quote:Originally posted by wesleymuhammad: Originally posted by Mike111:
Mike, Im going to have to agree with Lioness that you seem to be treating these images with a very heavy hand. What specifically are you identifying as proof of Peroz's blackness here? Have you studied royal artistic conventions of the Sassanids and thus have sufficiently taken these into account in your interpretations? Regarding the earlier photos, is it the curly hair that suggests to you Africanness? Well, while this might be so, it does not seem necessarily so. How do you account for the fact that the curls are at the end of very straight hair? To be sure, "straight" hair is no less "African" than curly, but my point is that there is real ambiguity here that needs to be cleared up by some textual evidence, I suspect.
Please show me a depiction from ANYWHERE, of ANY White people so depicted.
Textual evidence????
Like What?
The Egyptians never said that they were Black, ditto the Akkadians, Hebrews, Assyrians, ancient Europeans etc, etc. That is a VERY strange thing to say!
But if it's any help to you:
Confucius say: if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are, it's a duck!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wesleymuhammad: these would likely be considered ahmar, red, i.e. white-skinned and therefore non-Arab by the Arabs of the early empire. I could document this likelihood.
If this is the case then are the people below with similar skin tones also ahmar, red, i.e. white-skinned
posted
wesleymuhammad - I'm thinking that the problem is that you can't envision with a profile image. No problem, I have frontal images.
Sassanian kings were rarely annotated on their artifacts. But, they all used different crown designs. So modern researchers must identify them via their crown design.
This plate is identified as belonging to King Peroz, because of the vertical crescent.
On that basis, thought declared unidentified, this is a statue of Peroz I. If you disagree with the identification, just remember, the salient point is that he is a Sassanian king.
Lioness, I even have a "Mulatto" (Parthian/Persian) Persian prince for you.
posted
Mike I will step aside now and let Dr. Muhammad roast your ass
Dr. Muhammad:
before you proceed to teach Mike, in light that he has a history based website, it might be helpful for you to inform him and basic standards and procedures of how to make a scholarly presentation and not be self contradictory. He seems lost as to this. One small example,
^^^He often puts photos up like this, the caption simply says "Darius". There is no source, date or location listed. That's basic
One thing that is good about the site is the search engine. On the home page as soon as you click on a historical period the search field will come up and if you type in a key word, a thorough listing will show of where that word or phrase appears in the various "articles" over the entire site
Also, it appears that Mike never updates information. If he says something on the site and then learns new information that might entail changing what he said, he doesn't. He's thick that way
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sero: Yemen's President Saleh with and without tan.
This is very interesting.
President Saleh could be "white" or "black" according to how often he stayed out in the sun. If he stayed out a lot, he would be dark constantly.
What about "Mulatto" ?
This type of concept doesn't apply to the ancient period we are speaking of.
Similarly modern day concept of "black" and "white" don't apply either. Modern day concepts attach other racial traits to the word "black". For example in America a Pakistani man who runs a grocery store in a black neighborhood is not considered black even though he might have darker skin than some of the customers who are considered "black"
Of course these modern day American "racial" definitions do not apply to ancient descriptions which only entail skin color
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is the REAL Yemen's President Saleh? I don't know, it seems to depend on the lighting. But one thing for sure, he is not Black, and he is not White.
Gee, what's left?
An Arab? - No that's not a race.
A Mongol? - That's a race, but he doesn't look Chinese.
posted
LOL, Westly Muhammed don't waste your time with Mike he has already been schooled on the Persians..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:[qb]Originally posted by wesleymuhammad: Originally posted by Mike111:
Mike, Im going to have to agree with Lioness that you seem to be treating these images with a very heavy hand. What specifically are you identifying as proof of Peroz's blackness here? Have you studied royal artistic conventions of the Sassanids and thus have sufficiently taken these into account in your interpretations? Regarding the earlier photos, is it the curly hair that suggests to you Africanness? Well, while this might be so, it does not seem necessarily so. How do you account for the fact that the curls are at the end of very straight hair? To be sure, "straight" hair is no less "African" than curly, but my point is that there is real ambiguity here that needs to be cleared up by some textual evidence, I suspect.
Please show me a depiction from ANYWHERE, of ANY White people so depicted.
Yes, because if it ain't White, it must be Black, right? Your response is beyond silly, Mike. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's the confounded thing about "race" which is often subject to arbitrary definition--as in the U.S.
If Saleh were U.S. born but of a Yemeni family that migrated to the U.S.[just like the Christian Lebanese: Ralph Nader, Helen Thomas, etc.] 3 or 4 generations back he could easily be a member of the so-called "Black Caucus". Why? Because his phenotype does evidently contain elements of African DNA. Well, how so? The hair and facial structure. In Dakar, Senegal, Saleh would get unsolicited greetings from Mauritanians.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Saleh's present pigmentation. The man was in Arabia recently seeking treatment for face and body burns. His palace and his person were attacked and he was caught in the attack conflagration.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:[qb]Originally posted by wesleymuhammad: Originally posted by Mike111:
Mike, Im going to have to agree with Lioness that you seem to be treating these images with a very heavy hand. What specifically are you identifying as proof of Peroz's blackness here? Have you studied royal artistic conventions of the Sassanids and thus have sufficiently taken these into account in your interpretations? Regarding the earlier photos, is it the curly hair that suggests to you Africanness? Well, while this might be so, it does not seem necessarily so. How do you account for the fact that the curls are at the end of very straight hair? To be sure, "straight" hair is no less "African" than curly, but my point is that there is real ambiguity here that needs to be cleared up by some textual evidence, I suspect.
