Adam - 'blackskinned human' ?
-
I understand your argument, and agree with you that it really does not matter one way or another, but it would be very interesting to know. All I am trying to do is point out that there can be no way that we can prove or disprove the colour of the early humans any further back than a thousand years or two with our present day science, nor can we assume anything. As far as we know he could have been green.
rotfl I guess that's true... A green Adam... laugh
-
Ahmad,
You keep using the terms white people and black people of which there is no such thing. There are people who happen to be of different shades and different heights, weights, et cetera. The divisive nature of the idea of race can be put into more divisive ideas where we can have people under 6 feet being one type of people, and people over 6 feet another type of people. We can now have mesomorphs be a different type of peoples from ectomorphs. Whether the first people were dark or light, or neither really does not matter because people come in various shades. Dark people could easily be Germans, or have been Hitlers and Aryans, as light people could easily have been enslaved for 400 years in America. Actually light people were enslaved in America. Organs themselves could easily be classified as vessels where you "put something into".
Joe
-
Ahmad,
You keep using the terms white people and black people of which there is no such thing. There are people who happen to be of different shades and different heights, weights, et cetera. The divisive nature of the idea of race can be put into more divisive ideas where we can have people under 6 feet being one type of people, and people over 6 feet another type of people. We can now have mesomorphs be a different type of peoples from ectomorphs. Whether the first people were dark or light, or neither really does not matter because people come in various shades. Dark people could easily be Germans, or have been Hitlers and Aryans, as light people could easily have been enslaved for 400 years in America. Actually light people were enslaved in America. Organs themselves could easily be classified as vessels where you "put something into".
Joe
You are right of course. White people were slaves in America, in fact many of the early settlers were white "Indentured Servants" (just another name for slave). The Irish, Chinese, Some of the English, made up the majority of the slaves for many years. Genghis Kahn was not white, nor was Hannibal.
-
Peace
Yea, even those who were not indentured servants were slaves. This is why light people up north feared the system of slavery because the light slaves with sandy colored hair and blue eyes mentioned in the flyers could easily be themselves and they could be snatched up into slavery even though they never were slaves, like some dark people were never slaves, and be forced into slavery.
Joe
-
Peace Joe,
You keep using the terms white people and black people of which there is no such thing. There are people who happen to be of different shades and different heights, weights, et cetera. The divisive nature of the idea of race can be put into more divisive ideas where we can have people under 6 feet being one type of people, and people over 6 feet another type of people. We can now have mesomorphs be a different type of peoples from ectomorphs. Whether the first people were dark or light, or neither really does not matter because people come in various shades. Dark people could easily be Germans, or have been Hitlers and Aryans, as light people could easily have been enslaved for 400 years in America.
I actually agree with you on this point...
Actually light people were enslaved in America. Organs themselves could easily be classified as vessels where you "put something into".
I disagree with this. Our organs are not black, and light people (collectively) were NOT slaves in America, especially not to the same extent as the dark African people. There's no comparison...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Yea, even those who were not indentured servants were slaves. This is why light people up north feared the system of slavery because the light slaves with sandy colored hair and blue eyes mentioned in the flyers could easily be themselves and they could be snatched up into slavery even though they never were slaves, like some dark people were never slaves, and be forced into slavery.
So, you're comparing this to the African people who were kidnapped from their homes; forced into slavery for hundreds of years; stripped of their names, cultures, languages, religions, and education; tortured, beaten, raped, and slaughtered; and taught to hate themselves? Is this what happened to the light people?! Like I said, there is NO COMPARISON...
-
So, you're comparing this to the African people who were kidnapped from their homes; forced into slavery for hundreds of years; stripped of their names, cultures, languages, religions, and education; tortured, beaten, raped, and slaughtered; and taught to hate themselves? Is this what happened to the light people?! Like I said, there is NO COMPARISON...
But were they not kidnapped by their own people or by neighbouring tribes and sold into slavery? I do not know as I wasn't there, I can only go by what people tell me.
-
Ahmad,
You keep using the terms white people and black people of which there is no such thing. There are people who happen to be of different shades and different heights, weights, et cetera. The divisive nature of the idea of race can be put into more divisive ideas where we can have people under 6 feet being one type of people, and people over 6 feet another type of people. We can now have mesomorphs be a different type of peoples from ectomorphs. Whether the first people were dark or light, or neither really does not matter because people come in various shades. Dark people could easily be Germans, or have been Hitlers and Aryans, as light people could easily have been enslaved for 400 years in America. Actually light people were enslaved in America. Organs themselves could easily be classified as vessels where you "put something into".
