Muhammad is a White Man?

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Marleya,

I am not sure to talk here,among you knowledgable people.I am a little frightened!

Don't be frightened. We're all equals here, and we all have room to learn new things about new things...

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 is what is widely accepted, even though some people still refuse to admit this, claiming that we actually came from southern Iraq...

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.

Actually, this is not true. The reason white people and black people are capable of producing alternate DNA forms is because we both have mixtures of dominant and recessive genes in our bodies. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, they didn't have any flaws and recessive genes; all their genes were dominant. Therefore, a mixture of these would only produce other dominant genes (i.e. brown eyes, dark skin, curly hair, etc.), not recessive ones. The only way their children could develop recessive genes is if they mixed with a person (or group of people) with recessive genes, namely "white people". Adam and Eve were genetically INCAPABLE of naturally producing a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, pale-skinned child, unless they mixed with someone else; and this shows that white people COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY come from both Adam and Eve. Now, there are other possibilities. For example

(1) Since Adam is always referred to as the dominant being, white people and black people could've come from Adam. However, this would mean that white people were not produced from Eve, meaning that Allah created a separate "white woman" for Adam.
(2) Allah may have condemned Adam's rebellion and created a completely separate group of people (i.e. "white people&quot to replace them.
(3) The angelic beings came down, as is stated in the Biblical story of Noah, and mixed with the humans, creating a separate race of people (i.e. "white people&quot with different genetic compositions than the regular ("black&quot Nubian humans.

There are other potential biological possibilities as well, but all of them give the same conclusion White people and black people don't have the same ancestors. If black people came from Adam and Eve, then white people couldn't have come from them, at least not collectively, and vice versa. It's not biologically and genetically possible...

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.

I didn't say that there have never been white slaves, and if I ever implied this, I sincerely apologize. There have been plenty of white slaves. What I said, though, is white people were never enslaved ON THE BASIS OF RACE. Black people were enslaved simply because they were black, and this is what separates all other forms of enslavement from racial enslavement, which was executed by the Europeans and Americans. In the Arab slave trade, Arabs could also be enslaved. In the white American society, other white Americans were EXEMPT from being enslaved (outside of "indentured servitude&quot.

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.

I agree that this is a form of racism. However, this is a VERY SMALL part of worldwide racial discrimination. Arabs generally look down on non-Arabs because they have been influenced by European and American cultures, which both promote racial inequality.

Peace,

Ahmad

marleya

Peace.

I understand every thing you say Ahmed Bilal,I just dont get,how you belive that white and black people are not from the same creation?There is no specific race genes among humanbeings Bilal.

Melanin expression in humans skin,are controlled by the enzyme Tyrosinase.
All people have enough tyrosinase to be very black in their skin colour.It is the regulation of the tyrosinase that determines skin colour.

Dark skin protect against ultraviolet radiation,and light skin allows enhanced formation of vitamin D.

From 1,2 million years ago,the ancestors of all people alive,were dark as todays Africans.

The descendent of any prehistoric people who migrate North from equator,will mutate to become ligh over time,because the evolutionary constraint keeping Africans skin dark,decreases generally the further north a people migrates.
This also occour as a result of selection for light skin,due to the need to produce vitamin D,by the penetration of sunlight into the skin.Exeption is for example the inuits,who get enough vitamin d,throug their food,and kept their dark skin colour.

You are fooling yourself if you belive that black people is not the ancestors of white people Bilal.

progod

Peace,

Let me restate that this is off topic. So after I address some of your confusions on this issue, I'd like to say that I am fine with you believing what you want to believe. So there is no need to talk about this here. So unless you start a new topic I am going to leave it at this for now, out of respect for this topic.

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).

This is your biased interpretation. If you don't agree with mine, that means it's not clear? i don't think so. The fact here is that Adam as the first man is a story that came before the Quran and that has been read into the Quran. Whether that is a correct understanding should be serioiusly (and respectuflly) discussed but not in this topic.

Quote from progod on Yesterday at 075952 AM
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.

It's unfortunate when people make statements about the Quran that makes it more than obvious that they haven't read the Quran enough. Didn't you pretty much just make the same claim when it came to bashar? See 393, 1958

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.

Again, I am not saying that waahid does not refer to one entity or person. I am saying that the nafsun waahidun doesn't have to refer to people at all. As I said I have seen this interpreted as the single cell from which we all came from. So seeing this as Adam is an interpretation. Just like seeing Adam as one person or more than one person are two different interpretations. I gave you the references for Israel above. Now, I read the Arabic and it seems that you are more dependent on translations and English phrasing. I can assure you those waw's do not have to been seen how you are seeing them. And that doesn't make it less clear in general, it makes it less clear to you and those who are not familiar with Arabic grammar, prhasings and literature. Whenever you do decide to get into Arabic more and start reading things you will see that Arabic styles while clear to those used to reading in Arabic are not clear to those not used to reading Arabic. In my schooling in Arabic I have come accross a number of phrasings that were awkard to me but not to Arabic speakers who have had life long, or years of experience with Arabic phrasing and literature. So my opinion that those phrasings were awkward (and unclear) were based on my inexperience with the language. And the understanding of those phrases are not less clear in general, but less clear to the less knowledgeable which is to be expected.

