Muhammad is a White Man?
-
Peace Brother Anwar,
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
Salaam Ahmad Bilal
This dude, Anwar is going around in circles by trying to camaflouge the weakness of his argument with the term "Adam" dispite the fact we both said it does not matter what term you want to use or who you want to call this person that Allah says is Waahid (One) which all of humanity/mankind/people came from in the verses that we presented. But what he cannot show is that inside Al Qur'aan Adam (or what ever name, title, it, or person he wants to call him) means "humanity" as he stated.
Salaam Anwar
We are still waiting for you to produce one verse in the Qur'aan which would augment your argument or point that Adam could mean "humanity". If you can produce just one verse in the Qur'aan then Ahmad Bilal and I will have to submit to the truth, but don't expect us to accept your ASSUMPTION/OPINION/STATEMENT as HAQQ. We all know whether you want to accept it or not that the original man that the Qur'aan speaks of which all came from is WAAHID (ONE), in other words Allah, The Creator of all that exists says that he is ONE.
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch4v1onebeing.jpg
Qur'aan 7189
He (Allah) created you from ONE (WAAHID) person.... -
Salaam Al Khidr,
This dude, Anwar is going around in circles by trying to camaflouge the weakness of his argument with the term "Adam" dispite the fact we both said it does not matter what term you want to use or who you want to call this person that Allah says is Waahid (One) which all of humanity/mankind/people came from in the verses that we presented. But what he cannot show is that inside Al Qur'aan Adam (or what ever name, title, it, or person he wants to call him) means "humanity" as he stated.
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch4v1onebeing.jpg
Qur'aan 7189
He (Allah) created you from ONE (WAAHID) person....Alhamdulillah, thanks for pointing out the Arabic terms as well, brother. Maybe now Brother Anwar can clearly see how the scriptures emphasize that we are all decendants of ONE BEING. So, even though it doesn't specifically use the name "Adam", it is clearly referring to Adam.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Hello dear Brothers Ahmad Bilal and Al Khidr.
You translated Verse 7189 as
He (Allah) created you from ONE (WAAHID) person....
But if ALLAH created mankind from ONE person then why does ALLAH tells in Verse 4913 about mankind created from a male and female. That would be TWO person!
Verse 7189 refering to ONE person would contradict in this sense Verse 4913. Or not?
Could you please explain. Thank you.
Peace......Chris
-
Peace Christoph Haupt,
You translated Verse 7189 as
He (Allah) created you from ONE (WAAHID) person....
But if ALLAH created mankind from ONE person then why does ALLAH tells in Verse 4913 about mankind created from a male and female. That would be TWO person!
Verse 7189 refering to ONE person would contradict in this sense Verse 4913. Or not?
This would not be a contradiction at all. It only alludes to the wife of Adam (i.e. "Eve" having a geneology tracing back to Adam as well. For example, the Quran never specifies the creation of Adam's wife, and it never mentions her being born. The first instance of her being mentioned is in 235, and that says
We said, "O Adam, live with your wife in paradise, and eat therefrom generously, as you please, but do not approach this tree, lest you sin." (235)
This is the first instance where Adam's wife (often called "Eve" is mentioned at all. So, where did she come from? Why does Allah speak about creating Adam, but he doesn't mention creating his wife? hmm The only acceptable explanation is that she also came from Adam. Now, since men can't give birth, then she must've been formed another way from Adam outside of natural childbirth, and this alludes to the Jewish legend that she was formed by God from Adam (i.e. his rib). Either way, she came from Adam, just like all other humans ("banee Adam" did. You may reject the story of the Bible and the Torah regarding the creation of "Adam and Eve" as individual people, but the Quran plainly supports this Jewish legend, leading us to believe that it is factual, at least to a degree.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
Ahmad Bilal, let's not go backwards, Al-Khidr is obviously instigating. That's all he knows how to do.