Joe
Peace
Good points, Joe. Doesn't 7/12 contrasts our being created from mud with iblis/jinn being created from (smokeless)fire? In fact, we can't find a single verse where satan isn't "involved", so to speak. Ha-mim-alif is used metaphorically, to me, in 18/86.
4/28 says Insaan was created weak. I am guessing people can see the problem with this...
-
Good points, Joe. Doesn't 7/12 contrasts our being created from mud with iblis/jinn being created from (smokeless)fire? In fact, we can't find a single verse where satan isn't "involved", so to speak. Ha-mim-alif is used metaphorically, to me, in 18/86.
No offense, but that's a ridiculous argument, period. If the "hamaa"/black was metaphoric, then that is also saying that the "salsaal"/mud or clay is metaphoric too. But it's not. Science is now saying that humans were actually formed from mud (or a clay-like substance), and they're claiming that we evolved from earth-born creatures... So, how can "black" be metaphorical, but not "mud"?!
Like I said, if the passage said Adam was shaped from "salsaalin min abyaadin"/white mud, most of you would be ecstatically jumping for joy, and you'd be alleging BLASPHEMY to anyone who claimed that Adam had black skin... But whatever, think what you want. Allah knows best, and He certainly declares His signs to the knowledgeable...
-
But were they not kidnapped by their own people or by neighbouring tribes and sold into slavery? I do not know as I wasn't there, I can only go by what people tell me.
That's a myth, bro. Most of the African people were forcefully kidnapped by the conquering European colonists, while others were bought and/or stolen from the Arabs. None of them willingly went, and none of them were sold by their own tribesmen...
-
Ok, the article about the prophets being black...
How is God saying "we chose Adam, Noah, Abraham etc." and saying they are descendants of one another confirm they are black? Because if we are all decsendants of Adam (and we are...) shouldn't then this logic be saying we're "black" as well? It was said not long ago here that if a black mixes in a bloodline than there can never be a white. Well, since we all descended from a black man...none of us can be black. Again, by this logic.
Not saying it's false, but that article made it seem like God "chose" only black people which is wrong and skin color doesn't mean crap to the god, and if skin color was that important one would think the god would've mentioned it even once in his fully detailed book.
Peace.
-
Ok, the article about the prophets being black...
How is God saying "we chose Adam, Noah, Abraham etc." and saying they are descendants of one another confirm they are black? Because if we are all decsendants of Adam (and we are...) shouldn't then this logic be saying we're "black" as well? It was said not long ago here that if a black mixes in a bloodline than there can never be a white. Well, since we all descended from a black man...none of us can be black. Again, by this logic.
Not saying it's false, but that article made it seem like God "chose" only black people which is wrong and skin color doesn't mean crap to the god, and if skin color was that important one would think the god would've mentioned it even once in his fully detailed book.
What article are you talking about?
-
No offense, but that's a ridiculous argument, period. If the "hamaa"/black was metaphoric, then that is also saying that the "salsaal"/mud or clay is metaphoric too. But it's not. Science is now saying that humans were actually formed from mud (or a clay-like substance), and they're claiming that we evolved from earth-born creatures... So, how can "black" be metaphorical, but not "mud"?!
Like I said, if the passage said Adam was shaped from "salsaalin min abyaadin"/white mud, most of you would be ecstatically jumping for joy, and you'd be alleging BLASPHEMY to anyone who claimed that Adam had black skin... But whatever, think what you want. Allah knows best, and He certainly declares His signs to the knowledgeable...
So, how can "black" be metaphorical, but not "mud"?!
Did the quran use mud metaphorically? I look at the quran and see how it uses its words, same as any other book I would read.
I am looking at the quran and how it uses 'black' and It has used it metaphorically. It also says that Iblis is created from smokeless fire IN THE SAME VERSE, this guy who is everywhere at once. Try taking that literally.
The quran says that Insaan (adam is insaan btw) was created weak... Why don't you take this literally?
-
Peace
Like I said, there is NO COMPARISON...
