PPS Spart, wholeheartedly agreeing with you that blacks in this country WILL NOT find a voice in Islam. Just shooting the messenger, I suppose.
Lisa
Islam's hatred and agenda against black people
by Spartacus 53 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Carmel
Won't it be nice when "my people" is a term we apply to any human rather than to those of our own ethnic or racial makeup? So sad that the value of Islam is degraded by those that would use it to suppress even kill fellow humans, not unlike the Israelites of old who were directed by their god Jehovah...our Christian ancestors...
carmel
-
Hyghlandyr
Spartacus
Many good points. We had a thread going on reparations in the United States, and I brought up the current slavery problem in africa and other parts of the world. No comments were forthcoming. Then I started a thread on on modern day slavery. Six people resonded.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=26020&site=3
There is the link. It seems to be that my esoteric posts, or my angry posts, get the most fuel on any board that I am on. But those posts where I am serious, about a major problem taking place somewhere in the world, right now, are often only scantly covered. That link has 191 reads, probably 40 of them from me checking to see if anyone else has posted further to it.
The problem in the Sudan is only growing. Islam does not mean peace as many claim, but submission, total submission to god (Allah). I have a muslim/yogi fella that I work for on occasion. When 9-11 hit I was working at home. The next day I was at his house for some programming. A couple of his clients cancelled their policies with him, possibly because of the situation. He went on about American racism. Still he has made many sales, and is doing far better than most whites I know. I mean far better. Ok...he lost a couple sales....ooo. That is american racism. I suggested that we take me over to Iraq, or Afganistan, or an American women to Morocco and see how we are treated?
I watched an episode of Road Rules, and an Asian girl in shorts was pelted with stones by the muslim men and boys. They were not daisy dukes. Immodest by their standards, fine. That warranted pelting her? I will take our current stand on issues of racism, over many countries any time. (Not saying it does not occur here, just that the degrees are not as intense as they once were or are currently in other places, particularly Muslim Nations)
The fella I mentioned earlier I had to work for again to pay a couple of critical bills. He went on about how the suicide bombers are a beautiful thing. When I said I could care less if soldiers killed each other, they know they take that risk, but when little kids are getting killed that is my line of demarcation, my only and singular moral, and it is wrong, his response was that sometimes you have to kill kids and it is a beautiful thing. He prepaid me for the work I am doing, and this is the last time I prostitute myself.
It really makes me sick. And the cries and howls about slavery are so empty. At least back then it was considered proper by society and law. Now every nation has made slavery illegal. All of them decry it. But it is practiced. Your friend is right. Can you imagine a fella like me, pale skinned as they come Irish, with a bondage fetish, going to Africa so I could buy myself a real true slave? It would be an international incident.
No, Muhammed was not black.
LDH
The issue isnt his 'race'. None are denying that he is Arabian. The color of his skin may or may not have been white. I know Lebanese, with no european mixes, and they are nearly as white (pale) as I am. There are asians, and even those that are darker, certainly do not appear yellow to me. However a great many asians that I know are whiter than I am. White can mean a race as we have defined it in that sense. But it can also mean nothing more than a color. As a color it could simply be a very very light skinned Arabian, when compared to other Africans, Asians, or rabians.
I am Irish. Had this debate in the reparations thread. Someone decided to call me white anglo saxon (they left out the protestant). Which I refuted, being Irish I am pale skinned, but not anglo by any means. As to being white, if it is considered a race, at least by anglos and other europeans, well the Irish often were denied that classification. Only their skin was considered white not their race.
So white is a loaded term.
1...Color
a...Pale skin or
b...Lighter skin, perhaps very light.
2...Race
a...Europeans in general including Irish
b...Superior Europeans not including Irish
All Spartacus means is that the founder of islam is in no way black. Nothing more. And that the racial group he is from, is in fact terrorizing, murdering, pillaging, and enslaving Blacks in Africa to this day.
(There are some interesting things if you examine history about the effects of both Christianity and Islam in Africa. Especially regarding women, who were originally the power structure in Africa, landed, holding property of their own, responsible for and supporting their families...which changed with Christian and Islam degradations to the female)
Let's see, three wives, seven concubines, nine slave girls, and twenty-seven black nazi female body guards. I've only got forty-five women to go and my cult is complete
-
plmkrzy
Spart just a quik Q. What are your thoughts on the Queen of Sheba?
-
LDH
All Spartacus means is that the founder of Islam is in no way black
Hygh, I have to disagree with this--I consider Arabs to be on the black side of the skin debate. The only information you have about the founder of Islam is contained in the Qur'an, which is about as objective as the Bible.
I have seen SCHOLARS on this forum pick apart the Bible verse by verse using nothing more than rationale and common sense.
The Koran is in no way above this, as far as I'm concerned.
Just because an eyewitness in the Qur'an says Muhammed was white doesn't make it so. How many errors have you seen in the Bible, dude?
