The True Arabs
-
You are right, it really doesn't matter. bravo
yes yay yay I does noot!
-
Again you guys, especially Rev, are missing the point. It's good to have knowledge. And I think we all know that the ancient Israelites were not as white as Northern Europeans ( I think rev was trying to say it is equally ridiculous to say that the ancient Israelites and Arabs were black is equal to saying that they wer white as northern Europeans. And this is a lie and a misconception that is deeper than even he understands). The only people that find it repulsive that ancient Israelites or Ancient Arabs were black are white people (or people who have been convinced that they are only white). Why? A book can be written to address this (and many books have) so I will not dig too deep. This is the illness of the Eurocentric psyche. In the end our color and our ethnicities do not matter much before God, but it is always good for us to know who we are and where we come from. It is also good to dispell lies and speak the truth. Yes these are minor truths in the end but the lies that cover them up can create distortions of major proportions.
Godbless,
AnwarI think perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I agree with you that knowledge is good and something that most humans strive to obtain. I was being sarcastic about the common belief of western Europeans (including Americans) that all the people in the bible are white, well of course none of them were (taking the western standards of "white". I don't think I missed the point, I just find it incredible that people put so much importance on colour.
-
Peace,
I see where you are coming from but when we are living in the later parts of an era of world-wide European influence where color was EVERYTHING, and their explanation for the circumstances of mankind (and they meant that they were superior because they were white and others were inferior because they were brown). This ideology being so extreme as to deny that many ancient peoples including ancient Egyptians, Ancient Arabs, Ancient Hebrews, and Ancient Indians were some form of Black and that the ancient Greeks were mixed (and their culture greatly influenced by the ancient Egyptians), even despite the obvious results of admixture in the native modern day populations, or despite historical records from Greeks and Romans and even native records. Not to mention the total and intentional ignorance about Sahelian and Subsaharan African empires and other black and brown peoples achievements around the globe and the influences on European and Western culture . .. .it's no wonder that this 'color' issue becomes important, because Europeans and their diaspora will claim that all civilization began with some sort white people, even to the point of calling obviously black and mixed peope, white when convenient (Somalis, Ethiopians, Arabs, Berbers, Copts, Dravidians). And people have to struggle and fight the norm in order to sift through the lies and the cultural falsities that many think are NORMAL today. It's not so much about skin color, Rev, (and skin color is not the only determination of race, or rather human varities) but it is more about culture than anything. It is a battle to get THROUGH the cultural barriers and historic lies that have been told by Western Civilization which were created to concoct the perception that anything European or derived from Europe is apart of a superior culture or legacy and anything not . . . well it has no worth. All this has historical and psychological reasons and it is NO WAY innate in anyone's race or skin color. And I think most people know that this is not innate in anyone's race or skin color. (Maybe except for Western Europeans and their diaspora who always overemphasize the skin color aspect of these issues). Unfortunately these false 'norms' that have been ingrained in our culture are also ingrained into our thought patterns (because of the cultures we grew up in that are a product of Eurocentric influence or Eurocentrism itself.). The color of people is not what is so important as is exposing the lies. Did you know that the original Arabs were black and that there are still many native (non-immigrant derived) black Arabs? Did you know that light skinned Arabs are the product of heavy mixture with Persians and other Caucasiod peoples from the North? If you didn't know, than this has added to your knowledge and possible destroyed a lie that you may have been told or that someone may have told you in the future and that you would have resorted to in a discussion that you might have had one day about who and what the Arabs are and their origins. Again it's not about skin color it is only about truth, adding to our knowledge and exposing any lies.
Godbless,
AnwarForgive any spelling mistakes.