Light people were never wronged or experienced hardships. )
I believe all people have some hardship/s they deal with. See once again you are debating how dark people have had it worse than some other people, they very same people from the very same ancestors! All those dark people really had it bad in the Holocaust right? All those dark people really suffered during world war 1 and 2. All those dark people really suffered when those bombs were dropped over Japan. Give me a break. Slavery is bad for mankind. Slavery is not a thing for dark folks, because it has been practiced with all people. Ethnic cleansing happens in European nations all the time, that's light against light. Dark people have sold other dark people into slavery. What's the said difference between light and dark people? The smallest perception of difference sought by those to be divisive.
Joe
-
Did the quran use mud metaphorically? I look at the quran and see how it uses its words, same as any other book I would read.
I am looking at the quran and how it uses 'black' and It has used it metaphorically. It also says that Iblis is created from smokeless fire IN THE SAME VERSE, this guy who is everywhere at once. Try taking that literally.
None of these are particularly metaphorical, at least not to a blatant degree. There is NOTHING that says that "Iblis" is everywhere at once; that's outrageous! Allah is the ONLY omnipresent Being, and there is nothing like Him... The Qur'aan stating that man was shaped from "mud" is literal, not metaphorical. Therefore, the color of it ("black" must also be literal. Besides, how could you derive a metaphorical connotation to "black mud"? What is "hamaa"/black symbolic of?!
The scripture never says that "Iblis" was shaped from smokeless fire, it says the "jinn" were made from this substance, and it's NOT in the same verse... Now, the passage that you're speaking about (Q. 712) is contrasting humankind shaped from "mud" versus Iblis shaped from "fire". Sure, this can be relayed symbolically, insisting that Iblis was created as with FIERY temperament, while men were created to be LOWLY like the dirt. These can be cited as metaphorical references, and this is easily explained when comparing the idea of humanity being created "with haste" (or hasty, impatient). However, in the other passage, other terms are used with no metaphoric context (i.e. "smokeless" and "black". So, how are these terms metaphorical? What do they mean?
The quran says that Insaan (adam is insaan btw) was created weak... Why don't you take this literally?
C'mon, man, you have to come harder than that... ) The 2 preceding verses (Q. 426-27) show, by the context, exactly what the passage is talking about. This is understood to be LITERAL. It doesn't necessarily mean that he is PHYSICALLY weak, but it does mean that man is created with weakness.
-
There is NOTHING that says that "Iblis" is everywhere at once; that's outrageous!
Please read 7/11-17 and 17/62. Iblis (singular) says he will do this by himself to most of us...If that's not enough, the devil/asshaytan is to mankind a clear enemy (12/5)
Besides, how could you derive a metaphorical connotation to "black mud"? What is "hamaa"/black symbolic of?!
Dark nature;Our inclination to follow the jinn. The malaika say that most of us were BELIEVERS in the jinn (34/41)... I am not referring to the color of the skin here, but the substance we were created from. Just because adam was created from 'black mud' doesn't make his skin black, this is a logical leap...
The scripture never says that "Iblis" was shaped from smokeless fire, it says the "jinn" were made from this substance, and it's NOT in the same verse
Iblis is not a jinn? Please read 18/50, Iblis kana min aljinni.
Correct; not the same verse. My mistake. However, our creation and the creation of the jinn is always mentioned "together", not necessarily the same verse. E.g. 15/26-27
-
What article are you talking about?
The one posted my Al-khidr, the black panther. O0 sun
I understand your theory that salsalin must mean just the outer appearance and all, but here are some questions...I'll first ask some regular than some important ones.
-
Hamin means black? Then what is sood because I thought that meant black in Arabic. Also I realized some translations say BAKED clay which I would have to agree with, since "hammara" means to bake/crisp something like in an oven, and hamin at least sounds similar. Besides, BLACK technically does not exist. Therefore the conclusion I come to is that Adam was colored but there's no proof he's black as in African-American black with the corresponding facial features and hair etc. That is wishful thinking. Most surely he was a colored man like every single creature let alone human is colored. Again white and black does not exist.
-
Two people can argue all day that black/baked/colored clay is symbolic and not, so this can be dropped...
-
In that article a wall drawing of black ancient Egyptians was used for the Adam was black argument. These people were countless generatations (as in we don't know which) that came after Adam so...we might as well use a picture of people from the Harlem Renaissance and say it proves Adam's "black" skin.
Well the following is just one important one.
If we are so sure that Adam was a black man than why doesn't the Quran just say he had black skin? Would you think people would debate it if it said this? Also I can't say I agree that if the God said he made him out of white clay, that people would defend it so badly. In fact I don't see how a racist is a muslim, and from what I can see there are enough defenders of the "Adam was a black man" theory on here so from the looks of things it doesn't seem there are too many ant-black people.
