aoa guys,

what is the best way to control oneself from committing actions one commits without wanting to and then feels guilty about doing that (asks repentance and makes a promise with Allah that he/she will not commit the action again but it happens again and again).

thanks in advance )

My first guess? Remembrance of Allah.

If a person has to prostrate themselves and recite Qu'ran nonstop for several whole days to keep from committing this act, then that is what they have to do. If it doesn't take that much, then they are fortunate to have superior self-control.

Here are some verses

Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee and establish Regular Prayer for Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds; and remembrance of Allah is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt. And Allah knows the (deeds) that ye do. 2945

Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee and establish Regular Prayer for Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds; and remembrance of Allah is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt. And Allah knows the (deeds) that ye do. 2945

Those who fear Allah when a thought of evil from satan assaults them bring Allah to remembrance when lo! they see (aright)! 7201

O ye who believe! when ye meet a force be firm and call Allah in remembrance much (and often); that ye may prosper. 845

I hope this helps in some way!

Of course they do... people are always trying to find that one thing that sets them apart from everyone else and makes them special above other men... it's a pride thing. How much more so when you're already the world's elite!

doesnt this also create the possibility of the terrorists using the plague on us? say, by taking samples from their own victims and spreading the disease in public places, perhaps targeting specific people, etc? all that talk about how powerful it is and we just gave it to them?

People consider reproduction a right and will never recognize an authority attempting to regulate it. Even young children sneak off and have sex when their parents tell them not to. Good luck trying to change everyone's mind on that.

When I started asking my Sunni brothers questions about Qu'ran-alone they just tried to explain it to me ("Obey God and the Messenger", or "You are reading English translation of Qu'ran not Qu'ran and you need scholars and hadith&quot. When I wasn't convinced I just stopped showing... I think there is a hadith that says if you miss three congregational prayers in a row you are out of Islam... and I've missed way more than that. When I see them they just ask how I am doing, no threats or anything. They just seem kind've disappointed in me...

something can be black (or brown or tan or yellow or whatever) and without blemish too. just because it says "White without blemish" does not mean white = without blemish.

Wow! thanks for sharing that story with me. I had never heard that story before, and it does sound extremely similar to yours. When I was a kid, though, my grandfather (who I grew up next door to) told me a story that was very similar to it, nearly exactly the same, with some details exchanged. I'm not going to post it because it's very racist (he was a very racist person), but I will say the plot involved biblical characters all being white up to a point when one mixed with a non-human creating other colors. being a kid I actually believed that for many years until i actually started thinking for myself a little bit....

and that's probably why I'm slow to believe that low melanin production is an indicator of descent from a specific set of antagonized quranic characters. however after rolling this back and forth thru my brain for the past few weeks ive come to the conclusion that your position is as logical and sensical as any other. i still don't necessarily agree that "black mud = black man" (i still think it's carbon!!!!).... but like you said, it doesn't matter. history/geography tells us what color adam and the prophets were.

Peace,

The point of this is the same conclusion is drawn regardless of your arguments. The first man was black, and his children had a direct lineage of all dominant genetic traits. Unless some genetic defect occurred in the midst to break the cycle of dominance, recessive genes didn't come from Adam. The only way they could have in the state they were in is if Adam reproduced with a woman with recessive genes, and this wasn't Eve. Otherwise, if Eve mixed with someone with a recessive gene, then this could've also happened, but this person wasn't Adam... I'm not saying black people and white people aren't related by ancestry - of course they are. Everyone is related by common ancestry. I just don't think this person is Adam. And whether the first man was shaped from carbon, mud, or apple pie, the conclusion is the same. So, all this useless talk about carbon compounds being used to form humans is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Peace,

Ahmad

Genetic mutations (or "defects" like you call them) are pretty well accepted... I think that's the current mainstream explanation for why white people exist. And it doesn't have to occur in Adam's lifetime... could have been many generations later. Doesn't require Eve or Adam to make offspring with anybody else in the world... but the idea that white people could be descended from Adam (and, thus, fully human) just seems unreconcilable with you.

I think the problem in this is coming down to how did all the diversity in the world come down from two single individuals? It's not just a question about melanin... and it's not just a question about the past. it has to do with the way we define humans according to the quran.

