold our people into slavery again this is a myth created by the white power structure which Anwar is a puppet of and this is why he is rapidly running around here defending and making up excuses for the oppressor and twisting the FACTS of Nubian History. I want to provide some video clips below to set the record straight and to have an understanding as to what has happened from real Black Leadership
Farrakhan we were stripped of knowledge of self
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPhQgnIz9MMDr. Khallid Muhammad vs. Sean Hannity
http//kushite.webs.com/khallidmuhammad.htmAnd in this interview/debate, you will here this scholar Khallid Muhammad bear witness that Africans did not sell their own into slavery, the thought of that is ridiculous.
Farrakhan addresses Racism in Islaam
http//kushite.webs.com/farrakhanvsarab.htm -
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?
O yes, I definately gave a valid response, the problem that I see in this situation is that you are in denial that the Arab Slave Trade existed
I leave you with this video
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yaVcKAWccU&eurl=http//kushite.webs.com/index.htm
-
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,
AnwarSalaam Anwar/Progod
You have said
?Basharun can be one human being or the collective for all human beings.?
I have read your response but Anwar if I?m correct we are talking about Bashar in Qur?aan 1528, I?m I right?
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/Egypt%20and%20Islaam/Ch15v28hamaablack.jpg
Before I address Bashar in this verse, I want to highlight naaswut because this word means humanity, realm of man or people. You can find this word in Hans Wehr Dictionary page 960
http//i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo206/tawhiyd/bashar/naasuwt.jpg
Now lets get back to Bashar in Qur?aan 1528, below take a look at the two forms of Bashar and visually see which one of these forms are used in Qur?aan 1528 and then you will have your answer
http//i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo206/tawhiyd/bashar/basharaanbashariya.jpg
Obviously the form BASHARAAN is used in Qur?aan 1528 and this is singular, referring to one man or human being, this form again which is in Qur?aan 1528 does not mean nor have the connotation of ?collective for all human beings? as you say, and this is why Qur?aanic translators say ?A human being, A man, A mortal? because it is clearly referring to one man and not a collective in terms of a race
-
I am, indeed going to create A human being, trans. by Amatul Rahman Omar & Abdul Mannan Omar
-
I am going to create A mortal, trans. by Maulana Muhammad Ali
-
I am creating A human being, trans. by Progressive Muslims A.K.A. Monotheist Group
The other form of this word BASHARIYA which is the closest form that can be rendered into a collective in the sense of a race or mankind but this form is NOT in Qur?aan 1528, so your tafsir (explanation) is flawed as usual.
Now the Arabic word Al Insaan
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/AlInsaan.jpg
is a plural, a collective noun which means a Human Race, Mankind, The Human Being and this word is used in Qur?aan 1526
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch15v26.jpg
I have compiled the various forms of Bashar and any body can download the pdf from this link
http//kushite.webs.com/documents/bashar.zip
The following verse also reinforces the FACT that Adam is ONE
Qur?aan 41
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.This verse has the Arabic word "WAAHID" which means "ONE", which all can see in this Arabic break down
http//i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo206/tawhiyd/bashar/Ch4v1onebeing.jpg
The Arabic word Waahidatin is Waahid which means ONE
Even Brother Ahmad Bilal quoted this verse which also reinforces that Adam was ONE
Qur'aan 7189
He created you from ONE person (Adam)?. -
-
Since we're calling names, if I'm an Uncle Tom you are a true ding-bat. You are an extremist peon who follows the imaginations of people like Khalid Muhammad, who is a manipulator and anything but a scholar. As it concerns Bashar all you can do is post those cut outs from books that you don't even understand. Bashar can mean Man (as in one man), Man (as in a collective man). Same with Insaan. If it's not in the dictionary you have go check out another one. Take it from someoen who has more Arabic experience than you that not all dictionaries are created exactly equal. You can often find more meanings in a certain dictionary than you would find in another. Nasut means everything mankind, like Malakut means everything of the kindgom. ut is a suffix which serves the purpose of including everything related to the word before. Spitting out random Arabic defintions from only one dictionary without knowing what your talking about is useless Khidr. And blindly following the opinions of those whom you call real black leadership is pointless as well. As a matter of fact this conversation is useless too and i already see where it's going. I've been down this road to nowhere with you before. You love to bark, but for all you claim the lies of your so called real black leadership will get us nowhere and are doomed to fail because God does not love the extreme. It is obvious that you are not ready to see the facts, so you can continue to wonder around in the lies and imaginations of other extremist fools like yourself. Summun bukmun 'umyun laa yarji'oona. Keep enjoying yourself so that God can ask you on the day of judgement about the na'im that is this game your playing on your own self.
Godbless,
Anwar -
O yes, I definately gave a valid response, the problem that I see in this situation is that you are in denial that the Arab Slave Trade existed
I leave you with this video
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yaVcKAWccU&eurl=http//kushite.webs.com/index.htm
I cant deny something that NEVER happened.