By the way this browse freakings sucks. I can't even see what I'm typing....so if there are typos, ignore them.
By the way I'm not anti-black or anything. The last thing I'll consider doing is disbelieving in God. That by the way would equate to what I think the God is implying.
-
-
Meteora,
The one posted my Al-khidr, the black panther.
I'll admit that sometimes Brother Al-Khidr wasn't as "tactful" as some other people are when they post on certain issues, but he spoke TRUTH. And he was banned for speaking the truth. So, I definately have to give that brother credit for the numerous contributions he made when it comes to the honest, underlying understanding of Islaam... Did you check out his website?
- Hamin means black? Then what is sood because I thought that meant black in Arabic. Also I realized some translations say BAKED clay which I would have to agree with, since "hammara" means to bake/crisp something like in an oven, and hamin at least sounds similar. Besides, BLACK technically does not exist. Therefore the conclusion I come to is that Adam was colored but there's no proof he's black as in African-American black with the corresponding facial features and hair etc. That is wishful thinking. Most surely he was a colored man like every single creature let alone human is colored. Again white and black does not exist.
The Qur'aan actually says that he was shaped from BLACK mud, and "baked" is not a proper rendering of this. That's why so many other translators interpreted this passage correctly; only those with hidden agendas didn't translate it properly. Here's what "hamaa" means, according to it's root
Ha-Miim = To heat or melt something, to be or become hot, to become black, to be rendered black by heat, to be affected with fever, hasten the going or departure of (a camel), to decree or appoint a thing or matter, blacken one's face with charcoal, approach or draw near to someone, desire/seek to obtain or demand something from a person, to be affected with confusion/perplexity/fear/impatience/anxiety, to be disquieted or agitated or grieved. To clean out mud (from a well). Hama?un black feted mud, mud transmuted or moulded into shape, slack mud.
401, 411, 421, 431, 441, 451, 461
And
Ha-Miim-Alif = Black and fetid mud, to cleanse the well of it , to be mixed with black and fetid mud, to be rendered turbid and altered in odour, to be angry with someone, paternal uncle, a certain plant that grows in Nejd in the sands or in the plain and soft land, a man of an evil eye, to injure with the evil eye.
hama n.m. 1526, 1528, 1533
hami n.m. 1886
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 271, 272, 273, 274
The basic meaning for the word "hamaa" is BLACK...
- In that article a wall drawing of black ancient Egyptians was used for the Adam was black argument. These people were countless generatations (as in we don't know which) that came after Adam so...we might as well use a picture of people from the Harlem Renaissance and say it proves Adam's "black" skin.
I disagree. The ancient Egyptians were MUCH closer to an original genealogy than we are today. Most of the people of the Harlem Renaissance were products of intermixing throughout history. The ancient Egyptians and Nubians, however, stayed within their own nations and cultures when it came to mixing and reproducing. Therefore, they were closer to looking like "Adam" than anyone else, just like the other African nations during that time period... This was the same doctrine of the ancient Jews and Hebrews. They were actually prohibited from mixing with other nations, and they were ONLY allowed to reproduce with other people of the Jewish nation, to keep the bloodline "clean and pure". It wasn't until much later that they started intermixing with other nations and converting Gentiles. This is why the ancient Jews and Hebrews would be a better depiction of "Adam" than the modern ones, and the ancient Jews were BLACK too, just like the ancient Africans and Arabs...
If we are so sure that Adam was a black man than why doesn't the Quran just say he had black skin? Would you think people would debate it if it said this? Also I can't say I agree that if the God said he made him out of white clay, that people would defend it so badly. In fact I don't see how a racist is a muslim, and from what I can see there are enough defenders of the "Adam was a black man" theory on here so from the looks of things it doesn't seem there are too many ant-black people.
Did you read Brother Al-Khidr's site about the racism in modern Islaam?
http//kushite.webs.com/The Qur'aan DOES say that Adam had black skin; this is detailed by it saying that man was formed from black mud, at least this is my interpretation. And it seems to be confirmed by modern science and archaeology. There shouldn't be any debate on this, but there is...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
I'll admit that sometimes Brother Al-Khidr wasn't as "tactful" as some other people are when they post on certain issues, but he spoke TRUTH. And he was banned for speaking the truth.
AB, do you prefer baseless conjecture over the truth? Let us know what your Quran says.