Quote from progod on Yesterday at 075952 AM
'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)

First of all you do know that al-'aalamoona (after a preposition or in a possesive phrase it becomes al-'aalameena) can mean 'the nations'? Don't you? What you put can be a valid interpretation as well but the understanding of universe for al-'aalameena doesn't make any sense. When i read the Arabic I can understand 'God chose Adam (Humanity), and (he chose) Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Imraan over (all) the nations.

I put 'he chose' in parenthesis because the case ending on Noah, family (of Abraham), and family (of Imraan) are all in the accusative form relating back to the phrase 'he chose' (Istafaa). The 'all' in parenthesis can be validly applied, and we already know about Adam.

And as I can understand it that way in Arabic i can translate it that way as well. I am past translations, brother. A translation is the translator's understanding of what is being said in the Arabic, which can be affected by religious doctrines (which includes inherited or learned tafsirs) or sometimes a lack of knowledge in the grammar of what is being said. I don't think there is anything grammatically wrong with interpreting Adam as the first man here, it is rather a doctrine and an inherited tafsir of the name Adam. I just happen to disagree with it and have not seen any contradictions in my understanding of this issue in the Quran. Now I'm sure there are translations that disagree with me, but remember that translations are based on the understandings (grammar and doctrine) of the translator. So I'm not going to argue over a translation, but we can discuss the grammar of the Arabic in another topic. You can start the topic up and invite me if you'd like.

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.

Now that is not true. Just becuase one is collective doesn't mean all of them have to be collective. Again I based my understanding of Adam on 711. It would do you good to read it. I have not seen clues to the same affect for Noah or Abraham, although I have seen them for Israel. And both Adam and Israel are used interchangeably with banoo Isra'il and banoo Adam, and I have not seen anything to go against that understanding. Now there are biblical theories about that (individual names representing peoples), but i'm sticking to Arabic and the Quran. So in Arabic you can use fulaan(un) and banoo fulaan(in) to refer to a tribe and its members. So Quraysh(un) and banoo quraysh(in) can be used interchangeably. In this same manner Adam and Israel are used. You can disagree with that but please start another topic so I don't have to continue to write posts that are off topic here.

Godbless,
Anwar

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Marleya,

The descendent of any prehistoric people who migrate North from equator,will mutate to become ligh over time,because the evolutionary constraint keeping Africans skin dark,decreases generally the further north a people migrates.
This also occour as a result of selection for light skin,due to the need to produce vitamin D,by the penetration of sunlight into the skin.Exeption is for example the inuits,who get enough vitamin d,throug their food,and kept their dark skin colour.

We're not just talking about skin color. We're talking about the total dominance of recessive genes (i.e. pale skin, blue/light eyes, straight/thin hair, etc.). The issue of race goes far beyond skin color. Most black people have an overwhelming concentration of dominant genes, while white people generally have mostly recessive genes. Dominant genes are retained even after moving to a northern, colder atmosphere, especially if there are no recessive genes within the body. That's why Nubian people who don't have any traces of European ancestry are STILL dark, regardless of where they live. And it's the same reason why lighter-skinned people in southern, hotter climates are STILL lighter-skinned people. It's not about solar-protection and evolution, it's about genetics and features in your DNA.

Peace Progod,

This is your biased interpretation. If you don't agree with mine, that means it's not clear? i don't think so. The fact here is that Adam as the first man is a story that came before the Quran and that has been read into the Quran. Whether that is a correct understanding should be serioiusly (and respectuflly) discussed but not in this topic.

I didn't say it's unclear because it's your interpretation, or because I don't agree with it. I said it's unclear because it's UNSPECIFIED. Why would the Quran refer to the first man as "WAAHID" when it doesn't actually mean "WAAHID"? This causes confusion, and is therefore not clear.

It's unfortunate when people make statements about the Quran that makes it more than obvious that they haven't read the Quran enough. Didn't you pretty much just make the same claim when it came to bashar? See 393, 1958

Wow... Now it's evident that YOU haven't read the Quran enough, brother. The description in 393 is clearly defined by saying "banee Israel"; it doesn't use the name "Israel" as a collective plural. Also, 1958 refers to "thurriyya"/decendants; it never uses the specified names as collective plurals. It is literally translated as "DECENDANTS OF ABRAHAM AND ISRAEL". So, in this case, to imply that Israel is being used as a collective plural, you are also imply that
Abraham is being used as a collective plural, and that's ridiculous. Please show an example where "Israel" is used to refer to a collective plural...

