Muhammad is a White Man?
-
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 -
Salam,
you say that Adam was one (wahid) then it could be interpretet that Mankind (Adam) was united (one). Manigfold races and tribes from ONE (man)kind.
Peace.....Chris
-
Salam,
you say that Adam was one (wahid) then it could be interpretet that Mankind (Adam) was united (one). Manigfold races and tribes from ONE (man)kind.
Peace.....Chris
WRONG!
Basharaan in Qur'aan 1528 is singular not collective or plural. Second Allah addresses the Prophet Adam as ONE.
-
WRONG!
Basharaan in Qur'aan 1528 is singular not collective or plural. Second Allah addresses the Prophet Adam as ONE.
Al-Khidr,
I guess you don't want to accept that basharan can be singular, or collectively plural do you? And you still deny after I gave you proof from another passage of the Quran. Just say that this is your interpretation, but don't act like you are right without a doubt because basharan (the 'an' is just the accusative case ending here, and has no bearing on number) in 1528 can be interpreted in a singular or collectively plural way. I think those of us who disagree with you can see how you see it the way you do and can respect your right to believe that. But don't get all indignant and act like you are right without a doubt when the Arabic is not on your side, as you want to believe it to be.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Progod,
I guess you don't want to accept that basharan can be singular, or collectively plural do you? And you still deny after I gave you proof from another passage of the Quran. Just say that this is your interpretation, but don't act like you are right without a doubt because basharan (the 'an' is just the accusative case ending here, and has no bearing on number) in 1528 can be interpreted in a singular or collectively plural way.
I haven't seen anywhere in the Quran where "basharan" is interpreted as a collective plural. Where in the scripture have you found this? And also, to avoid all traces of doubt regarding this, the Quran used the term "WAAHID" to refer to Adam, and this is consistently used in the reading to refer to ONE, individual and indivisible person or object. For example, the statement that Allah is WAAHID would be inconclusive if there were other gods, saying that this word (i.e. "waahid" refers to one collective body of gods, like Christians claim regarding the Trinity. As far as the scriptures are concerned, though, this is ridiculous. "Waahid" refers to something that is one, indivisible and individual object or being, not a collective body. So, in saying that Adam was "waahid", it means that Adam was ONE (SINGULAR) PERSON, not a group of people.
If Adam refers to the entire race of humanity, then why is the human race often called "children of Adam"? How can we be children of humanity if we ARE humans? That's ridiculously redundant. Also, who would Adam's (humanity's) wife be referring to (719)? If she was a human being, then she would be considered "Adam" too according to your theories, right? How could all of humanity have one wife? Why is the word "wife" used at all in this reference? Were there no women around during that period? Also
Allah has chosen Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Amram to the people. (333)
This verse would make no sense if Adam was more than one person, and this would be implying that Noah was also more than one person. Instead, all of these people are spoken of singularly and individually, and all of the plurals are specified (i.e. "the family of...". This wouldn't make sense if "Adam" was an entire community of people. The only accurate view is based on the concept of him being one individual person.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Christoph Haupt,
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 is incorrect. How would the scriptures stating that Adam was created from black/"hamaa" mud be allegorical? What purpose would it serve? This is a clear example of your biased point of view. The verse says that Allah shaped Adam from "salsaalin min hamaain"/black mud. It is already accepted (and proven) that he was actually formed from mud. So, how can you say that "salsaal"/mud is literal, but "hamaa"/black is allegorical? This is clear evidence of your willingness to distort God's message to prove your biased belief.
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.Nobody's talking about killing all white people or killing all black people. That's ridiculous! All we're doing is addressing the problem that so many people choose to ignore, claiming that it doesn't exist. I hear over and over again from Muslims all over the place that "there is no racism in Islam". Their way of combating the problem of racism in their particular communities is by ALL of them trying to be Arabs, like Arabs have superiority among the entire human race. That's the reason why sectarians, regardless of their skin complexions, dress, walk, talk, eat, and behave like Arabs, even to the extent of growing thick beards and wearing kufi hats (which were originally worn by the Nubians/Africans). People have tried to hide the problem of racism by hiding their own identities, trying to be people they're not, people who don't even accept them. We're identifying the problem of racism so that, one day, we may be able to find a definate and permanent solution to it.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Ahmad Bilal,
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)
Your conclusion about the verse mention waahid, depends on forcing an interpretation of Adam or a person as what we originate from. The unit of origination does not have to be a person.
In the Quran the Israelites are referred to as Israel and Children of Israel. These are the Old Arabic tribal epithets. you either say qabilat hashim or banoo Haashim.
And as for 333 that is an interpretation of the waw's used in that verse. They can be understood differently. How about Humanity was chosen, and these individuals over all people. ('alaa al-'aalamina)
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Christoph Haupt,
This is incorrect. How would the scriptures stating that Adam was created from black/"hamaa" mud be allegorical? What purpose would it serve? This is a clear example of your biased point of view. The verse says that Allah shaped Adam from "salsaalin min hamaain"/black mud. It is already accepted (and proven) that he was actually formed from mud. So, how can you say that "salsaal"/mud is literal, but "hamaa"/black is allegorical? This is clear evidence of your willingness to distort God's message to prove your biased belief.