And you don't think this had any effect on Adam's skin color at all?

according to the previous thread, white men can't be descended from black men because the dominant black genetic traits would surpress the expression of the recessive white genetic traits. being that adam was the first man and was black because he was made from black mud, there would be no chance for white genetic traits to become expressed at all in the human race. according to this white people shouldn't exist.

but... they do... so I have to review the argument. the color of the mud probably had nothing to do with the amount of melanin in the skin. because its the weakest point of that logic. "the best place to hide a lie is between two truths" (canibus, my favorite rap artist)

Not to say the first man wasn't black... just saying being made out of a black substance doesn't necessarily mean he's genetically racially black... he could have been any color, even one long extinct that humans don't come in anymore. God knows better than any of us.

Peace,

This is a funny discussion, largely based on the views in the other thread regarding Muhammad being white... Regardless of the mentioned opinions regarding the formation of Adam from "BLACK MUD", which clearly imply that he had black skin, the depiction still exists

If the Qur'an said that Adam was created from 'WHITE MUD', would it be manipulated by white people (in general) to claim that Adam had white skin?

The answer is Absolutely, YES! But this isn't the case, according to the scriptures. Adam was formed from black mud, and "coincidentally", culturalization developed in Africa, in the areas of Kush, Nubia, and Kemet, where the people had VERY DARK (black) SKIN. The Africans had, and still have, and overwhelming amount of dominant genetic features, including dark skin. When melanin forms in the skin, the level of it is dependent of genetic makeup. Since melanin is often considered the "juice of life", the more that one has, the more they are able to function properly. In turn, this means the less that one has, the less they are able to function properly. It's compounds slow down aging, and they reduce the production of wrinkles in the skin. It affects the skin, muscles, hair, eyes, and most of the other forms of human developmental features as well. Once your body develops a melanin depletion, it doesn't redevelop; it becomes a genetic deformity, resulting in the formation of recessive genes... So, how is it even possible that Adam was white? The answer IT'S NOT. Recessive genes can develop from dominant genes, but dominant genes can't be formed from recessive genes. Period. If all humanity comes from one person, that one person had to have been BLACK, having all dominant genes. Over time, and through certain genetic deformities (which we won't even discuss), a melanin depletion occurred in some of the people, and it resulted in them having a concentration of recessive genetic traits, one of which is PALE SKIN.

Peace,

Ahmad

I'm not saying black skinned people didn't develop the first civilizations. im not saying the first man was any color than black, either. for those things i am in agreement with you. what i am saying is tha if the "black mud" is indeed carbon that could be a miracle of the Qu'ran (was 600 a.d. aware of molecular biology and chemistry?), and it could also possibly broaden the definition of who 'adam' is. If the 'black mud' is carbon, the creature being made out of it needn't necessarily be any particular color at all.

I never said white people are jinns; I said Adam was created from black mud. So, if Adam was black, and he was physiologically incapable of producing pale-skinned, blonde-haired, blue-eyed offspring, then where did white people come from? The question is still raised, and one must form a compromise between the two based on facts. If Adam was black, then he couldn't have produced white children. If Adam was white, then he couldn't have produced black children. Either way, one group is descended from Adam, and the other group is descended from someone else.

This is a very interesting point. I admit that your solution doesn't satisfy me (a casual analysis tells me whites and blacks have far too much in common to be completely unrelated), so I would like to humbly recommend reflecting on our data. Why does one group have to be descended from someone else? If that was the case, how is it these two groups are able to reproduce to create offspring exhibiting traits of both races? Did humanity exist prior to Adam?

Based on what we know about recessive/dominant genes, whatever genes Adam & Eve had are the genes we should all share, but we are not all one color. Off the top of my head I see two possibilities

1. Our understanding of genetics is wrong.
2. Our understanding of Creation is wrong.

For the first, think the most common explanation is genetic mutation. Supposedly, we were all one color and mutated "randomly" (or by intelligent design, your flavor), some colors being more adapted to some climates than other. I believe this is also supposed to be how other species got their different colors (some other mammals come immediately to mind). At this point the original color is irrelevant because it could have been any shade, mutations are radical and the original could even be completely lost. Keep in mind according to the same scientists that bring us what we know about recessive and dominant genes, we get the story of all the wildly diverse life on earth evolving from a single event in early Earth history. Even Kangaroos and Koalas (two COMPLETELY different mammals) are supposed to come from the same 'possum-like' creature. Race is just one small part of genetics, and genetics are known to change overtime, sometimes rapidly. We still share more in common between races than we do with other mammals, and it makes more sense to look at what we HAVE in common and say "Adam is the father of our species" than to look at what we DON'T have in common and say "Adam is the father of one of us, but not both." Our similarities outweigh our differences compared to the rest of Creation by a landslide, I have no doubt that you and I must have come from a common ancestor.