-
Peace,
I see where you are coming from but when we are living in the later parts of an era of world-wide European influence where color was EVERYTHING, and their explanation for the circumstances of mankind (and they meant that they were superior because they were white and others were inferior because they were brown). This ideology being so extreme as to deny that many ancient peoples including ancient Egyptians, Ancient Arabs, Ancient Hebrews, and Ancient Indians were some form of Black and that the ancient Greeks were mixed (and their culture greatly influenced by the ancient Egyptians), even despite the obvious results of admixture in the native modern day populations, or despite historical records from Greeks and Romans and even native records. Not to mention the total and intentional ignorance about Sahelian and Subsaharan African empires and other black and brown peoples achievements around the globe and the influences on European and Western culture . .. .it's no wonder that this 'color' issue becomes important, because Europeans and their diaspora will claim that all civilization began with some sort white people, even to the point of calling obviously black and mixed peope, white when convenient (Somalis, Ethiopians, Arabs, Berbers, Copts, Dravidians). And people have to struggle and fight the norm in order to sift through the lies and the cultural falsities that many think are NORMAL today. It's not so much about skin color, Rev, (and skin color is not the only determination of race, or rather human varities) but it is more about culture than anything. It is a battle to get THROUGH the cultural barriers and historic lies that have been told by Western Civilization which were created to concoct the perception that anything European or derived from Europe is apart of a superior culture or legacy and anything not . . . well it has no worth. All this has historical and psychological reasons and it is NO WAY innate in anyone's race or skin color. And I think most people know that this is not innate in anyone's race or skin color. (Maybe except for Western Europeans and their diaspora who always overemphasize the skin color aspect of these issues). Unfortunately these false 'norms' that have been ingrained in our culture are also ingrained into our thought patterns (because of the cultures we grew up in that are a product of Eurocentric influence or Eurocentrism itself.). The color of people is not what is so important as is exposing the lies. Did you know that the original Arabs were black and that there are still many native (non-immigrant derived) black Arabs? Did you know that light skinned Arabs are the product of heavy mixture with Persians and other Caucasiod peoples from the North? If you didn't know, than this has added to your knowledge and possible destroyed a lie that you may have been told or that someone may have told you in the future and that you would have resorted to in a discussion that you might have had one day about who and what the Arabs are and their origins. Again it's not about skin color it is only about truth, adding to our knowledge and exposing any lies.
Godbless,
AnwarForgive any spelling mistakes.
I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you. I was very lucky, even though I was brought up in London, my family were not prejudiced in any way (except perhaps my mothers mistrust of Germans after living through WW2), so I have little understanding of colour or problems with different cultures.
-
Peace,
If there was any confusion it can be clarified here. Check the following link out and ask any of the Arabs here to verify, Samia, Ahmad Baghat and Layth are some who can confirm this for you.
http//www.savethetruearabs.blogspot.com/
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
If there was any confusion it can be clarified here. Check the following link out and ask any of the Arabs here to verify, Samia, Ahmad Baghat and Layth are some who can confirm this for you.
http//www.savethetruearabs.blogspot.com/
Godbless,
AnwarI understand what it is trying to say. But most of it comes from the hadiths.