Alhamdulillah, thanks for pointing out the Arabic terms as well, brother. Maybe now Brother Anwar can clearly see how the scriptures emphasize that we are all decendants of ONE BEING. So, even though it doesn't specifically use the name "Adam", it is clearly referring to Adam
.As we agreed upon Adam is not mentioned in that verse. And all of the meanings I gave for nafsun came from the book 'dictionary of the holy Quran' by 'Omar. As I said as long as you consider what I've said seriously and try to understand my reasonings behind this, I'm okay with it. It's your mind and you have to make the best decisions you can from what you see.
Al-Khidr,
So what book are you using, and why do you think that by showing some limited translations of arabic words that you are being scholarly? Why don't you get a real dictionary, instead of that glossary you keep using? Dictionary of the Holy Quran & Lane's Lexicon are two books that would bring your scholarship game up to a more serious level. Until then you are just playing with doctrine based books published by certain schools of thought. Obviously they won't give you the whole picture. The same thing goes for translations. As Ahmad and I both admitted and saw clearly, Adam is not mentioned in that passage. If I were you i'd stop provoking and just deal with reality of the situation. Furthermore, I have been repeating over and over again that 711 is the reason why I think Adam = Mankind. Have you read it yet? How many times do I have to point to this passage until you decide to read it, instead of claiming I've offered up no passages in support of my understanding?
I swear, every time I read a post of yours you prove to me how bad the situation (of Afro-Americans, Afro-American Muslims and Muslims in general) really is. It disheartening, really. But Maa shaa' allaahu. We are paying for the sin and errors of our own actions.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
As we agreed upon Adam is not mentioned in that verse. And all of the meanings I gave for nafsun came from the book 'dictionary of the holy Quran' by 'Omar. As I said as long as you consider what I've said seriously and try to understand my reasonings behind this, I'm okay with it. It's your mind and you have to make the best decisions you can from what you see.
You are correct in saying that Adam is not mentioned by name in 41. However, here is the literal translation of it
O people, be conscious of your Sustainer/Lord who created you from NAFSIN WAAHIDATIN, and He created from it it's spouse, and He scattered from them many men and women; and be conscious of Allah of whom you ask of eachother and the wombs. Allah has been observing you. (41)
Now, the most clear and common meanings of "nafsin" are self, soul, person, or desire. The meaning of "waahid" always refers to one individual object or person. Self, soul, and person all convey the same concept, so this lowers it down to PERSON or DESIRE. It would be illogical for this to be referring to a "desire" because it says that from this "nafsin", Allah also formed it's "spouse". Throughout the scriptures, the word "spouse" is used exclusively for humans. So, this clearly indicates that the verse was speaking about a human person when it mentioned "nafsin waahidatin"/one being. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have spoken of this creature having a "spouse". Also, the verse goes on to relate this creature to the "one whom you ask" and it refers specifically to "alarhama"/the womb, which shows a direct reference to a father and mother. So, why would this verse compare the "nafsin" and it's spouse to our parents if these CREATURES weren't individual human beings?
Like I said, you can believe as you wish, and I'm not trying to force an opinion on you at all. I'm just pointing out the most logical conclusion. You don't have to consult a thick textbook on Arabic language and grammar to understand what the Quran is explaining. Just look up the other uses of the word "nafsin" throughout the scriptures, and see what the general meaning of it is. You'll notice that the most common uses of it are referring specifically to self, soul, person, or desire, and "self" or "person" are the most sensible translations for it in this verse.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Marleya,
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.
Ahmad
Peace Ahmad Bilal.
Sorry it took a long time before I answer you on this,have been very occupied this days.
I dont know what you meen when you say that black people have most dominant genes,and white people recessive genes,the fact is that we have two coupies of each,inherited from our parents.Dominant genes is not allways positive,and recessive genes is not always negative.
this link is easy to understand Mister Bilal,read it,and tell me what you think!
The racism in europe,started with its expansion,in the fifthteen and sixthteen centuries.The europeans had been in Africe before,with a humble attitude,to the mighty people of Songhai,for example.For them to get labour,and raw materials,they had to degenerate the black people first.Brainwash the white people into beliving that the black people were inferior to whites.But the arabs and the muslims had started this racism towards black people hundreds of years before.Robbing them from their countries,and their families.And up to 1960,you would find black people, slaves,in muslims marked in Saudia.Read the book called The legacy of arab Islam in Africa,by John Alembillah Azumah.