Sure 'Arabs', whatever definitive you use, Africans, whatever definitive you use, Europeans, Asians, etc. ALL participated and benefited (or were victimized) from the institution of slavery at some point and time in human history.
But they do NOT 'constitute' progenitors, originators or founders of a 'specific' 'slave' enterprise or 'trade'.
Suggesting 'Arabs' had a 'slave trade' is just 'finger pointing' to hide a greater fear, Al-Islam.
Even to the extent that 'Arabs' is synonymous with 'Muslim' is another fallacy, because we know not every Arab is a Muslim as NOT every Muslim is an Arab.
So the Negros that sold people these 'fears' and 'Afrocentrism' are the same people who created this lie, Williams, Clark, Ben Jochanan, etc., assisted by other 'agents'. (US Government, etc.)
You still do not have ANY documented, historical, archaeological, sociological, linguistic, cultural evidence that 'Arabs', Semetic Arabs from the Arab peninsula entered Africa and 'en masse' enslaved the populous and marched them back to the Arabian Peninsula.
That has'nt been produced, because it doesnt exist and NEVER happened!
-
Peace,
You still do not have ANY documented, historical, archaeological, sociological, linguistic, cultural evidence that 'Arabs', Semetic Arabs from the Arab peninsula entered Africa and 'en masse' enslaved the populous and marched them back to the Arabian Peninsula.
Is that your definition of what a slave trade is? Entering an area and 'en masse' enslaving the populous and marching them back to the home land of the entering group?
Because I always thought slave trade was just plain old trading in slaves. And Arabs did trade in African slaves, as well as slaves from Europe and Asia. I think it is obvous that the above phenomena of Arabs from the Arab peninsula having entered Africa and 'en masse' enslaved the populous and marched them back to the Arabian Peninsula did not ever happen. Could you not see that I had been saying that the whole time. But the fact that they did sell and buy Africans as slaves means they did participate in the slave trade. The Europeans technically did not enter Africa and march African back to Europe or the Americas either. That was done by other greedy, ungodly African, Muslim and non-Muslims alike. And it was a trade that the empires didn't properly regulate and ended up bleeding the human resources of Africa. Hence Africa was weakened enough to be conquered by the Europeans in the 1800's.
By the way why do you specifically say Semetic Arabs? Is that opposed to Hamitic Arabs or Japhetic Arabs? In which case would you mind explaining?
Godbless,
Anwar -
Assalaam Alaikum @progod
relax, your getting beside yourself, you seem to have taken the thread personally, you have diluted the thread with minutia also.
Brotha Khidr has the 'Crayola Crayon' mentality also
-
Peace,
Is that your definition of what a slave trade is? Entering an area and 'en masse' enslaving the populous and marching them back to the home land of the entering group?
Because I always thought slave trade was just plain old trading in slaves. And Arabs did trade in African slaves, as well as slaves from Europe and Asia. I think it is obvous that the above phenomena of Arabs from the Arab peninsula having entered Africa and 'en masse' enslaved the populous and marched them back to the Arabian Peninsula did not ever happen. Could you not see that I had been saying that the whole time. But the fact that they did sell and buy Africans as slaves means they did participate in the slave trade. The Europeans technically did not enter Africa and march African back to Europe or the Americas either. That was done by other greedy, ungodly African, Muslim and non-Muslims alike. And it was a trade that the empires didn't properly regulate and ended up bleeding the human resources of Africa. Hence Africa was weakened enough to be conquered by the Europeans in the 1800's.
By the way why do you specifically say Semetic Arabs? Is that opposed to Hamitic Arabs or Japhetic Arabs? In which case would you mind explaining?
Godbless,
AnwarProgod this is easy.....
Name the African country where Arabs came in and enslaved the populous, gave them Saudi Arabic and there version of Islam.
Name the time, place and the enslavers.
Please dont give me regional areas where migratory and immigration patterns matriculated Africans and others to that region. Then now suddenly you want to claim they are descendants of slaves.
-
Please dont give me regional areas where migratory and immigration patterns matriculated Africans and others to that region. Then now suddenly you want to claim they are descendants of slaves.
This is an untrue assumption of what I meant. I believe that the Black presence in the Middle east is a combination of aboriginal poplations, migratory and immigratory patterns as well as slaves imported from Africa.