I won't be so bold with conjecture on the second item, but none of us were witness at Adam's creation and we don't know if there were any special conditions, metaphysical aspects involved, extended periods of development, etc. I don't know how GOD works on these things. I think the possibility of GOD creating man out of mud (whatever the color) and breathing life into him is just as likely as causing his offspring to be different colors, irregardless of genes. If we believe in the miracle of creation we also owe it to GOD to believe in the possibility of other miracles . But I don't want to leave off this post talking about magic. If GOD made two different races of carbon-based bipedal mammals with opposable thumbs, advanced thinking and communication abilities; why do you think GOD would have chosen to make them capable of reproducing with each other? I think the theory that GOD created one "human race" capable of all types of different colors is more likely, and that mankind themselves create the color divisions for social manipulation ("Us vs. Them&quot in order to assert and maintain control of power and resources.

I was under the impression that verse was about not being abusive with dangerous things like intoxicants and gambling, if you partake in these non-forbidden but advised-against activities.

I think 2567 explains how much we are to pay

2561 Blessed is the One Who made towers in the universe and He made in it a beacon and a shining moon.
2562 And He is the One Who made the night and the day in succession, for those who wish to remember or wish to be thankful.
2563 And the servants of the Almighty who walk on the Earth in humility and if the ignorant speak to them, they say ?Peace.?
2564 And those who stay awake for their Lord, in prostration and standing.
2565 And those who say ?Our Lord, avert from us the retribution of Hell. Its retribution is terrible.?
2566 ?It is a miserable abode and dwelling.?
2567 And those who when they give they are not excessive nor stingy, but they are in a measure between that.
2568 And those who do not call on any other god with God, nor do they kill the life that God has made forbidden except in justice, nor do they commit adultery; and whosoever does that will receive the punishment.
2569 The retribution will be doubled for him on the Day of Judgment and he will abide in it eternally in disgrace.
2570 Except for the one who repents and believes and does good work, for those God will replace their sins with good, and God is Forgiving, Merciful.
2571 And whosoever repents, and does good, then he shall repent towards God a true repentance.

Don't show off or throw your resources into ruin by giving too much, but don't be stingy either. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

You've got it all wrong Lobster. It's not that words are more important than actions, it's that words ARE actions.

Saying "I believe in GOD" then doing things GOD recommends against, or neglecting to do things GOD recomends to do, shows a lack of belief in GOD. If they really believed in GOD they would do those things to the best of their ability because they know GOD knows better than them. Not only are they a liar but a hypocrite and it's up to GOD to determine their forgiveness and mercy.

However, saying "I don't believe in GOD" is an act of atheism and is disbelief. They don't have divine guidance and have to determine for themselves what is good and what is bad.

Consider the example of your thief. A monotheist knows thievery of any kind is unacceptable in GODs moral code, and will not steal.

However, an atheist could argue that private property is a human invention and there's nothing wrong with doing whatever is in your physical ability -- taking risks and facing consequences is part of life. Suddenly the act of theft changes from "Stealing another persons posession" to "liberating resources from those who don't need them." Stealing is actually working towards the 'greater good' in this mindset, but another atheist may still claim stealing is wrong for an entirely different set of reasons.

WIth atheism everything gets foggy and subjective. One could justify almost any action they wanted to. No, I don't trust atheists. They're not believers in anything I believe in.

I thought it was the far-east Asians who invented the gun, and was spread to Asia and eventually Europe around the time of Genghis Khan (who reportedly used the early firearms in his conquests of Asia). http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firearms#East_Asia ?

RSW

?The majority of whites did not participate in this?