First of all you do know that al-'aalamoona (after a preposition or in a possesive phrase it becomes al-'aalameena) can mean 'the nations'? Don't you? What you put can be a valid interpretation as well but the understanding of universe for al-'aalameena doesn't make any sense. When i read the Arabic I can understand 'God chose Adam (Humanity), and (he chose) Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Imraan over (all) the nations.

I put 'he chose' in parenthesis because the case ending on Noah, family (of Abraham), and family (of Imraan) are all in the accusative form relating back to the phrase 'he chose' (Istafaa). The 'all' in parenthesis can be validly applied, and we already know about Adam.

First of all, "al-'aalameena" can be translated as "the nations" only in reference to other nations. Throughout the Quran, however, it is usually referring to "the worlds" (or the universe). Secondly, you placed the innovation (i.e. "he chose&quot before the name of Noah; it's not actually in the verse. Since the verse is specifying an entire collaboration of groups, it doesn't make sense to apply it the way you did. ALL the groups were chosen as a collective body. So, if you added the words "he chose" behind the reference, it would look like this

"Allah chose Adam, and (He chose) Noah, and (He chose) the family of Abraham, and (He chose) the family of Imraan over (all) the universe/nations."

By only adding the words "he chose" in ONE PLACE, you are changing the Quran's words to fit your own interpretation. This this verse refers to them all collectively, if you apply the words "he chose" to any of them, you have to apply it to all of them.

And as I can understand it that way in Arabic i can translate it that way as well. I am past translations, brother. A translation is the translator's understanding of what is being said in the Arabic, which can be affected by religious doctrines (which includes inherited or learned tafsirs) or sometimes a lack of knowledge in the grammar of what is being said. I don't think there is anything grammatically wrong with interpreting Adam as the first man here, it is rather a doctrine and an inherited tafsir of the name Adam. I just happen to disagree with it and have not seen any contradictions in my understanding of this issue in the Quran.

I'm not talking about translations either, brother. The literal Arabic says that "He chose Adam", and the continuation of them by use of the word "wa" means that He chose all of them. Therefore, to place it solely behind Noah's name is incorrect. Sure, this teaching has been around longer than the Quran; but does this make it incorrect? The Quran is a confirmation of the Torah, and the Torah states this directly. Adam was one person. This is verified in the Quran by the scriptures referring to him as "waahid"/one. Now, whatever name you give him, this doesn't change this concept, and if you want to call him "James", "Charles", "Tim", or "Ramone", it doesn't change the fact that he was ONE PERSON.

Now that is not true. Just becuase one is collective doesn't mean all of them have to be collective. Again I based my understanding of Adam on 711. It would do you good to read it. I have not seen clues to the same affect for Noah or Abraham, although I have seen them for Israel. And both Adam and Israel are used interchangeably with banoo Isra'il and banoo Adam, and I have not seen anything to go against that understanding. Now there are biblical theories about that (individual names representing peoples), but i'm sticking to Arabic and the Quran. So in Arabic you can use fulaan(un) and banoo fulaan(in) to refer to a tribe and its members. So Quraysh(un) and banoo quraysh(in) can be used interchangeably. In this same manner Adam and Israel are used.

Please show me an instance where "Israel" is used as a collective plural. Also, show me an instance where Adam is used interchangeably with "banee Adam". You won't find any of these instances, brother. Adam is always used to refer to one person. Many people interpret the name to refer to a collective body, but the clear and literal translation would refer to one person, and "Adam" and "banee Adam"/children of Adam are not the same thing. 711 says

And We created you, then We formed you, then We said to the angels "Prostrate to Adam;" so they prostrated except for Iblis, he was not of those who prostrated. (711)

This verse says that Allah created "you" (i.e. humankind), which means that He formed and shaped humans. However, then it says for them to prostrate to Adam. Now, this could possibly be interpreted to refer to "Adam" as all of humankind. However, afterwards (i.e. 712), Iblis speaks of Adam as "him", not them, meaning he is actually about one being. Then, 719 goes on to say that Adam has a "wife". Now, to interpret Adam as a collective body is to say that all of humanity had ONE WIFE, which is illogical (and pretty disgusting). The only way this can be disputed is if his wife is also interpreted to refer to a collective body of women, and this conflicts with Quranic verses.

I agree with you that we need to form a new topic about this, so we can get further clarification on this issue. If you wish to start one, that works for me; or I can start one, if you'd like. This way, we can form a general consensus on the issue.

