Adam - 'blackskinned human' ?
-
Peace,
When this topic was originally discussed, everyone did research on the roots of the word. Here's something that Wakas came up with
The word in question...
From
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htmSad-Lam-Lam / Sad-Lam-Sad-Lam = to resound, clash, be dried up, emit a sound. sallatun - sound, clank, dry earth. salsaal - dry ringing clay, sounding/dried clay.
salsal n.m. 1526, 1528, 1533, 2533?, 5514
LL, V4, p 433, 434, 435
#####################################################
It is interesting that it implies that a form of vessel was created, ready for something to be put into it.
Ready for something to be "put into it". This can refer to internal organs and factors, all of which are NOT black (i.e. eyes, blood, muscles, bones, etc.)... The mud traces found within the human body were discovered in the SKIN, which the Qur'aan says was shaped by BLACK mud. So, why is it so hard to believe that Adam had black skin?
Like I said, if this passage openly said that Adam had "white" skin, people would jump all over this in defense of Adam's "whiteness". But because it says he was BLACK ("hamaa", people are skeptical and disbelieving, even though this conclusion is supported by science...
-
Peace,
When this topic was originally discussed, everyone did research on the roots of the word. Here's something that Wakas came up with
Ready for something to be "put into it". This can refer to internal organs and factors, all of which are NOT black (i.e. eyes, blood, muscles, bones, etc.)... The mud traces found within the human body were discovered in the SKIN, which the Qur'aan says was shaped by BLACK mud. So, why is it so hard to believe that Adam had black skin?
Like I said, if this passage openly said that Adam had "white" skin, people would jump all over this in defense of Adam's "whiteness". But because it says he was BLACK ("hamaa", people are skeptical and disbelieving, even though this conclusion is supported by science...
To be quite honest, I don't care if he was black, white, yellow, brown or blue with pink spots.
-
The problem is that the compund that makes the skin apparently black has no relation to black mud. So I say that this is just a speculation. But I don't disagree that the first humans were black but I think this has no relation to the color of the raw material they are made up of.
-
Unfortunately you are wrong when you say "science" supports it. It does not. All science can do at the moment is speculate on where humans first evolved. First they thought it was Europe or the Middle East, then Africa, then Asia. Who knows what colour they were a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Science can only base it's speculation on the earliest human remains that have been found, so far the oldest remains are not Adams.
-
Unfortunately you are wrong when you say "science" supports it. It does not. All science can do at the moment is speculate on where humans first evolved. First they thought it was Europe or the Middle East, then Africa, then Asia. Who knows what colour they were a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Science can only base it's speculation on the earliest human remains that have been found, so far the oldest remains are not Adams.
that is true!
-
Unfortunately you are wrong when you say "science" supports it. It does not. All science can do at the moment is speculate on where humans first evolved. First they thought it was Europe or the Middle East, then Africa, then Asia. Who knows what colour they were a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Science can only base it's speculation on the earliest human remains that have been found, so far the oldest remains are not Adams.
They don't have to be Adam's. If they are the oldest human remains to date, and they were of black people, then it's more likely to believe that the first humans were black people... Also, based on concepts of biogenetics, black people were the original inhabiters of the planet, since human melanin composition actively lowers over time. That's why it's IMPOSSIBLY for two white people to have a black child, while it is possible, under certain conditions, for two black people to have a white child. White (pale) skin was most likely caused by a recurring genetic deformity, stimulated by a melanin deficiency, resulting in albinism. Over time, when several people of a certain region, who all possess these same albino traits, reproduce, the result is an entire race of melanin deficient people (i.e. white people)...
These things are all carefully considered and explained in this thread, from a Qur'aanic viewpoint.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.0 -
The problem is that the compund that makes the skin apparently black has no relation to black mud. So I say that this is just a speculation. But I don't disagree that the first humans were black but I think this has no relation to the color of the raw material they are made up of.
Don't you think that's a little hypocritical? The Qur'aan says that humanity was created from BLACK mud, and you're admitting that the first humans were most likely BLACK people. Yet, these two ideas don't have anything to do with eachother?? Then, what is the point of the Qur'aan even mentioning the color of the mud in the first place? Allah could've easily said that humanity was simply created from mud/"salsaal". But instead, it specifically describes it's color. What is the purpose of this, if not to describe the color of Adam (and humanity)?
-
They don't have to be Adam's. If they are the oldest human remains to date, and they were of black people, then it's more likely to believe that the first humans were black people... Also, based on concepts of biogenetics, black people were the original inhabiters of the planet, since human melanin composition actively lowers over time. That's why it's IMPOSSIBLY for two white people to have a black child, while it is possible, under certain conditions, for two black people to have a white child. White (pale) skin was most likely caused by a recurring genetic deformity, stimulated by a melanin deficiency, resulting in albinism. Over time, when several people of a certain region, who all possess these same albino traits, reproduce, the result is an entire race of melanin deficient people (i.e. white people)...
These things are all carefully considered and explained in this thread, from a Qur'aanic viewpoint.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597416.0They didn't say they were black. The bones were just found in Africa. Don't forget about the so-called "Ice-man" He wasn't black and he is the oldest complete body found.