-
Peace,
Yeah that doesn't matter so much as it is not so much about religious guidance or events in history but it is opening a doorway into Arab culture and perceptions about themselves at that time (early islam and pre-Islam). A time when there were still many Arabs who had not mixed so intensely with all of the poeples they conquered to the north and the large numbers of slaves from Turkey, Eastern Europe, Persia, Rome and other places that they would bring into the area later on. And even during the time of the Hadeeth the arabization was just beginning (although pre-islam there were periodic influxes of people into the region before these people were known as Arabs). We consider Bukhari an Arab now, but he was a Persian then. Tirmidhi and even Muslim I believe were Persians as well. THe hadeeth can be used as a linguistic source and a source of the perceptions of Muslims in the early days of Islam post-Quran and post-last prophet. But as it concerns historical accuracy the subjects have to be at the very least mutawaatir in meaning to be considered possibly true and mutawaatir in isnad to be considered true. But this only concerns historical accuracy describing events and the life of our last prophet or other early Muslims. I don't believe in the acension the way the hadeeth tells it (the last prophet visting Moses and other prophets, God bless them all-at different levels in the heavens). But the fact that the Arabs of early Islam imagined him as tall and black like the tribe of shamu'ah says something about the Arabs' perception of themselves and how they imagined the ancient Israelites and possibly even saw the Israelite Jews of their time. And so on and so on. You get my point.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Yeah that doesn't matter so much as it is not so much about religious guidance or events in history but it is opening a doorway into Arab culture and perceptions about themselves at that time (early islam and pre-Islam). A time when there were still many Arabs who had not mixed so intensely with all of the poeples they conquered to the north and the large numbers of slaves from Turkey, Eastern Europe, Persia, Rome and other places that they would bring into the area later on. And even during the time of the Hadeeth the arabization was just beginning (although pre-islam there were periodic influxes of people into the region before these people were known as Arabs). We consider Bukhari an Arab now, but he was a Persian then. Tirmidhi and even Muslim I believe were Persians as well. THe hadeeth can be used as a linguistic source and a source of the perceptions of Muslims in the early days of Islam post-Quran and post-last prophet. But as it concerns historical accuracy the subjects have to be at the very least mutawaatir in meaning to be considered possibly true and mutawaatir in isnad to be considered true. But this only concerns historical accuracy describing events and the life of our last prophet or other early Muslims. I don't believe in the acension the way the hadeeth tells it (the last prophet visting Moses and other prophets, God bless them all-at different levels in the heavens). But the fact that the Arabs of early Islam imagined him as tall and black like the tribe of shamu'ah says something about the Arabs' perception of themselves and how they imagined the ancient Israelites and possibly even saw the Israelite Jews of their time. And so on and so on. You get my point.
Godbless,
AnwarYes I see your point. I think it is obvious that Jesus was a lot darker skinned that he is portrayed.
-
Peace to all,
Personally, I think race should definately be examined more closely in relation to today's religious systems, especially in reference to Islaam, Christianity, and Judaism. There has been so much racism promoted in all of those systems throughout the world, and even in Arab society, a black man is frequently called "abd", meaning slave or servant. Blacks are also often looked down upon by Jews, and American and European societies are proof in themselves that Christianity has often embraced hatred of black people and African culture. If people knew the truth - that the original humans, Asiatics, Egyptians, Hebrews, Israelites, Arabs, Nazarenes, etc. were BLACK PEOPLE - then maybe they wouldn't hold onto such ridiculous hatreds. In the meantime, though, religious groups are perfectly fine with painting a picture of a white Adam, a white Moses, a white Jesus, a white Muhammad, and a white god! That's a major flaw in the world today...
-
People paint white Muhammads? If a black slave called Bilal was mentioned, why was such a distinction made if Muhammad's people were black? Why would God be a specific colour?
Not disputing the rest however and I think the only way that they can be proven once and for all to everybody would be to take a time machine and get pictures. Because each camp brings up their sources, their proofs and one can believe in either side unless something undeniable comes up.
-
Not disputing the rest however and I think the only way that they can be proven once and for all to everybody would be to take a time machine and get pictures. Because each camp brings up their sources, their proofs and one can believe in either side unless something undeniable comes up.
bravo bravo
-
People paint white Muhammads? If a black slave called Bilal was mentioned, why was such a distinction made if Muhammad's people were black? Why would God be a specific colour?
Yes, I've seen people paint portraits of what white Muhammad. Even more blatant, in my opinion, I've seen people actually display pictures of a white (European) Moses, even though his biographical sketch clearly says that he was raised among the black Egyptians! It's just been history's choice to "whitewash" the entire history of humanity, starting with Adam, even to the point of recognizing hadiyths that claim that all black people are destined for hell and all white people are destined for heaven. Here's some good information on this, that we discussed in a previous thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg188549#msg188549And of course Allah Himself isn't any specific color (in the physical sense), since He is invisible and omnipresent. But instead of accepting this concept, Christians have painted pictures of a "white god" reaching his "white hand" out to a "white Adam". They've painted distorted pictures of his "son" as a white man, and since a son depicts the image of his father, they're inadvertantly saying that their god is white. Bilal is often rejected in the hadiyths, and according to these stories, he was rejected by nearly all the followers of Muhammad after his death, even by his wife Aisha!