Peace,

Ahmad

Al_Khidr

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

Anwar

You need to open up your eyes because you haven't proven nothing. The context of Basharaan in Qur'aan 1528 is singular and in Qur'aan 7189 and Qur'aan Qur'aan 41 says Adam is ONE (WAAHID) which has nothing to do with that one other verse that you quoted which was NOT addressing the Prophet Adam or who ever you want to call him. Ahmad Bilal and I have clearly demonstrated this so why can't you show just one verse where Allah states or indicates that Adam means humanity or mankind because again Ahmad Bilal and I have shown you two verses where Allah says that the Prophet Adam (or what ever name that you want to call him) is WAAHID (ONE). Anwar, just admit that your arugment is circumstantial, unclear, unsound but not solid HAQQ!

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg185508#msg185508

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg185187#msg185187

http//www.concealmyip.com/goto/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/uggc/=2fserr-zvaqf.bet/sbehz/vaqrk.cuc=3fgbcvp=3d9597416.zft187363#msg187363

Al_Khidr

Peace Progod,

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&quot 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...&quot. 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

Salaam Bilal Ahmad

Thank you brother for bringing out the real meaning of WAAHID and raising those other strong points to DESTROY Anwar/Progod's foolish logic which holds no weight in Al Qur'aan as we both have clearly demonstrated. I see we are dealing with another die-hard Progressive Moslem.

Al_Khidr

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

As Salaamu Alaykum Bilal Ahmad

"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."

Alhamdulillah for this profound HAQQ! You are a sharp Nubian brother. Check out this one video which also compliments what you have presented. The biggest problem with white folks is that they can't truly admit racism from their white power structure exists whether its in Christianity or in Islaam. Now that Islaam is the fastest growing religion and its a scary thought to think how they try to say racism does not exist in Islaam. Do they think we are going to repeat this same form of slavery that we endured in Christianity under Al Islaam! They must be crazy if they think so but check out this video

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjoQEsd2GmA

Salaam

Al Khidr

Al_Khidr

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

Marleya

You have said

?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??

Yes you are right there shouldn?t be a problem of accepting that the original man on the planet was created from Black Mud. However, racism exists and these are issues that have always been here and just like Ahmad Bilal said we are bringing it out to find solutions. Look at the racist Edip Yuksel and how he mistranslated his all English Qur?aan to conceal the fact that the Adam was a Black man

Qur?aan 1528
Your Lord said to the angels ?I am creating a human from hardened clay of aged mud.?

Mistranslation by Edip Yuksel (2007)

He clearly mistranslated HAMAA (BLACK) in this verse. Below is the correct translation

http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch15v28boxaroundhamaa.jpg

When it came down to the Divine Word of Allah (Al Qur?aan) his perverted racism embedded within his heart could not allow how to accurately translated this verse, similarly how Sunni Muslims are guilty of mistranslating verses in the Qur?aan to conceal the fact Allah has condemned hadiyth. Edip Yuksel came in this post once and called me a racist for speaking out against racism in Islaam but I called him to task and CHALLENGED him to demonstrate how hamaa means ?hardned? and we have not heard from him since. Hamaa in this verse means BLACK, take a look at Hamaa taken from Lane Lexicon so that you can see how it means BLACK

http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/hamaainredsize40.jpg

And this is why these Qur?aanic translators have accurately translated HAMAA to mean BLACK

Qur?aan 1528
And (recall the time) when your Lord said to the angels, ?I am, indeed going to create a human being from dry ringing clay (formed) from black mud, moulded into shape.

Translated by Amatul Rahman Omar & Abdul Mannan Omar

Qur?aan 1528
And when your Lord said to the angels Surely I am going to create a mortal of the essence of black mud fashioned in shape.

Translated by M.H. Shakir

Qur?aan 1528
And when thy Lord said to the angels I am going to create a mortal of sounding clay, of black mud fashioned into shape.

Translated by Maulana Muhammad Ali

Qur?aan 1528
Remember when your Rabb said to the angels ?I am about to create a man from sounding clay, black mud moulded into shape;

Translated by Muhammad Farooq-i-Azam Malik

Qur?aan 1528
And remember when thy Lord said to the angels, ?I am about to create man of dry ringing clay, of black mud wrought into shape

Translated by Malik Ghulam Farid

Qur?aan 1528
And (remember) when thy Lord said unto the angels Lo! I am creating a mortal out of potter's clay of black mud altered,

Translated by Marmaduke Pickthall

Qur?aan 1528
And remember when thy Lord said to the angels, I am about to create man of dry wringing clay, of black mud wrought into shape

Translated by Sher Ali

http//kushite.webs.com

So Marleya not only are we dealing with racism in Islaam from the past but we are also dealing with racism in Islaam in the present. We have to bring it all out and expose it and address it to find solutions but if we walk around here acting like there is no racism in Islaam the problem will get worse and we will have another repeat of ?Christianity? accept under the label of Islaam.

Al_Khidr

Anwar

You said this about Ahmad Bilal

"Now, I read the Arabic and it seems that you are more dependent on translations and English phrasing. I can assure you those waw's do not have to been seen how you are seeing them. And that doesn't make it less clear in general, it makes it less clear to you and those who are not familiar with Arabic grammar, prhasings and literature. Whenever you do decide to get into Arabic more and start reading things you will see that Arabic styles while clear to those used to reading in Arabic are not clear to those not used to reading Arabic."