The question we have to ask ourselves is who benefit on keeping the racism going?
It is the elite that rule the world today,that benefit on people being enemies of one another.My opinion.
When you say that white men is not from creation,you talk like them,that say that black people are inferior to the white men.But the on the other side of the fence Mister Bilal.
And I can feel both,because my mother is white and my father black.
The labour and raw materials of Africa,Asia,South America,and the west indies financed the european industrial revolution!
-
Salaam Ahmad Bilal,
after reading again all the verses concerning creation and Adam I can not share your interpretation of a human being simply pottered out of clay. Allah tells that life originate in water what includes human life too. Looking at this the verses concerning man created from clay are only another step in the creation of humanity and not the sole beginning. The hotly disputed verse 41 makes sense for me in the big picture speaking of a single cell separating itself into two cells and from this stage developing the different sexes.
Like you pointed out Allah tells not about how IT created Adams wife, true, but to pick on the Bible for explanation I do not think necessary bearing in mind that Quran is a detailed, all explaining book, is it not? Your view point of creating the wife from Adam (his ribs?) leaves me question if Allah was running out of clay after he created Adam and nothing was left to create his wife in the same (pottery) manner?
My interpretation of the scripture looking on in the whole picture is that Allah created man in a process of evolution evolving to the beings we are today.
So I guess we both have to wait until the day Allah will inform us in what we are differ.?Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders!? (Martin Luther). My Lord bear with me and have patience with me.
But I refute strongly and vehemently your claim and that of Al Khidr and Amin74 that caucasoid people are not descendants of Adam. That is a racial biased and separatist view with no support in the Quran!! Rather the opposite
-
And from His signs is the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and the difference of your languages and your colors. In that are signs for the world.
-
And from the people, and the animals, and the livestock, are various colors. As such, only the knowledgeable among God?s servants reverence Him. God is Noble, Forgiving.
Allah tells us that it was IT that is responsible for our different appearances and not Iblis breeding with Adams wife like you want people to believe.
If it is beyond your comprehension to understand the matter of diversity I would advise to seek knowledge the way Allah tells us- Say ?Roam the Earth and observe how the creation was initiated. Thus God will establish the final creation. God is capable of all things.?
The answer can be found in exploring creation itself and not in mythological books.
Peace be upon you?.Chris
-
-
Peace Marleya,
I dont know what you meen when you say that black people have most dominant genes,and white people recessive genes,the fact is that we have two coupies of each,inherited from our parents.Dominant genes is not allways positive,and recessive genes is not always negative.
This is not a question of negative versus positive. It is an ESTABLISHED FACT that black people often contain more dominant genes, while white people generally have a majority of recessive genes. This has absolutely nothing to do with these genes being "negative" or "positive". I suggest doing some research on genetics and reproduction... Like you said, we develop our genetic coding from our parents, and this includes features of dominant and recessive genes. So, since Adam and Eve didn't have "parents", where did they get their genetic coding? And how could they have a mixture of dominant and recessive genes if they were the first humans? The Quran clearly emphasizes one dominant gene in their lineage, and this is evident by Adam being shaped from black mud. Dark skin is definately a dominant genetic feature, and it had to have been passed down to Adam's offspring.
this link is easy to understand Mister Bilal,read it,and tell me what you think!
What link are you talking about?
The racism in europe,started with its expansion,in the fifthteen and sixthteen centuries.The europeans had been in Africe before,with a humble attitude,to the mighty people of Songhai,for example.For them to get labour,and raw materials,they had to degenerate the black people first.Brainwash the white people into beliving that the black people were inferior to whites.But the arabs and the muslims had started this racism towards black people hundreds of years before.Robbing them from their countries,and their families.And up to 1960,you would find black people, slaves,in muslims marked in Saudia.Read the book called The legacy of arab Islam in Africa,by John Alembillah Azumah.