Nobody's talking about killing all white people or killing all black people. That's ridiculous! All we're doing is addressing the problem that so many people choose to ignore, claiming that it doesn't exist. I hear over and over again from Muslims all over the place that "there is no racism in Islam". Their way of combating the problem of racism in their particular communities is by ALL of them trying to be Arabs, like Arabs have superiority among the entire human race. That's the reason why sectarians, regardless of their skin complexions, dress, walk, talk, eat, and behave like Arabs, even to the extent of growing thick beards and wearing kufi hats (which were originally worn by the Nubians/Africans). People have tried to hide the problem of racism by hiding their own identities, trying to be people they're not, people who don't even accept them. We're identifying the problem of racism so that, one day, we may be able to find a definate and permanent solution to it.
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace.
I am not sure to talk here,among you knowledgable people.I am a little frightened!
But I have to try anyway.Why should it be a problem that the mud Allah created humans from were black?Dont we all agree,that humans did came from Africa?
This doesnt say that white people is not from the creation?If man google a little on dna and ancestory on internett,man will find a lot of information,on our past,and how dna really works.
There is in your nation Usa,a lot of both private and universities,that give people their dna information and where they ancestors are from.
Like the black boy,with black parents,found out that he was 48% euoropean and 52% black.Sarah Laing,is another example of white parents giving birth to a black girl,in the days of apartheid.She was classiefied as a black person,and was ecpelled from school.A very sad story,actually.
Every man on this earth is linked to one another,by common ancestry.That the mud was black,doesnt change this.
It is greater diversities within the respective "races",than the diversity beetween them.
You said earlier Bilal,that white slaves did not exist.There is black historians in Usa that say the opposite,feks Lerone Bennet Jr,in his articel "white servitude in the united states",publisert i Ebony,1969.
There was also white people as slaves with the arab muslims,in the earlier days.The scandinavians have a few of their ancestors as slaves for muslims,in the middles east.History is big and wide.
The racism,is, if you ask the emmigrant workers in the arab states,not that the workers want to be arabs,but that the arabs look down on them,and give them lousy work conditions and no human rights.The abuse of foreign workers in arabs rich nations,is widely known,around the poor world Bilal.
One God,One Love
-
Peace Progod,
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)
Thank you. I haven't noticed the term "basharun" in this verse before as referring to a group... This clearly says, "but you are humans" (or you are but humans). However, this verse is directly talking about the Jews and the Nazarenes, and there is no question regarding the plurality of the audience. In the case of Adam, your view is interpeted, and it is not clearly stated in the scripture. Therefore, referring to "Adam" as an entire civilization conflicts with the Quran's claim to be "clear revelations" (2216).
In the Quran the Israelites are referred to as Israel and Children of Israel. These are the Old Arabic tribal epithets. you either say qabilat hashim or banoo Haashim.
This is FALSE. "Israel" is never used in a collective sense in the Quran, at least not where I've seen. All of them refer to the "banee Israel"/children of Israel, a reference to the nation as a whole. The separation of these from 1958 shows that Israel is not referred to as "Israel" in the collective sense, and in 1958, "Israel" is used to refer to the person (singular). In all the others, "banee Israel" is used to refer to the collective people.
Your conclusion about the verse mention waahid, depends on forcing an interpretation of Adam or a person as what we originate from. The unit of origination does not have to be a person.
No, this is also wrong. The term "waahid" is always used to refer to one distinct individual person or object. In instances where "waahid" is used to refer to a collective body, the collective body would be directly identified, and this would avoid causing confusion. In every sense, "Adam" is always identified as ONE PERSON, not a collective body. The instances where "Adam" would be mentioned as a collective body are clearly identified as "banee Adam"/children of Adam, never as "Adam". Please, show me an instance where "Israel" is used to refer to the collective body instead of "banee Israel"/children of Israel. Likewise, show me an instance where "Adam" is used to refer to the collective body instead of saying "banee Adam"/children of Adam.
And as for 333 that is an interpretation of the waw's used in that verse. They can be understood differently. How about Humanity was chosen, and these individuals over all people. ('alaa al-'aalamina)
Based on the context, this statement wouldn't make sense if it was referring to all of humanity. According to your theory, this should be translated as
Allah has chosen Adam (all of humanity), and Noah, and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imraan over the universe. (333)
This would beg the question WEREN'T NOAH, ABRAHAM'S FAMILY, AND IMRAAN'S FAMILY PART OF HUMANITY? If they were part of humanity, it would make this statement redundant. Also, since "Adam" is directly followed by "Noah", if Adam was used in a collective sense, it would imply that Noah is also being used in a collective sense. However, this idea is refuted by the words "wa'ala Ibraheem"/and the family of Abraham. Since these descendants of Abraham are used collectively by speaking specifically about his "family" (which is also the case with Imraan), this would make all the other people named INDIVIDUAL HUMANS, not collective tribes.
Peace,
Ahmad