I can't stand how some people try to act like they know Arabic and reference how other people lack Arabic knowledge. Anwar, my Brother Ahmad Bilal is sound in Arabic as well as his understanding of Al Qur'aan, and he dissected & intellectually ripped your arguments to pieces. You claim that you know Arabic but yet you can't see how many periods of salaat are in Al Qur'aan and on your website you used to spell Qur'aan as "Koran" when the first letter of the word is "qaf" and not "kaaf" which is a clear indication of an amature or someone who conceals what they know to be truth. I have seen people who knows English and have a greater understanding of Al Qur'aan compared to those who can read Qur'aan in Arabic. In addition you have made foolish and ignorant claims of Arabic throughout Free-Minds Forum and below is an example of a post where my brother AhmedBahgat refuted your Arabic nonsense in a post that you created

GROUNDBREAKING QURANIC FINDING!!!
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12381.0

Samia

Anwar

You need to open up your eyes because you haven't proven nothing. The context of Basharaan in Qur'aan 1528 is singular

What should it be if it were plural?

progod

Khidr,

because again Ahmad Bilal and I have shown you two verses where Allah says that the Prophet Adam (or what ever name that you want to call him) is WAAHID (ONE). Anwar, just admit that your arugment is circumstantial, unclear, unsound but not solid HAQQ!

Please show me where those verses say Adam. Adam was your injection. Adam is not in those verses and no where does the Quran say that Adam was one.

Why fabricate and lie and then claim that this is in the Quran when it is not? Just becuz you use strong langauge, that does not make you right.

Godbless,
Anwar

Al_Khidr

What should it be if it were plural?

Samia

You have indicated that there was more than one Adam and you have not even responded to that question with Qur'aanic evidence? We are still waiting for Samia to produce the evidence inside Al Qur'aan?

Now in regards to your question, I have already responded to that pertaining to you and Anwar at the links below

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg185508#msg185508

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg185187#msg185187

http//www.concealmyip.com/goto/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/uggc/=2fserr-zvaqf.bet/sbehz/vaqrk.cuc=3fgbcvp=3d9597416.zft187363#msg187363

Al_Khidr

Khidr,

Please show me where those verses say Adam. Adam was your injection. Adam is not in those verses and no where does the Quran say that Adam was one.

Why fabricate and lie and then claim that this is in the Quran when it is not? Just becuz you use strong langauge, that does not make you right.

Godbless,
Anwar

Anwar

We can tell that you are running out of ammunition. This point has already been addressed by Ahmad Bilal and I

http//www.concealmyip.com/goto/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/uggc/=2fserr-zvaqf.bet/sbehz/vaqrk.cuc=3fgbcvp=3d9597416.zft187431#msg187431

http//www.concealmyip.com/goto/nph-proxy.cgi/010110A/uggc/=2fserr-zvaqf.bet/sbehz/vaqrk.cuc=3fgbcvp=3d9597416.zft187739#msg187739

progod

Al-Khidr,

You've got to be kidding me. You won't post the verses again on your own because you know I will point out again how the word Adam itself is not in those verses that mention Waahid. Wow, I feel saddened to have definitely learned through this conversation that all you know how to do is insult and beat around the bush. It's one thing to have an interpretation but don't say the Quran says something that it doesn't. That is just plain old falsehood. May God enlighten you. You have shown me no verse that says that Adam is Waahid, with those two words existing in in the same sentence in the Arabic Quran. What you showed me was Adam in parenthesis in the translation, but Adam is not in the Arabic in those passages. So why will you refuse to admit this? Why are you even a Muslim if it is not to gain knowledge? Becuz of the Nubians? Well there were and are plenty of our Black "brothers" and "sisters" who like people from all other colors, ethnicities and races were and are misguided and are going to Hell. There have been plenty of Nubians (and other peoples) who have committed shirk. Get off this Nubo-centric and Afro-centric tip and see things for what they are. Chew on this