Let's see: a worldwide flood, a talking snake, Saul dying three different ways, etc etc are all recent examples that come to my mind when discussing the validity of the Bible.
Why do you think the Qur'an is above having mistakes, lies, or subjective authoring?
Again, I will say. The race card argument makes for a weak position as far as why blacks should not be muslim. Shit, Jesus wasn't white. Does that mean that white Christians have been HOODWINKED AND BAMBOOZLED?
The real reason is because Islam is a religion of intolerance and hatred for anything that isn't approved by their *version* of Allah. Including all of the freedoms that blacks have been fighting for years. Especially black women.
IMHO
Lisa
-
Spartacus
Again LDH you miss the whole point, but that's ok, you can't expect every single person to get it. The fact of the matter is that Muhummad was not Black, he is an Arab, Arabs in no way or fashion Black, Arabs are Semite. Jews are Semite, Arabs and Jews are closer cousins than to Africans. Africans are Hamites. You see the difference? White use in the case of the eyewitness does not have to relate to genetics but skin color.
Hyghlandyr posted a very reasonable post, yet it still went over your head, not because you are dumb but because the only thing that matters to you in this argument is that you are right, ego rules. But that's ok too, we all let pride get in the way of good common sense sometimes. One day it will be my turn, You are WRONG, POINT BLANK.
And if you consider Arabs more on the Black side tell an Arab that and he may stone you death for insulting him.
This statement of yours shows that you don't get it!!!
"Again, I will say. The race card argument makes for a weak position as far as why blacks should not be muslim. Shit, Jesus wasn't white. Does that mean that white Christians have been HOODWINKED AND BAMBOOZLED?"
Let me explain, some African Americans are racist, the idea of Muhhumad being black is attractive to them, get it? The author of the piece was only refuting what Muslims tell African Americans. Geeez!!
Nah I bet you still don't get why because your ego is into it and you can't be objective. You see it is the Muslims who are playing the race card to attract African Americans to the Muslim faith. Did you really read the original post, it appears that you did not.
Anyway, this is like one kid who is holding up the whole class room, soon enough the teacher gives up and moves on, that's where I'm at on this.
Peace and good health to you, Sparky
-
LDH
-->>>And if you tell a white guy/skinhead that an Arab is white, he'll stone you to death for insulting him, too. LOL.
White use in the case of the eyewitness does not have to relate to genetics but skin color.
And what I said earlier--white *in relation* to who? A Somalian? or an Aryan? Why did you chose to ignore my remarks concerning the validity of eyewitness testimony?!?!Spart says:
Again LDH you miss the whole point, but that's ok, you can't expect every single person to get it. The fact of the matter is that Muhummad was not Black, he is an Arab, Arabs in no way or fashion Black,
And the AUTHOR made the leap from Arab to white.Muhammed wasn't pitch black, but you can bet your ass he wasn't snow white, either. He was an ARAB --WHICH is why the race card makes no sense to the author's position--that Islam is a religion of white people.
I've visted the Middle East, have you? Even light skinned Arabs are still Arabs. Not white.
Anybody that would mistake an ARAB for a WHITE guy would certainly never be invited to join any White Power group, that's for sure.
Again, I will say. The race card argument makes for a weak position as far as why blacks should not be muslim. Shit, Jesus wasn't white. Does that mean that white Christians have been HOODWINKED AND BAMBOOZLED?
LisaThe real reason is because Islam is a religion of intolerance and hatred for anything that isn't approved by their *version* of Allah. Including all of the freedoms that blacks have been fighting for years. Especially black women.
PS REV fully agree with
Furthermore, that we need not be so enamored with Muhammad and his covey, inasmuch as the Asian-brown skinned Arabs of the Middle Ages saw US with as much contempt as their European counterparts, and are therefore no more our "friends" than they were.
and the fact that Arabs qualify as Asian-brown skinned.It is also important, in view of the present conflict; lest we believe that this war concerns our allies -- it does NOT!
-
Hyghlandyr
LDH
Ok first, we arent using the race card to say why they should not be muslims. Rather we are stating that Muslims groups like Nation of Islam that claim that the original muslims were black (africans) are not stating the truth. They are using the race card to claim that blacks should be muslim. We are merely refuting their claim. In addition to refuting their claim, we are showing just how detrimental Islam has been to dark africans.
As to you feeling Arabs are on the black side of the skin debate, I am sure there are more than a few that would take offense at that. Nor did I say the Quran is accurate. What I did state was that there are degrees of 'white' and degrees of 'black'. If a people is mostly very very dark, and there are some light skinned, almost pale skinned peoples dwelling among them, they would perhaps be thought of as white. Again we are not speaking of them being thought of as European, just lighter skinned.
Also there was a lot of interaction and interbreeding in the centuries leading up the formation of Islam, between middle eastern peoples and africans and europeans. The Celts are a good example of this, having mixed with those in the Iberian Peninsula, and also various greeks to form both the Celt-Iberians and the Galatians. Thus, it is possible that Muhammed was a mix, and whether he was or not, he could have been more fair skinned than his counterparts. In any case there is hardly a dispute that he was not african, or from such tribes as Pigmies, Zulu, Bushman and other distinctly african tribes.