This is a fallacy of the highest degree. Let me give you a quick analogy below, for example

The US gov. after slavery is still guilty of taking land from the Native Indians. If the present generation of white folks sit back and allow this gov. to do this and do not speak up and condemn this form of imperialism, then how can they (the present generation of white folks) say that they are any better then their forefathers who took this entire country away from the Native Indians!

Do you get my point.

You will notice that if something white folks disagree with for example, i.e. many of them support homosexuality, or maybe against inhumane acts upon animals by humans, companies, corporations, they will come out and march by the THOUSANDS but where are all these white folks standing up and marching against the inhumane conditions of not only Black and people of color in the US and throughout the world? They aren?t, this is the reality, the white race cannot escape their collective deeds and actions that they have committed on the darker peoples of the world. The majority of them (white folks) support policies (that are crushing people of color throughout the world) of their gov. regardless if its in Europe, Australia, US, etc. so the collect embodiment of them are just as guilty as the elite whom you speak of as the only perpetrators.

Yeah, I get your point now. It'd be kind of inconvenient for all the individuals and businesses who have bought up this land in their game of "postindustrial economy" to have to give it back to who it really belongs to. but there's nothing "white people" can do about it anymore. Even if we got every white person to give up their private property there's still publicly traded companies and governments who own land and those are IDEAS, not people of a certain color. Also, should non-white people who have purchased land give it up? It wasn't bought with permission of it's owner. And the number of native americans remaining to the amount of land to be given back is now so wildly disproportionate that revoking ownership would leave a lot of homeless and poor people of all colors scrambling for a place to be, just so a few people could have what was taken from their ancestors.

I think the reason you don't see white people up in arms about this is because finding a solution is more complicated than "just give it back". With homosexuality the simple answer is "let them do what they want," with animal rights it's "just treat them right." With the land issue it's "We're going to have to radically change our whole world." The former make white people feel good about themselves and make them feel like they're progressive and making a difference (they're just deluding themselves anyway, waving a sign and voting doesn't change a thing), but the latter leaves them questioning the legitimacy of their entire lives. It's not pleasant to think about and part of white culture is ignoring what is not pleasant to think about (or adopting a meaningless political platform on the issue for the image and then doing nothing about it).

I've seen what you're saying about whites try to find superficial reasons to hate other people not like them. I'm not sure how frequent that is in non-European societies and this (like the 'white children raised in white society will be racist in a multicultural society&#039 is the kind of thing that requires real-world experiments and studies. I don't feel comfortable resting on allegations based on what it seems like should happen, or what people may claim to have seen, etc. I'd like to see some decent research conducted on these things before we just say "this is built-in on whites."

Also, something else that puzzles me about your interpretation of the Qu'ran is the timeline. Do you believe, like the website claims, that dark-skinned humans are the original man (I'm not saying I do or don't, I don't have any opinion on the subject)? If the Jinns (uhm, "whites&quot existed prior to the creation of man wouldn't that mean white people predated "original man"? Does that make white people less human, or black people less original?

The thing with me is the Qu'ran puts such a deep divide between humans and jinns that for 1400 years it hasn't been inconcievable that Jinns were nonmaterial spiritual beings (almost as completely different from man as you can get). While I believe our cultural influences do create some strong differences between us, I don't think they are so deep that millions of people would mistake that difference for the difference between a physical and spiritual being. That type of difference which is beyond race, beyond species, beyond even the plant/animal distinction what is natural and what is supernatural. Reading the Qu'ran the way suggested draws such a racially polarized world that coexistence can only ever be a delusional daydream at best. It divides mankind into two groups at perpetual unending war (albeit with some on either side who see above it all, but nonetheless). Do you think that is acceptable? You don't think there's more to mankind than this?

Also, the way the website illustrates it it's got a pretty clear bias with "whites" being the "badguys" and the rest of the world being the victims. Sure enough, the Qu'ran depicts most Jinns as being evil with a small percent being repentant. However, the Qu'ran also overwhelmingly shows the ratio of bad to good leaning on the dark side in mankind. Just as in the communities of Jinns, the communities of mankind are depicted as being overwhelmingly evil with just a few decent folks. But the Qu'ran shifts the blame for their immorality and disbelief to Jinns, saying THEY are the ones leading men astray. It paints Jinns as mischevious devils, the inspiration behind all of the evil activities men participate in. To interpret the Qu'ran based on this will create a worldview that is inherently prejudiced and in many people would easily cause resentment and hatred toward whites. Do you think this is acceptable?