we are flesh and blood and all animals are flesh and blood. So if we have pretty much everything they have physically if we were created out of black mud, what were they created out of?
Nowhere in the Quran does it say Adam is Wahid. So why are you lying to yourself? What point do you prove through falsehood?
Nubians were not perfect people. They were ONE (great) civilzation located in Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan. There is NO proof they ever used the word Islam, NO proof that they prayed 5 times a day and NO proof that they used the Arabic word Allah
People are misguided and evil because their cultures are corrupt or their minds are corrupt and they have listened to the suggestions of Evil and ignored God (despite their hypocresies). And that misguidance can manifest itself in many ways and among every people.
The original man wasn't black FOR THE REASON of being made from black mud (remember even animals are made up of flesh, blood, and bone. They even have BRAINS!)
The orignal man was black because the two non-black races caucasiod and Mongoloid are genetic minorities and the negroid race is a genetic majority. Just as light skin is recessive and detrimental in the orignal warm, sunny habitat in which life developed on the earth. And if you mix all the caucasiod, mongoloid and negroid types, the negroid types will genetically dominate the other two types (because there more Negroid types) in the end leaving a type of black people who will be the closest to the original human being we will ever get to.
You don't have to dig in the Quran and try to fabricate these truths, a sound mind and the solid evidence that exists out there can show that the orignal man was black and that Eurocentric cultures and Eurocentric influenced cultures are racist towards black peoples.
And lastly Arabs are not a sort of White people nor are they Europeans or Caucasiods. Stop repeating the same Euro-centric trash that Eurocentrists have been trying to claim all along in order to write Negroid peoples out of history. Yes there is a definite issue with Arab-centricity in the Islamic world, and that started when the first nominally Muslim Arabs set out to conquer the former Roman and Persian territories and beyond. But that is cultural superiority NOT a racial one, because ARAB is not a race. ARAB is a tribal and cultural/linguistic ethnicity which embraces all races through tribal, cultural and linguistic assimilation. And Caucasiods, Mongoloids and Negroids have mixed and been assimilated into Arabhood. Now Arabs with more caucasiod ancestry have had issues with Arabs of more negroid ancestry because of local situations and circumstances and issues that assimilated peoples brought to their new Arab identity, but EUROPEAN COLONIALISM and EUROPEAN COLONIALISM ALONE sought to cause division among the Arabs along Negroid looking and Caucasiod looking lines in order for the Arabs to appreciate all that is Caucasiod (especially the Europeans) and denigrate all that is Negroid, and write the Negroid people's out of history. And the effects of this are still lasting in the Arab world. But the Arabs are not a race, and defintely NOT a European race. And if a hadeeth says the last prophet was white, THAT DOESN'T MEAN CAUCASOID.

Stop the ignorance, increase the knowledge.

Godbless,
Anwar

Christoph_Haupt

Moin, Moin....

......there is no rascism in Islam

4913 O mankind, We created you from a male and female, and We made you into
nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely, the most
honorable among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is
Knowledgeable, Expert.

There is no rascism inside Islam but surely inside people!

Secondly i don't believe that Allah literally shaped black mud to human form and made it alive. I interpret this verse as the begin of Life.
If it may although indicate that the first human had a black skin, oklah.
But Verse 4913 clearly indicates that ALL other human beings are descendans of this black skinned couple. Of course the question remains how white humans descend from black humans?
Maybe the same way the first human was created by Allahs will.

Peace....Chris

Ahmad_Bilal

Wa Alaykum Salaam, Brother Al Khidr,

"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."

Alhamdulillah for this profound HAQQ! You are a sharp Nubian brother. Check out this one video which also compliments what you have presented. The biggest problem with white folks is that they can't truly admit racism from their white power structure exists whether its in Christianity or in Islaam. Now that Islaam is the fastest growing religion and its a scary thought to think how they try to say racism does not exist in Islaam. Do they think we are going to repeat this same form of slavery that we endured in Christianity under Al Islaam! They must be crazy if they think so but check out this video

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjoQEsd2GmA

Thanks for your comments, and thanks for that very interesting video. It shows how far some people are willing to go to "transform" themselves into something they're not or never will be. Sunni and Wahhabi Muslims, even black and white ones, are trying their hardest to become Arabs, and they're denying who they really are. And regarding white denial of racism, this is evident all throughout society. Most white people don't recognize racism because they REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT, and this is the same circumstance happening with Muslims throughout the Islamic world, claiming that there's "no racism in islam". The more they keep denying the truth, the more they blind themselves to it. That's why most of them are blind and they will remain blind until Allah opens their eyes to the truth.

Thank you brother for bringing out the real meaning of WAAHID and raising those other strong points to DESTROY Anwar/Progod's foolish logic which holds no weight in Al Qur'aan as we both have clearly demonstrated. I see we are dealing with another die-hard Progressive Moslem.

It looks like you're correct on this one. I expected Brother Anwar to analyze the facts more clearly, instead of falling in line with the rest of the Progressive Moslems, even if their arguments are contradictory. With a basic knowledge of Arabic language, it's not hard to see that WAAHID means ONE, and as one, it refers to indivisibility and singularity. Based on the ridiculous logic that Adam was ONE (waahid) GROUP, it sounds just as absurd as the believers in the Trinity, who say that God is "ONE", but He's also "three", meaning God is ONE (waahid) GROUP. It doesn't make sense, and it is completely contrary to other Quranic verses that confirm that Adam was the first man, ONE PERSON, and his descendants (i.e. the entire human race) are called "banee Adam"/children of Adam.