Personally, I don't think we should base our beliefs on the concept of race and color. But many people throughout the world don't feel the same way. So, in order to eliminate racism and discrimination within the fold of Islaam, we have to expose the truth for what it is...
-
Yes, I've seen people paint portraits of what white Muhammad. Even more blatant, in my opinion, I've seen people actually display pictures of a white (European) Moses, even though his biographical sketch clearly says that he was raised among the black Egyptians! It's just been history's choice to "whitewash" the entire history of humanity, starting with Adam, even to the point of recognizing hadiyths that claim that all black people are destined for hell and all white people are destined for heaven. Here's some good information on this, that we discussed in a previous thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.msg188549#msg188549And of course Allah Himself isn't any specific color (in the physical sense), since He is invisible and omnipresent. But instead of accepting this concept, Christians have painted pictures of a "white god" reaching his "white hand" out to a "white Adam". They've painted distorted pictures of his "son" as a white man, and since a son depicts the image of his father, they're inadvertantly saying that their god is white. Bilal is often rejected in the hadiyths, and according to these stories, he was rejected by nearly all the followers of Muhammad after his death, even by his wife Aisha!
Personally, I don't think we should base our beliefs on the concept of race and color. But many people throughout the world don't feel the same way. So, in order to eliminate racism and discrimination within the fold of Islaam, we have to expose the truth for what it is...
Unfortunately God is generally depicted as an old white man with long white hair and a long white beard. I am quite sure God does not look like that, what use would a beard be to him? or long hair? why would he be white? why would he be old? why would he be a man? No one knows what God looks like.
-
Unfortunately God is generally depicted as an old white man with long white hair and a long white beard. I am quite sure God does not look like that, what use would a beard be to him? or long hair? why would he be white? why would he be old? why would he be a man? No one knows what God looks like.
Exactly. And if God is incorporeal, then He had no physical form anyway; He doesn't "look" like anything. The Qur'aan clearly says that nothing is equal or comparable to Him (Q. 1124). But this doesn't stop them from painting those paintings and drawing those drawings...
-
Exactly. And if God is incorporeal, then He had no physical form anyway; He doesn't "look" like anything. The Qur'aan clearly says that nothing is equal or comparable to Him (Q. 1124). But this doesn't stop them from painting those paintings and drawing those drawings...
Exactly! that's why the ancient israelites named him YHVH = He Who Was, Is and Will Be, as He is uncomparable to anything except Himself... And that's also why in the traditions, it's forbidden to draw / paint any icon / symbol / statue for Him.
(But apparently that also doesn't stop people to put Yod-He-Vav-He and/or Alef-Lam-Ha as 'symbol' for Him, declaring them as His "true name"..Salam / Peace
-
Exactly! that's why the ancient israelites named him YHVH = He Who Was, Is and Will Be, as He is uncomparable to anything except Himself... And that's also why in the traditions, it's forbidden to draw / paint any icon / symbol / statue for Him.
(But apparently that also doesn't stop people to put Yod-He-Vav-He and/or Alef-Lam-Ha as 'symbol' for Him, declaring them as His "true name"..Salam / Peace
Why would God have a name? If he is the supreme being and the only one, who is there to name him? Why would he need a name?
-
Why would God have a name? If he is the supreme being and the only one, who is there to name him? Why would he need a name?
I agree! names are just names! we use them to differenciate between different things! )
-
Peace Jafar,
Exactly! that's why the ancient israelites named him YHVH = He Who Was, Is and Will Be, as He is uncomparable to anything except Himself... And that's also why in the traditions, it's forbidden to draw / paint any icon / symbol / statue for Him.
(But apparently that also doesn't stop people to put Yod-He-Vav-He and/or Alef-Lam-Ha as 'symbol' for Him, declaring them as His "true name"..I completely agree with you on this...