As to the bible vs the Quran debate. I trust neither the bible nor the quran. However, this does not mean I reject everything in them. Using the wondering working aspects of a religous work as a reason for dismissing it, is a common mistake of non-believers. Many of the wonders are simply metaphors, story devices to teach a lesson. When we read the story of the Fox and the Grapes as children, we do not now dismiss the validity of that story because foxes do not leap into trees for grapes, and grapes don't actually grow on trees. So too with these things. The ancients claimed that they were metaphors, and even argued with Christians and some Jews, who literalized them.
Now of course very few Muslims think of the things in the Quran as metaphors. In this they err as surely as a christian who thinks that the tale of Adam and Eve is first of all a tale of a fall rather than a tale of wisdom aquired (the snake being a very ancient symbol of wisdom), and secondly think it to be an actual event.
While both are filled with metaphor, they also do name real kings, places, and events, using such things as well as metaphor. The difficulty is deriving that which is actual from that which is allegorical. Which difficulty matters little if you just accept the entirety of them both as symbols.
Thus are many things in the Quran hog wash? Sure. (Literally that is) So too the bible. Does this mean that Muhammed was called white mean that he was white? No. Does it mean he was not white and because the Quran is untrustworthy that we must accept just the opposite of what it says? No.
In any case it brings us back to the original arguement. The claim by Nation of Islam, and other Muslim groups, when they are dealing with blacks, that Muhammed was black, and that Islam originated with African tribes in an effort to convert blacks to their religion. This claim is historically false, has no basis in fact, and is simply another manipulation technique. If they wish to give other reasons for africans joining, then do so. If they wish to quote the numbers of Africans who are now muslim, do so. Or the effect Islam has had on converts from Africa, do so. But then if they did so, perhaps Africans, American blacks that is, would simply laugh and walke away, or worse, demand reparations from them.
As to you having to disagree with this? Disagree with what? That white is a loaded term? That it has several conotations? That the Irish were not for centuries considered white by the rest of the Europeans? That white can apply to skin color and to race? Or that I have know Lebanese whose skin was nearly as pale as mine? (Or that I have known whites whose skin was very very dark?)
-
LDH
some African Americans are racist
no shit.
And the educational level that this article is written on-- would qualify to be in JET or EBONY.
The article was fairly well written until it stated:
Mohammed was not a Black Man
*I* dislike and disagree with the Author, and *I* find the so-called eyewitness testimony to be questionable. White is only white in relation to whoever is observing it. ESPECIALLY since it is written from the view point of the eyewitness-- who may have WELL never seen a REAL white person. It's not like they had CNN! REALLY!Mohammed was an Asian-Arab. You can't confuse an Asian-Arab with a Black- African. There are numerous evidences that Mohammed was actually white. The space limitation will allow us to mention only a few:
In Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 1 no. 63, we read "while we were sitting with the Prophet, a man came and said, 'who amongst you is Mohammed?' We replied, 'this white man reclining on his arm..."
In volume 2 Hadith no. 122 refers to Mohammed as a "white person" and in vol. 2 Hadith no. 141 we are told that when Mohammed raised his arms, "the whiteness of his armpits became visible."
That's my prerogative. You can't come here and post an article and not expect people to critique it objectively! GEEEEZ.
Lisa
-
Hyghlandyr
LDH
White is only white in relation to whoever is observing it. ESPECIALLY since it is written from the view point of the eyewitness-- who may have WELL never seen a REAL white person.
Precisely. That is what we have been saying all along. No one was indicating that we thought Muhammed was anything but Arab. Frankly he may have been a dark skinned Arab. But he was most certainly not African. If he was 'white' then from the view point of the eye witnesses, who never saw a 'real' white person and thus were not calling him 'european' but instead were thinking, that his skin, being far lighter than those around him, that he was white. (Again assuming he was fair skinned, which may or may not have been the case, but he was certainly not African)
As to the claim that they may never have seen a european, well there was a lot more interaction with Europeans in that part of the world than moderns think. The very music of the Irish and Middle Easterners is derived from the same source. Irish records detail events taking place in the middle east as Irish Monks were trudging across the world to find converts. However if the claimants of the Quran had seen Europeans, the term to apply to their skin color might have been white, but not to their race. Race back then was far more expansive than it is now, meaning right down to your very tribe. Thus an Celt and a German would not have been called of the White Race, singular, but of the Gael, Briton, Manx, Gaulish, Galation race for the Celt (among hundreds of other Celtic races) or Tueton, Jute, Saxon, Anglo, or any of the other hundreds of Germanic races. Thus if a man were to declare Muhammed white back then, he was in no way declaring him to be of those races.
Let's see, three wives, seven concubines, nine slave girls, and twenty-seven black nazi female body guards. I've only got forty-five women to go and my cult is complete