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and vote 'no.' An atheist can be a great person and all but they're not a believer if they don't believe. Now, agnostics are a different story; if they believe there is a GOD but don't believe that we can know anything about that GOD. People who don't believe in a 'personal' GOD but who consider GOD as more transcendant than that, like an omnidimensional multiversal all-powerful entity, yeah, that's a believer. but people who believe in multiple gods or no dieties at all, I'm sure they can be great folks but I wouldn't consider them believers.

believing in things like 'truth' and 'justice' can be a little too subjective sometimes...

I remember saying some things you said were racist (if it draws any distinction having to to with race it's racist the way I see it, and this whole thread has been about that from the start), but I don't recall saying any of you were actually racists. If I did say or imply that I apologize because it would indeed be a stupid thing to say and I ought to be ashamed of myself. If any of us were intentionally racist we wouldn't be here talking about this.

European and European-descended leaders are a minority in both the "white race" and in the world -- but they are the only ones with the power to institutionalize racism on a global scale. The majority of whites did not participate in this, the majority of the whites were serfs kicking dirt around a feudal lord's mansion while most of that stuff was being set up. I'll acknowledge that most AMERICANS IN GENERAL are racist but its the snide coward racism they inherited from their parents at the diner table, it doesn't make it better but it's not like they're enforcing a caste system. They are just being ignorant humans, following suit like humans tend to do. It's got less to do with global power and racist oppression and more to do with being obnoxious and hateful. It isn't making things better and it needs to stop, but it's got nothing to do with the rich white bastards running the world (except that they are probably the ones who instigated it. I read "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" where Thomas Sowell claimed racism came from the ruling class trying to split the working class so they argue and fight each other instead of the ruling class. How accurate that is I don't know, but it seems likely).

I haven't even been outside of America (im pretty sure 'most whites' DONT live in the US) and haven't read about racist attitudes of whites outside of it so I am not at liberty to make statements including whites outside of America. If you know more than me concerning the amount of racist whites in europe/asia/australia/south america/africa I'd be interested in hearing about it.

When I hear you saying that the Qu'ran speaks of whites when it speaks of Jinns and that GOD created man from black mud and that means original man was black it seems to me you are reducing racism to skin color. If I'm incorrect here then please fill me in. It's my understanding that skin color and race has **** all to do with anything in the Qu'ran, but I'm flexible on these things.

I admit I don't understand your last sentence. I don't mean to accuse you of reverse racism but I really don't understand why what Harun Yahya looks like is so important to debunk his lies.

This is the third time someone has misunderstood me when I brought up the "ghetto mentality" concept. I'll explain it again

I was demonstrating that applying a mentality to an entire skin color of people is incorrect. Saying all white people are arrogant and prideful is the same as saying all black people are ghetto. BOTH statements are incorrect, BOTH statements are inappropriate and offensive. I never offered a commentary on 'ghetto mentality' and never presumed to know where it comes from or what it is. It was just an example, I could just as easily have used "all asians work hard at school" or any other ridiculous stereotype. I wasn't saying anything about blacks or the ghetto, I was just using a popular example of ignorant thinking.

Don't be so quick to think I'm just here to be arrogant and defend whites. I don't identify with any "race" (i dont even believe in the things) and could care less what anybody thinks about people who look like me. I don't deny many European and European-descended people have done a lot of racist things and continue to do them. This is not a hard reality for me to face, what's hard for me to accept is that people are using the Qu'ran and putting "whites" where "jinn" is and using the story of the fall of Iblis to characterize "white" behavior. It takes a very race-centric and skewed point-of-view to come up with that. We all believe what we want to believe but seriously, does it have to always be about color? I was floored when Harun Yahya was introduced with "This is what he looks like" and a picture. How much more prejudiced does it get?

I'd say it's possible but that most people probably wouldn't be capable. Some men aren't even capable of loving themselves or their family, let alone a woman. Multiple women? Takes a good man. But I wouldn't say that it's impossible.