This is more misleading misinformation to confuse the masses. Yes, the Arabs had slaves, and yes, some of them were African/Nubian people. However, this doesn't characterize it as racial enslavement. Other Arabs were also enslaved, as were European captives. This is completely different from the racial enslavement started by whites, who based their entire ideology on alleged racial superiority over blacks. Plus, white people are the only racial group trying to conquer the entire world, and this has been exhibited throughout history. This is completely different from other ethnical groups who've enslaved other groups, including their own people.
The question we have to ask ourselves is who benefit on keeping the racism going?
This is an absurd question. Of course, the truth is WHITE PEOPLE ARE BENEFITTING FROM THIS RACISM. By demeaning other racial groups, causing a widespread view of white superiority and black inferiority, they elevate themselves above the rest of the world. This is why white people control the world (on a social, economical, and political level). It's because they place themselves at the top and everyone else at the bottom.
It is the elite that rule the world today,that benefit on people being enemies of one another.My opinion.
This is the problem with white colonialism. They've even convinced you that they are the "elite" people, and this is why they allegedly "rule the world". This is how they benefit on making other people enemies of eachother, and this is how they benefit from the racism that's prevalent throughout the world today.
When you say that white men is not from creation,you talk like them,that say that black people are inferior to the white men.But the on the other side of the fence Mister Bilal.
I never said white people are inferior to black people or vice versa. I said I believe in racial equality. Please show me an instance where I said (or even implied) that black people are superior to white people.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Dear brother Ahmad,
exhibiting the story of the white man being an offspring of a human mother (Adams wife) and a inhuman father (Iblis) and therefore making white people half-human or even subhuman could very well implie that black people (human) are superior to white people (half-human/subhuman).
Exhibiting this story could although implie that Islam is meant for the black man only, because Quran is a beacon for human mankind so what about the half-human/subhuman white people?
Peace....Chris
-
Ahmad Bilal,
Now, the most clear and common meanings of "nafsin" are self, soul, person, or desire.
What made you pick these 4 meanings as the "most clear" and "most common" (note the quotes)? All of the other meanings I posted can also be clearly read into that and other passages. Now I wouldn't deal with "most common" becuz number one we don't know what the most common meaning for nafsun was in 650 AD. Secondly, who are we to say that what God "really meant" is the "most common" meaning of the word which we happen to prefer?
Like I said, you can believe as you wish, and I'm not trying to force an opinion on you at all. I'm just pointing out the most logical conclusion. You don't have to consult a thick textbook on Arabic language and grammar to understand what the Quran is explaining. Just look up the other uses of the word "nafsin" throughout the scriptures, and see what the general meaning of it is. You'll notice that the most common uses of it are referring specifically to self, soul, person, or desire, and "self" or "person" are the most sensible translations for it in this verse.
That's cool, and I'm glad we both respect each other's right to believe what we will, but youare not pointing out the most logical conclusion. And it is best to consult a thick textbook on Arabic langauge and grammar to understand the wrods and grammar that the Quran uses to explain itself. Looking up other uses of nafsun does not say anything, firstly becuz those other occurrences of nafsun could be interpreted differently than they are usually translated and secondly becuase the Quran is NOT a dictionary. The Quran borrowed the language of the ancient Arabs, not the other way around. So consulting textbooks on Arabic grammar and dictionaries on all of the meanings of Arabic words is the only way to see the Quran in it's full capacity, and see all that the book can be saying. Remember, the book clearly states that it is for the knowledgeable.