Peace,

Ahmad

progod

Ahmad Bilal,

Based on the ridiculous logic that Adam was ONE (waahid) GROUP, it sounds just as absurd as the believers in the Trinity, who say that God is "ONE", but He's also "three", meaning God is ONE (waahid) GROUP.

Are you serious? I'll put this in caps so you can understand. NO WHERE IN THE QURAN DOES IT SAY THAT ADAM IS WAAHID.

Why can't you see that? I am not saying that nasfun waahidun means one group. I NEVER SAID THAT and I WILL NEVER SAY THAT.

And stop trying to lump me in with all progressive Moslems. Isn't lumping people together (in particular Caucasoids and Arabs) you and Khidr's problem from the get-go? I mean what is this? Do you think you can discredit me by saying I said something I never said and then say that I'm wrong for saying something I never said it in the first place? Let me write it in caps again

NO WHERE IN THE QURAN DOES IT SAY THAT ADAM IS WAAHID. And i challenge you to show me where 'Adam is Waahid' is mentioned in any verse in the Quran.

AND I NEVER SAID THAT NAFSUN WAAHIDUN MEANS ONE GROUP. I JUST NEVER SAID IT.

So why the lies? Why are you saying I said something I never said? What does that prove?

I expected better from you. I expect Khidr to just spit lies and venom (he's shown that that is all he can do) but I expected you to see what I am saying and not try to twist my words or claim that the Quran says something that it doesn't say.

If you guys think you are going to enlighten anyone through these sorts of simplistic reasonings and mindsets, ya'll have got a lot to learn. All I can ask is that you get your stories straight about what I've been saying instead of trying to twist words and then condemn, like the Media does to Farrakhan. Judaism is not a gutter religion. Zionism is.

Christoph,

By the way I think that black mud is the physical origin of all human and animal life as well, at the very least. I dont know whether to include the plant kingdom in that, but at the very least we physically share so much with the rest of the animal kindgdom that I think it's fair to say that they probably come from the same black mud that we come from.

Godbless,
Anwar

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Anwar,

NO WHERE IN THE QURAN DOES IT SAY THAT ADAM IS WAAHID.

Brother, just because it doesn't use the specific name "Adam" doesn't mean it's not referring to the man Adam. We (Brother Al Khidr and I) have already pointed this out to you several times. The verse literally says

He is who created you from one self... (7189)

Other passages throughout the Quran repeatedly refer to us as "banee Adam"/children of Adam, specifically mentioning that we are descendants of him, ONE PERSON. If this verse wasn't referring to Adam, then who was it talking about? What "one person" were we all developed/descended from? If it was referring to a community, it would say specifically, "He is who created you from one group/community/society/people/nation..." But it doesn't say this at all. Why do you think this is?

And stop trying to lump me in with all progressive Moslems. Isn't lumping people together (in particular Caucasoids and Arabs) you and Khidr's problem from the get-go? I mean what is this? Do you think you can discredit me by saying I said something I never said and then say that I'm wrong for saying something I never said it in the first place? Let me write it in caps again

NO WHERE IN THE QURAN DOES IT SAY THAT ADAM IS WAAHID. And i challenge you to show me where 'Adam is Waahid' is mentioned in any verse in the Quran.

AND I NEVER SAID THAT NAFSUN WAAHIDUN MEANS ONE GROUP. I JUST NEVER SAID IT.

So why the lies? Why are you saying I said something I never said? What does that prove?

I aplogize if you feel that I'm "lumping you together" with the Progressive Moslems. I was just referencing the fact that you agree with some of their ideologies, some of which don't even make sense. I already showed you the instance where we are mentioned as descending from one (waahid) person, and that means that all humans have one ancestor. And this ancestor is already mentioned in the scriptures as being "Adam". Therefore

If we all came from ONE PERSON, and we all came from ADAM, that means that ADAM is ONE PERSON. This is simply common sense, brother.

I expected better from you. I expect Khidr to just spit lies and venom (he's shown that that is all he can do) but I expected you to see what I am saying and not try to twist my words or claim that the Quran says something that it doesn't say.

I'm not spitting out any lies or venom, and neither is Brother Al Khidr. We're only showing you what the scripture says regarding our ancestry. I'm not trying to demean you or criticize you in any way. But you can't blindly study the Quran without applying common sense. Also, you can't pick random verses out of the scripture without looking at the total context and meaning. This only causes confusion, and it leads you to confuse others. The fact is Adam is clearly mentioned throughout the scriptures as being ONE PERSON. There is no disputing this. If you can find a verse that says otherwise, please point it out so we can read it.

If you guys think you are going to enlighten anyone through these sorts of simplistic reasonings and mindsets, ya'll have got a lot to learn. All I can ask is that you get your stories straight about what I've been saying instead of trying to twist words and then condemn, like the Media does to Farrakhan. Judaism is not a gutter religion. Zionism is.