-
They didn't say they were black. The bones were just found in Africa. Don't forget about the so-called "Ice-man" He wasn't black and he is the oldest complete body found.
I guess this is true to an extent, but it doesn't change our perception of the world. 5000 years ago, the continent of Africa was full of BLACK Nubian people, and there were no white people anywhere around there. The ancient Egyptians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, Libyans, Moors, and everybody else was BLACK. So, if we consider the idea that the first human civilization was discovered in Africa, we can deduce that he was most likely an extremely dark-skinned person... Also, based on biogenetics, the composition of melanin would make it NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE for the first man to have been anything except BLACK. Many people are quick to believe that the Nubian people were dark because they were in hot climates, but this is not realistic and it's not scientific. Dark skin is a genetic trait, just like brown eyes and curly hair. If Adam was a pale-skinned (white) person, then he would've been incapable of producing black children, and there would be NO black people anywhere on this planet. And as we can see, this is definately not the case... Black civilizations are undoubtedly older than white (European) civilizations too, and they were accredited with more ancient scientific and historical contributions than any other group in the world. This is because they were here FIRST, stemming from "Adam", the FIRST human. So, based on deductive reasoning, Adam would've had to have been a BLACK man, and his wife was a BLACK woman...
It's not really important from a theological standpoint, at least not as much as many people make it out to be, but it is important. What makes it drastically important in certain circles is that (in general) white people keep denying it! That's why, as I mentioned before, there are so many images of a white Adam and white prophets, a white Jesus, and a white God. White is perceived as good and black as bad. They even claim that the stone in Mekka was originally white, but it turned BLACK because of all the sins of humanity! And it's trickled down to our present day too, both in theology and in everyday life. The figure satan is always pictured wearing black (or dark) colors, while angels are clothed in white. White cake with vanilla frosting is called "Angel Food", while dark chocolate cake is called "Devil's Food". White is the color of everything pure and righteous, and black is the color of everything filthy, evil, and sinful... If society wasn't trying to forcefully (and unethically) whitewash everything, we wouldn't even need to have discussions like this one. But unfortunately, they do, and therefore, we do...
By the way, scientists are estimating that the "iceman" lived around 4-5000 years ago, and they don't know what color he was, at least not specifically. However, the civilization of the ancient Zingh Empire is dated back to around 15,000 B.C., and the societies in Khemet (modern day Egypt) and Nubia-Kush, with their established rulerships and empires, have been dated to around 17,000 years ago! So, really, there's no comparison. The full body of the "iceman" is a lot newer than the BLACK civilizations of ancient Africa, further attesting to the fact that Adam was a black man.
-
I guess this is true to an extent, but it doesn't change our perception of the world. 5000 years ago, the continent of Africa was full of BLACK Nubian people, and there were no white people anywhere around there. The ancient Egyptians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, Libyans, Moors, and everybody else was BLACK. So, if we consider the idea that the first human civilization was discovered in Africa, we can deduce that he was most likely an extremely dark-skinned person... Also, based on biogenetics, the composition of melanin would make it NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE for the first man to have been anything except BLACK. Many people are quick to believe that the Nubian people were dark because they were in hot climates, but this is not realistic and it's not scientific. Dark skin is a genetic trait, just like brown eyes and curly hair. If Adam was a pale-skinned (white) person, then he would've been incapable of producing black children, and there would be NO black people anywhere on this planet. And as we can see, this is definately not the case... Black civilizations are undoubtedly older than white (European) civilizations too, and they were accredited with more ancient scientific and historical contributions than any other group in the world. This is because they were here FIRST, stemming from "Adam", the FIRST human. So, based on deductive reasoning, Adam would've had to have been a BLACK man, and his wife was a BLACK woman...
It's not really important from a theological standpoint, at least not as much as many people make it out to be, but it is important. What makes it drastically important in certain circles is that (in general) white people keep denying it! That's why, as I mentioned before, there are so many images of a white Adam and white prophets, a white Jesus, and a white God. White is perceived as good and black as bad. They even claim that the stone in Mekka was originally white, but it turned BLACK because of all the sins of humanity! And it's trickled down to our present day too, both in theology and in everyday life. The figure satan is always pictured wearing black (or dark) colors, while angels are clothed in white. White cake with vanilla frosting is called "Angel Food", while dark chocolate cake is called "Devil's Food". White is the color of everything pure and righteous, and black is the color of everything filthy, evil, and sinful... If society wasn't trying to forcefully (and unethically) whitewash everything, we wouldn't even need to have discussions like this one. But unfortunately, they do, and therefore, we do...
By the way, scientists are estimating that the "iceman" lived around 4-5000 years ago, and they don't know what color he was, at least not specifically. However, the civilization of the ancient Zingh Empire is dated back to around 15,000 B.C., and the societies in Khemet (modern day Egypt) and Nubia-Kush, with their established rulerships and empires, have been dated to around 17,000 years ago! So, really, there's no comparison. The full body of the "iceman" is a lot newer than the BLACK civilizations of ancient Africa, further attesting to the fact that Adam was a black man.
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.
-
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...