Cristoph,
I don't believe that racism started with slavery. Racism started with Moorish Europe being a threat to White Christian Europe, and as White Christian Europe became a power in the World it had to exert its superiority over what was the obvious world-wide legacy of Negroid peoples. However White Christian Europe had its exclusivist mindset cemented during the days of Moorish Europe where they drew conclusions that White=Christian= Good, and brown/black = (muslim)Moor = bad. You can see that the Christian Church (in Catholic and Protestant form) was the main perpetrator of this train of thought. As Christiany wanes a bit (not totally) in the Western World the conclusions are more like White = Western (of which Christianity is a part) = Superior/Good and brown/black = Uncivilized/Heathen (of which Islam is apart) = inferior/bad. It didn't take much to make that jump, but for brown and black people our color has always been a constant marker of that connection to the Moorish civilization that Europeans grew to fear and hate so much in Midieval times. That is why Obama caught so much flack because he had almost all of those markers; i.e. He was brown, of African descent and with an Arabic name (and you see how partial European descent (or Western culture) does not count for much among those hardcord Westernists.) To Old school Christians or those who still have inherited those racist mindsets from the past they couldn't get past the message that these two things said to them, i.e. Moor = bad. But enough people were far enough removed and swayed by his campaign strategies to drop those historically, negative Western-minded associations. His capaign did a good job of underminding some of these underlying tones(some would say foundations) of Western society.
In my opinion racism is always connected to antagonisms between two civilizations, tribes etc. And whoever wins that tug of war then imposes his superiority and the inferiority of the other. Unfortuntately in most cases the winner often tries to rewrite or censor history in a way that favors him and tries to prove the original inferiority of the losing group, and real study always shows up these falsehoods.
And the Arabs WERE NEVER engaged in racialized slavery. European colonialism brought this racialized aspect of darker against lighter to the Arab world in order to divide, conquer and rule. And the Europeans kept up that mindset in order to brainwash the people into believing they were superior and that the truly most influential people in Africa, the Middle East and lower Asia; The Negroids, were inferior. The Europeans' influence in this way is not only in the Middle East, India and North Africa, but also in black Africa where Europeans mixed with some of the local populations (as in South Africa). And where the Europens could find any differences between Negroid peoples in certain countries they tried to divide them along the lines of more European looking and less European looking. That is one of the issues with the Tutsis and the Watutsis. And this also happened among Afro-Americans so that you see Afro-Americans (more pre-60's than at present) valuing more European admixture over more aboriginal African looks.
The unfortunate part is that the victims of this racism become some of the most insidious perpetrators of it.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam progod, i agree with you and hope that in time being mankind will come to the logical understanding that despite our various skincolour (given by ONE CREATOR) we are all brother and sisters with the same origin and burie once and for all rascim in the pages of history.
Peace....Chris
-
Peace Chris,
exhibiting the story of the white man being an offspring of a human mother (Adams wife) and a inhuman father (Iblis) and therefore making white people half-human or even subhuman could very well implie that black people (human) are superior to white people (half-human/subhuman).
I never said Iblis was subhuman, and I didn't make this statement regarding white people either. I just stated the facts their genealogy is based on a general composition of recessive genes. This is a scientific fact. That's why they have pale skin, thin and straight hair, thin lips and noses, light eyes, and many other recessive genetic factors. This doesn't make them inferior or subhuman; it simply makes them different.
Exhibiting this story could although implie that Islam is meant for the black man only, because Quran is a beacon for human mankind so what about the half-human/subhuman white people?
This is unrealistic. The Qur'an plainly says that there will be a few among the jinn who will listen to the message and become submitters. So, how true is this statement if "humans" are black and "jinns" are white? Think about the general and overall statistics regarding the religion of Islam throughout the world. Most white people outrightly reject Islam, and they even promote the belief that all muslims/submitters are terrorists and murderers. However, many black people follow the beliefs of submission, especially in the United States, Africa/Nubia, and the Middle East. The majority of white people throughout the world believe in Christianity, a completely fabricated, manmade, pagan religion devoted to worshiping Jesus, which went again his own teachings. This coincides with the concept in the Qur'an implying that most of the jinns refuse to become submitters to Allah... And what about white Muslims? Most of them promote the blasphemous pagan rituals of Mekka, and they can't speak the name of Allah without subscribing Muhammad as his "partner". These are the facts. Now, regarding white Muslims dedicated to worshiping God ALONE, they are definately the minority, and they completely fit the description of the jinn group mentioned in the Qur'an (i.e. chapter 72, "Al-Jinn". And just like the scriptures say, this groups submits to Allah, and they are among the righteous. The scriptures state that the Qur'an is a message to the entire world, not just to the humans.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Ahmad Bilal,
You said
And what about white Muslims? Most of them promote the blasphemous pagan rituals of Mekka, and they can't speak the name of Allah without subscribing Muhammad as his "partner".