But at no time did I ever say that the Arabs conquered any area in Africa only to enslave the populous. It seems that you are assuming that if there were African slaves sent to the middle east it was because the Arabs had to have conquered and enslaved the populous in some African country, and that is not true. The Arabs could have just as easily bought African slaves from other Africans as they bought European slaves from other Europeans, and Asian slaves from other Asians. And that is exactly what happened.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Since we're calling names, if I'm an Uncle Tom you are a true ding-bat. You are an extremist peon who follows the imaginations of people like Khalid Muhammad, who is a manipulator and anything but a scholar. As it concerns Bashar all you can do is post those cut outs from books that you don't even understand. Bashar can mean Man (as in one man), Man (as in a collective man). Same with Insaan. If it's not in the dictionary you have go check out another one. Take it from someoen who has more Arabic experience than you that not all dictionaries are created exactly equal. You can often find more meanings in a certain dictionary than you would find in another. Nasut means everything mankind, like Malakut means everything of the kindgom. ut is a suffix which serves the purpose of including everything related to the word before. Spitting out random Arabic defintions from only one dictionary without knowing what your talking about is useless Khidr. And blindly following the opinions of those whom you call real black leadership is pointless as well. As a matter of fact this conversation is useless too and i already see where it's going. I've been down this road to nowhere with you before. You love to bark, but for all you claim the lies of your so called real black leadership will get us nowhere and are doomed to fail because God does not love the extreme. It is obvious that you are not ready to see the facts, so you can continue to wonder around in the lies and imaginations of other extremist fools like yourself. Summun bukmun 'umyun laa yarji'oona. Keep enjoying yourself so that God can ask you on the day of judgement about the na'im that is this game your playing on your own self.
Godbless,
AnwarYou statement here is based in pure EMOTIONS.
"As it concerns Bashar all you can do is post those cut outs from books that you don't even understand."
What you don?t like is that I have presented visual documentation/evidence inside the Qur'aan to prove my point, including other translators, it is as simple as that and any body can look at the two forms of Bashar and see the difference in meaning and also see which one is exactly in Qur?aan 1528. Some people just can?t handle the facts.
-
Al-Khidr,
I don't like the fact that you don't know Arabic and pretend to present meanings from certain books and translations as if you are demonstrating something, when all this still doesn't make up for your lack of Arabic knowledge. And it shows. The truth is as I told you. And you'll have to consult some more Arabic dictionaries to see that. I'm sure won't, so you can stay ignorant, that's on you. Samia (she's an Arabic speaking Sudanese) and I don't agree all the time (but that usually has to do with linguistic theory) but she also agreed with the usage, and I'm confident in her knowledge of this word as it concerns it's Classical and MSA usage. You can also ask Layth, AhmadBaghat or any of the other Arabic speakers on this forum. If I were you I would consult some other educated Arabic speakers or just some more dictionaries. Maybe you'll get a clue. You can take it or leave. I'm sure you'll leave it. Do you.
Godbless,
Anwar -
By the way MTR, you never answered my easy questions
-
By the way why do you specifically say Semetic Arabs? Is that opposed to Hamitic Arabs or Japhetic Arabs? In which case would you mind explaining?
-
Is your definition of the slave trade entering an area and 'en masse' enslaving the populous and marching them back to the home land of the entering group?
Because I always thought the slave trade was just plain old trading in slaves. Which means both buying or selling of other human beings. Something the Arabs were involved in with Africans, Asians, Europeans and even other Arabs.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Al-Khidr,
I don't like the fact that you don't know Arabic and pretend to present meanings from certain books and translations as if you are demonstrating something, when all this still doesn't make up for your lack of Arabic knowledge. And it shows. The truth is as I told you. And you'll have to consult some more Arabic dictionaries to see that. I'm sure won't, so you can stay ignorant, that's on you. Samia (she's an Arabic speaking Sudanese) and I don't agree all the time (but that usually has to do with linguistic theory) but she also agreed with the usage, and I'm confident in her knowledge of this word as it concerns it's Classical and MSA usage. You can also ask Layth, AhmadBaghat or any of the other Arabic speakers on this forum. If I were you I would consult some other educated Arabic speakers or just some more dictionaries. Maybe you'll get a clue. You can take it or leave. I'm sure you'll leave it. Do you.
Godbless,
AnwarYour misguided ASSUMPTIONS, OPINIONS, EMPTY STATEMENTS and especially your EMOTIONS will blind you....
All scholars who have translated the Qur?aan agree with the evidence that I presented because they unlike your self know the difference between
http//i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo206/tawhiyd/bashar/basharaanbashariya.jpg
I will use Layth as an example since he is the only one who translated the Qur'aan that you have listed through Your typical EMOTIONAL response
- I am creating A human being, trans. by Progressive Muslims A.K.A. Monotheist Group
Notice that Layth translated this verse to say "A human being" this expression using "A" denotes that it is ONE person and plus the Qur?aan 41; Qur?aan 7189 tells us this directly that Adam is ONE when Allah used the word Waahid (One) for Adam in those verses. You are just in clear denial. Below are two more translations by scholars
-
I am, indeed going to create A human being, trans. by Amatul Rahman Omar & Abdul Mannan Omar
-
I am going to create A mortal, trans. by Maulana Muhammad
Ali
And my brother AhmadBaghat have corrected many of your errors and lack of knowledge of Arabic along with your way out theories throughout this forum
WHO IS FOOLING WHO?
-
Arabs were savage invaders. If they didnt introduce Islam through violence maybe the Middle East and its surrounding areas wouldnt be as violent as today.
By the way Muslimtruthrevealed is an Arab apologist. Its a fact that Arabs and Jews were big players in the slave trade.