I'm not trying to condemn you at all, brother. Let Allah be the judge in our disputes, and He will tell us the truth of what we have been disputing. Regarding Zionism being a "gutter religion", all I have to say is laugh

Peace,

Ahmad

progod

Peace,

Brother, just because it doesn't use the specific name "Adam" doesn't mean it's not referring to the man Adam. We (Brother Al Khidr and I) have already pointed this out to you several times. The verse literally says

He is who created you from one self... (7189)

Other passages throughout the Quran repeatedly refer to us as "banee Adam"/children of Adam, specifically mentioning that we are descendants of him, ONE PERSON. If this verse wasn't referring to Adam, then who was it talking about? What "one person" were we all developed/descended from? If it was referring to a community, it would say specifically, "He is who created you from one group/community/society/people/nation..." But it doesn't say this at all. Why do you think this is?

I'm glad you understand that the verse does not mention Adam here. No matter how you try to interpret it the verse just DOES NOT SAY that Adam is Waahid. Again I never said that that verse was referring to a community. I DON'T think that that verse is referring to Adam IN ANY WAY. I told you how it could even refer to the single cell that we all come from, and I gave you the countless meanings for nafsun. So open your mind a bit.

I aplogize if you feel that I'm "lumping you together" with the Progressive Moslems. I was just referencing the fact that you agree with some of their ideologies, some of which don't even make sense. I already showed you the instance where we are mentioned as descending from one (waahid) person, and that means that all humans have one ancestor. And this ancestor is already mentioned in the scriptures as being "Adam". Therefore

If we all came from ONE PERSON, and we all came from ADAM, that means that ADAM is ONE PERSON. This is simply common sense, brother.

I accept your apology. I have not heard of other "progressive" Moslems who think that Adam means Humanity. I have heard other interpretations like there were people before Adam. But Adam= Humanity is something that i do not remember hearding from any other Muslim, let alone any "progressive" Moslem. And as it concerns nafsun this word does not have to mean person/human being. Again, open your mind a bit to the fact that that nafsun in the above passage does not have to mean human being. What if the mud started off in some sort of singular form. What if that single thing was a single/sole desire? How about a single spirit (the one that God breathed into us)? How about a single substance? Or a single thought? All these are meanings of nafsun.

I'm not spitting out any lies or venom, and neither is Brother Al Khidr. We're only showing you what the scripture says regarding our ancestry. I'm not trying to demean you or criticize you in any way. But you can't blindly study the Quran without applying common sense. Also, you can't pick random verses out of the scripture without looking at the total context and meaning. This only causes confusion, and it leads you to confuse others. The fact is Adam is clearly mentioned throughout the scriptures as being ONE PERSON. There is no disputing this. If you can find a verse that says otherwise, please point it out so we can read it.

And I am just trying to show you that that traditional pre-Quranic understanding does not necessarily have to apply to the Quran, according to Quranic context AND Classical Arabic. You can disagree with me, that is fine, but I AM applying good sense (I don't like the phrase common sense, becuz good sense is not common), logic and all of the Quran to this understanding. The simple fact is that the Quran does not clearly say that Adam was one person. And 7189 does not even mention Adam. That is a traditional interpretation which you happen to accept. I don't, and I have good reason for that, rememer 711? Did you ever read it?

I'm not trying to condemn you at all, brother. Let Allah be the judge in our disputes, and He will tell us the truth of what we have been disputing. Regarding Zionism being a "gutter religion", all I have to say is laugh

Well I'm glad that this post ended on a good note. God will definitely tell us the truth of what we've been disputing in the end. All i ask is that you consider what I've said seriously, that you state my claims correctly, and that you admit that 'Adam = one person' is your understanding of what the Quran says, even though the Quran DOES NOT LITERALLY say (IN ANY PLACE) that Adam = one person, but that you have your reasons to believe this.

Godbless,
Anwar

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace Brother Anwar,

God will definitely tell us the truth of what we've been disputing in the end. All i ask is that you consider what I've said seriously, that you state my claims correctly, and that you admit that 'Adam = one person' is your understanding of what the Quran says, even though the Quran DOES NOT LITERALLY say (IN ANY PLACE) that Adam = one person, but that you have your reasons to believe this.

I can agree with you on this, brother. The Quran doesn't literally say, "Adam was one person"; it does imply it, though. So, yes, I have my reasons for believing in this ideology regarding him and his wife (i.e. Eve) and his children. I believe they were all individual persons, and Adam's decendants are called "banee Adam"/children of Adam throughout the message. You also have your reasons for rejecting this concept, and I'm sure, to you, your belief is just as sound and logical as mine is to me. So, surely, Allah will tell us the truth regarding our disputes. I'm also happy this debate ended on a good, positive note, and hopefully many others will end positively as well... God bless...

Peace,

Ahmad