What about the tons of African/Nubian Muslim who also subscribe the last prophet Muhammad (God bless him) as a partner when they mention Allah? Have you heard the Shiites? West African are no different. The Sunni/Sufi Muslims in Senegal use the same Arabic phrases the Muslims in Saudi Arabia or Bosnia use. And they have been using them since Islam came to those lands before 1200 AD.The Shiites ascribe Muhammad (God bless him), his whole family and Ali! And black Iraqis are just as Shia as the rest of the Shia Iraqis who you might not consider black. Alot of African Muslims are Sunni/Sufi Muslims but they say all the same things that the white Muslims say. They also promote the same "blasphemous" "pagan" rituals (as you call them) of Mekka. So i really don't understand how you are trying to pin the misguided things in Islam on "white" Muslims and act like the Africa/Nubian Musilms don't do the very same things?
Godbless,
Anwar -
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
Salaam Khidr
I read these posts and none of them answers my question. You sited different derivatives of the word "bashar" but none of them stands for a plural of it. When I say there's more than one Adam, I base it on knowing that "bashar" is not a singular but a collective plural. Just like "insan" which you agree that it is a collective plural. You can also derive similar derivatives from "insan'as you did with'bashar`'. Would this change the fact that it's a collective plural?Your 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?
Would the existence of the word 'insaaniyya" change your mind about the 'insan" being a collective plural?
-
Dear Ahmad,
first Iblis was INhuman according to the Quran and not SUBhuman like you stated.
Second it is YOUR STORY about Iblis and "Eve" what implies that in your worldview white peopple are inferior. And others here can see the same.
Third I still refute strongly YOU STORY and until now you have not given ANY evidence from the Quran supporting that YOUR STORY about Iblis breeding with Eve and creating a different than black offspring is true.
Until now you have not refuted my evidence from the Quran that Allah created the various colours of the people.Posted on Yesterday at 111127 AMPosted by Christoph Haupt
But I refute strongly and vehemently your claim and that of Al Khidr and Amin74 that caucasoid people are not descendants of Adam. That is a racial biased and separatist view with no support in the Quran!! Rather the opposite
-
And from His signs is the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and the difference of your languages and your colors. In that are signs for the world.
-
And from the people, and the animals, and the livestock, are various colors. As such, only the knowledgeable among God?s servants reverence Him. God is Noble, Forgiving.
Allah tells us that it was IT that is responsible for our different appearances and not Iblis breeding with Adams wife like you want people to believe.
If it is beyond your comprehension to understand the matter of diversity I would advise to seek knowledge the way Allah tells us- Say ?Roam the Earth and observe how the creation was initiated. Thus God will establish the final creation. God is capable of all things.?
The answer can be found in exploring creation itself and not in mythological books.
Until know you did not answer to this post of mine so for you convience to read i put it again in here.
Peace.....Chris
-
-
Peace Christoph Haupt,
This would not be a contradiction at all. It only alludes to the wife of Adam (i.e. "Eve" having a geneology tracing back to Adam as well. For example, the Quran never specifies the creation of Adam's wife, and it never mentions her being born. The first instance of her being mentioned is in 235, and that says
We said, "O Adam, live with your wife in paradise, and eat therefrom generously, as you please, but do not approach this tree, lest you sin." (235)
This is the first instance where Adam's wife (often called "Eve" is mentioned at all. So, where did she come from? Why does Allah speak about creating Adam, but he doesn't mention creating his wife? hmm The only acceptable explanation is that she also came from Adam. Now, since men can't give birth, then she must've been formed another way from Adam outside of natural childbirth, and this alludes to the Jewish legend that she was formed by God from Adam (i.e. his rib). Either way, she came from Adam, just like all other humans ("banee Adam" did. You may reject the story of the Bible and the Torah regarding the creation of "Adam and Eve" as individual people, but the Quran plainly supports this Jewish legend, leading us to believe that it is factual, at least to a degree.
