Adam - 'blackskinned human' ?
-
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.
-
AB, do you prefer baseless conjecture over the truth? Let us know what your Quran says.
What "baseless conjecture" did Al-Khidr refer to? Everything he said was derived from Al-Qur'aan and historical and archaeological research, and this is even pointed out on his website... So, please inform us of what "baseless conjecture" you're referring to...
-
I even quoted what I was referring to. But anyways, here it is again for you, simplified
And he was banned for speaking the truth.
Please show the forum the evidence for this statement, and if you cannot, then forum members can see if you prefer baseless conjecture over the truth, or not.
-
Ahmad...
Hamin, yes, can mean black and I see your point. However did you read where I said BLACK does not exist?? I took 2-D Dimensional Design and trust me, I know enough that the color black (or white) do not exist and or only theoretical. You will only get hues (or if that's not correct, shades) of black and white and you will never achieve the pure levels. Therefore I have to conclude that hamin must be used as with a different definition because if Adam was literally black then he would have been the darkest thing in the entire universe. It can mean black, but it will have to be a type of black (close to black) that is if it's used in this context. I'm sure you didn't mean he's pure black though.
I don't see how life originating in Africa means Adam was black, at least, not yet. I heard being white is a result of a lack of something in the skin people are 'supposed' to have (melanin is it?) therefore then yes Adam would be black as in dark-skinned.
About the wall drawings of black egyptians...honestly, I've seen more Egyptian wall drawings of tan-yellow ancient Egyptians than not. Why were those disregarded and only the drawings of blacks? Yes Ancient Egypt's Old/New Kingdom are old as hell but there are still far from being close to the time of the first man. I still think black skin has a relationship with the Sun. Sudan is practically the hottest country in the world and has the darkest people there. Latin America is somewhat under the equator so it has tan-ish people. Egypt is just as far away which is why most people there have the same Latin skin color. Then we look at upper Europe and Australia and we have people that are white as hell, and so on.
Heard it isn't really "proven" life started there and there are just many supportive findings to that theory. All in all I still don't see how the god implied Adam having black skin by his words (aside from scientific and archaelogical findings).
I see that hamin can also mean to bake/grill (regularly or hard) but notice just because something is heated up or grilled will not necessarily make it really dark or even dark at all. Besides if the end result was NOT CLAY (he was not clay but millions of skin cells and other types) why are we to think he was still BLACK (or baked) because I think a baked Adam is a dead Adam. Basically what am saying is it's possible that God started with black/baked clay but transformed it to something else completely. Why are we to think he was no longer clay BUT he was still black? Looks unreasonable.
Al-Khidr was banned?! Damn...he was an awesome black panther
Damn it Wanker! (kidding...)
-
Please show the forum the evidence for this statement, and if you cannot, then forum members can see if you prefer baseless conjecture over the truth, or not.
C'mon, don't be silly, Wakas. He was banned because he was making "offensive" remarks in the thread regarding Muhammad being a "white man". It's the same reason that thread was locked... The truth hurts, and many people heard what he was saying and read his evidence, and they were offended. He showed how racist the modern Islaamic world is, and people got mad about it. He called Anwar an "Uncle Tom", and Anwar got upset, even though he was making some pretty "Uncle Tom-ish" statements in that thread. One of the moderators got offended by his calling the Progressive Moslems a "cult" and said that they were spreading falsehoods, especially in relation to the "2-salaat idea", which he backed up with his own Qur'aanic evidence. Nobody was telling any lies, and nobody was blatantly disrespecting anyone. And afterwards, Al-Khidr even made a progressively insightful thread about the meaning for "yawm" for the concept of Allah creating the universe in "six days", saying that is was possibly referring to six periods or even six billion years. But he was still banned because of the "offense" he caused in the other thread, which had already been shut down...
To be realistic, that wasn't even the first time he's been banned. He seems to get "silenced" everytime he speaks on a controversial issue; when he starts getting too many other forum members to support him, the Free-Minds seem to suddenly get rid of him. I won't say that this is particularly what this group does, but it sure seems like it from my perception. I even talked to him offline regarding the circumstances of his being banned the last time, and it sounded pretty unreasonable (in my opinion)... If you want to call that "baseless conjecture", then that's your opinion and that's your choice, but I don't feel the same way at all. Other people on this website have been identified and targeted as well (I won't mention any names), and it's just as unfair, from my perspective. It's what makes the Free-Minds appear cultish and biased... You don't have to acknowledge anything to me or anyone else on here; again, that's your choice. But in the end, Allah will openly expose everyone and everything, and nothing beyond His sight.
-
Peace Meteora,
I see where you're going with your argument, and perhaps you're correct. We'll never really know exactly what the scripture is referring to when it says "salsaalin min hamaain" until Allah informs us on the day of requittal. So, I guess only time will tell...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Meteora,
I see where you're going with your argument, and perhaps you're correct. We'll never really know exactly what the scripture is referring to when it says "salsaalin min hamaain" until Allah informs us on the day of requittal. So, I guess only time will tell...
Peace,
Ahmad
I guess God has alot of telling to do. D
-
AB,
Thanks for admitting he was being "offensive", calling people names etc. You even admit he was banned before, for the same thing I might add. We actually gave him a 2nd chance, knowing he was posting again, to see if he had changed his ways, but it seems he couldn't resist offending people, name-calling etc.
And as for your other baseless conjecture no-one as long as I have been moderator has ever been banned for speaking on controversial issues, or because the truth hurt. If that ever did happen, I would resign as moderator, and I am sure other mods would too. Personally, I love being corrected/learning, and you will often find me thanking the person who clarified/corrected my view. Any long term member of this site, such as yourself, will know moderators/admin often disagree on topics, but as long as Quranic etiquette is followed, evidence presented etc it's all good between us.
The golden rule keep it constructive, not destructive.
-
Thanks for admitting he was being "offensive", calling people names etc. You even admit he was banned before, for the same thing I might add. We actually gave him a 2nd chance, knowing he was posting again, to see if he had changed his ways, but it seems he couldn't resist offending people, name-calling etc.
And as for your other baseless conjecture no-one as long as I have been moderator has ever been banned for speaking on controversial issues, or because the truth hurt. If that ever did happen, I would resign as moderator, and I am sure other mods would too. Personally, I love being corrected/learning, and you will often find me thanking the person who clarified/corrected my view. Any long term member of this site, such as yourself, will know moderators/admin often disagree on topics, but as long as Quranic etiquette is followed, evidence presented etc it's all good between us.
The golden rule keep it constructive, not destructive.
Okay, I can agree with that. We should definately all try to be constructive, not destructive...