Peace,
Ahmad
Salaam Ahmad Bilal
Thank you brother for responding to Christoph Haupt and clearing up the misconsceptions or alleged contradiction as he applied in the interpretation. One thing we definately know and that is the meaning of the word WAAHID which is used for the original man from which all came from, they on the other hand have to show us inside the Qur'aan where there are more than one Adam or a verse saying that Adam means humanity, mankind and as long as they don't have this, they have no argument and they can conjecture all they want.
-
Peace,
Ahmad Bilal, let's not go backwards, Al-Khidr is obviously instigating. That's all he knows how to do.
.As we agreed upon Adam is not mentioned in that verse. And all of the meanings I gave for nafsun came from the book 'dictionary of the holy Quran' by 'Omar. As I said as long as you consider what I've said seriously and try to understand my reasonings behind this, I'm okay with it. It's your mind and you have to make the best decisions you can from what you see.
Al-Khidr,
So what book are you using, and why do you think that by showing some limited translations of arabic words that you are being scholarly? Why don't you get a real dictionary, instead of that glossary you keep using? Dictionary of the Holy Quran & Lane's Lexicon are two books that would bring your scholarship game up to a more serious level. Until then you are just playing with doctrine based books published by certain schools of thought. Obviously they won't give you the whole picture. The same thing goes for translations. As Ahmad and I both admitted and saw clearly, Adam is not mentioned in that passage. If I were you i'd stop provoking and just deal with reality of the situation. Furthermore, I have been repeating over and over again that 711 is the reason why I think Adam = Mankind. Have you read it yet? How many times do I have to point to this passage until you decide to read it, instead of claiming I've offered up no passages in support of my understanding?
I swear, every time I read a post of yours you prove to me how bad the situation (of Afro-Americans, Afro-American Muslims and Muslims in general) really is. It disheartening, really. But Maa shaa' allaahu. We are paying for the sin and errors of our own actions.
Godbless,
Anwar"I swear, every time I read a post of yours you prove to me how bad the situation (of Afro-Americans, Afro-American Muslims and Muslims in general) really is"
Thats funny Anwar because everytime I read a post from you, you demonstrate what an UNCLE TOM you are.
"So what book are you using"
I'm using the Qur'aan and putting verses in proper context. You still have not shown a verse where Adam, or the original man or what every name or person or title you want to call him or it means humanity, mankind. All you have to do is produce the verse then we will have to submit to the truth.
"Obviously they won't give you the whole picture."
You have not came close to the surface yet because you still fail over and over and over again to produce just one verse that indicates Adam means humanity, mankind. Again Ahmad Bilal and I have shown you where it says that Adam is WAAHID and you can replace the name "Adam" if you want to and call him what ever name you want because at this point it does not matter but what matters is that we know from Qur'aan that the original man Allah created from which all of mankind came from is WAAHID (ONE) and your so-called dictionaries that you talk about have not provided you a verse either in the Qur'aan.
In closing it is starting to become a joke about you saying that "Adam" is not mentioned by name when it does not matter if the name or not is mentioned or what ever name that you want to call the original man Allah created as WAAHID and in addition this demonstrates that you never had an strong argument from the beginning and this is the only reason you keep going and going and going around in circles, thus as much time and energy you are putting in going around in cirlces you should use that same level of energy to produce just one verse that proves Adam means humanity, mankind or that there are more than one Adam.
-
Salaam Khidr
I read these posts and none of them answers my question. You sited different derivatives of the word "bashar" but none of them stands for a plural of it. When I say there's more than one Adam, I base it on knowing that "bashar" is not a singular but a collective plural. Just like "insan" which you agree that it is a collective plural. You can also derive similar derivatives from "insan'as you did with'bashar`'. Would this change the fact that it's a collective plural?Would the existence of the word 'insaaniyya" change your mind about the 'insan" being a collective plural?Samia
Yes I have responded to the question at hand. Again Anwar stated that Bashar means humanity, mankind so what I have done was provided a form of Bashar that does mean mankind and it is just so happens that form is not there. Remember Samia, I was the one who presented various forms for Bashar and provided the link that any body can download so I'm not saying that Bashar can't have different forms and again the fact that I provided various forms removes that thought. Below Bashar in this verse does not mean a collective plural
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch15v28hamaablack.jpg
Samia, what proof do you have that this word Basharaan in this context means a collective plural? Samia this dialogue have been developing for a while now and Ahmad Bilal and I have provided strong evidence to denote the fact that Adam is ONE (WAAHID). I can't force you-you can believe what you want so I will close out by saying that those who believe Adam is a collective or means humanity/mankind or think that there are more than one "Adam" have not produced the evidence. Thus, so far Anwar has been the main person leading this perspective and he fails over and over to produce a verse, so perhaps you Samia can produce a verse. Ahmad Bilal and I are not fighting the issue, we are just asking for a verse then we will be happy to submit to the truth because its in the Qur'aan as simple as that, so again I will leave with these verses
http//i329.photobucket.com/albums/l363/kushitex/hamaa/Ch4v1onebeing.jpg
Qur'aan 7189
He created you from ONE (WAAHID) person. -
Al-Khidr,
My first reaction to this is to chuckle at the nonsense. So I'm gonna get that out of the way first. laugh
Sorry, but it was necessary. So now that that is out of the way. Secondly for probably the 5th time now I'll repeat the verse that I base my conclusions on 711. Let me say that again 711 In case you didn't get it 711. That makes it 8 times now.
That's really all I have to say cuz I'm getting tired of talking to a parrot like you. You really take the substance away from any discussion. Call me what you want, but I'm just calling it how I see it. Believe what you want to believe. The sad part is that it is more than obvious that you are a Mr. Flame. But I'll just be content with knowing that all your pent up frustration from that toxic mindset you carry will eventually poison and destroy your very soul, no matter what you call yourself 'Muslim', 'Nubian', Alkebulanese, or whatever. In the end I hope you come around, but if you don't it will be no one's fault but your own. The Mr. Flame is a Quranic reference, we'll see if you get it, or understand why I said it that way. At best you'll just make up some excuse and detract away from your own ignorance, or atleast try to. And then throw in the empty Uncle Tom comments (or maybe some new insult you got up your sleeve) which is common fare already. That will be no suprise. Hopefully you'll turn around. In the mean time, i know you must take your own path, I just really hope you get it together.
May God guide you,
AnwarTHE END
"I swear, every time I read a post of yours you prove to me how bad the situation (of Afro-Americans, Afro-American Muslims and Muslims in general) really is"
Thats funny Anwar because everytime I read a post from you, you demonstrate what an UNCLE TOM you are.
"So what book are you using"
I'm using the Qur'aan and putting verses in proper context. You still have not shown a verse where Adam, or the original man or what every name or person or title you want to call him or it means humanity, mankind. All you have to do is produce the verse then we will have to submit to the truth.
"Obviously they won't give you the whole picture."
You have not came close to the surface yet because you still fail over and over and over again to produce just one verse that indicates Adam means humanity, mankind. Again Ahmad Bilal and I have shown you where it says that Adam is WAAHID and you can replace the name "Adam" if you want to and call him what ever name you want because at this point it does not matter but what matters is that we know from Qur'aan that the original man Allah created from which all of mankind came from is WAAHID (ONE) and your so-called dictionaries that you talk about have not provided you a verse either in the Qur'aan.
In closing it is starting to become a joke about you saying that "Adam" is not mentioned by name when it does not matter if the name or not is mentioned or what ever name that you want to call the original man Allah created as WAAHID and in addition this demonstrates that you never had an strong argument from the beginning and this is the only reason you keep going and going and going around in circles, thus as much time and energy you are putting in going around in cirlces you should use that same level of energy to produce just one verse that proves Adam means humanity, mankind or that there are more than one Adam.