Please show me a depiction from ANYWHERE, of ANY White people so depicted.
Yes, because if it ain't White, it must be Black, right? Your response is beyond silly, Mike.
Re, Lioness and Jari: I now try to ignore the inane. But just out of curiosity, I'm wondering how the challenged mind works. So Black, White, and ___?
(Psst, you're suppose to fill that in Sundjata).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
When I say Prophet Muhammad was Black and not White, I mean he was a black-skinned Arab (who were an Africoid people originally), not a white-skinned Arabian (no semantic game here). There were many groups in Arabia at the time of the Prophet who had migrated there and ‘indigenized’ to an extent. Some of these were white-skinned. There was thus in 7th century Arabia, among others, black-skinned Arabs (al-arab al-a’rabi) and white-skinned migrants. There were also fair-skinned Arabs groups who fair-skinned resulted from miscegenation. The aggregate of the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Muhammad was a noble black-skinned Arab and not a white-skinned Arabian or fair-skinned mixed-breed.
That the pure Arab was a black-skinned Arab was pointed out by several of the Arab authors that you (Mike) were unable to consult (for obvious reasons):
Ibn Abi al-Hadid, in his Sharh nahj al-balaghah, [V:56] quotes the famous Arab grammarian Mubarrad (d. 285/898), the leading figure in the Basran grammatical tradition:
“The Arabs used to take pride in their (dark) brown and black complexion (al-sumra wa al-sawad) and they had a distaste for a white and fair complexion (al-humra wa al-shaqra), and they used to say that such was the complexion of the non-Arabs.”
Likewise, the Arab lexicographer Ibn Manzur (d. 711/1311) in his famous Arabic lexicon, Lisan al-arab [IV:245f], notes that the phrase aswad al-jilda, ‘black-skinned,’ idiomatically meant khalis al-‘arab, “the pure Arabs,” “because the color of most of the Arabs is dark (al-udma).” In other words, blackness of skin among the Arabs indicated purity of Arab ethnicity. Likewise did the famous grammarian from the century prior, Muhammad b. Barri al-‘Adawi (d. 589/1193) note that an akhdar or black-skinned Arab was “a pure Arab (‘arabi mahd)” with a pure genealogy, “because Arabs describe their color as black (al-aswad).”
Just a reminder of the clarification I tried to offer earlier. Yes, in the American context "Black" and "White" are ambiguous racial terms. However, as noted, I am not using these terms in the American racial sense. I simply mean "black-skinned" and “white-skinned”. Now, blackness was understood by the Classical Arabs as a color with several shades. The linguist Abu Mansur al-Tha’labi (d. 1036) enumerates the different “classifications of human blackness (fi tartib sawad al-insan)” in his Fiqh al-lugha 82:
“When his maximum [blackness] (alahu) is less than sawad (black), then he is asmar (dark brown). If his blackness is greater with yellow enhancing it then he is asham. If his blackness exceeds al-sumra then he is ādam. If it exceeds that, then it is asham. If his blackness is intense, then he is adlam.”
An even more detailed classification is provided by Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Minhājī al-Asyūtī (d. 1475) in his Jawāhir al-‘uqud wa-mu’īn al-qudāt wal-muwaqqi’īn wal-shuhūd, which is a two volume composition of principles and models to be followed by judges, notaries and witnesses in drafting legal decisions. Al-Asyuti has a section on human complexions, in which he reports about the many shades of blackness (and whiteness) and their technical legal descriptions:
“If a person’s complexion is very black (shadīd al-sawād), he is described as hālik. If his/her blackness is mixed with red, he/she is daghmān. If his complexion is lighter than that, he is asham. If the blackness is mixed with yellow, it is ashum. If his complexion in dark (kudra), it is described as arbad. If it is lighter than that (i.e. arbad), it is abyad. If there is less yellow and the complexion inclines toward black, it is ādam. If it is lighter than arbad and darker than ādam, it is shadīd al-udma. If it is lighter than ādam, it is shadīd al-sumra. If lighter than that, it is asmar. If lighter still, it is raqīq al-sumra [light brown]. If lighter and inclines towards a fair complexion it is described as light brown [safi al-sumra] with fair-skin [al-humra] prevailing. It is also described as raqīq al-sumra with fairness.” [II:574]
Note, among other things, that the term abyad which, in non-human contexts denotes the color white, in human contexts is a shade of black. Now the Arabs were a black-skinned group, who identified their complexion as aswad (black), usually meaning asmar, dark brown. Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1200), in his Kitāb tanwīr al-ghabash fī fadl ‘l-sūdān wa’l-habash, describes the Ethiopian as asmar, ‘dark-brown’, the same self-description of the Arabs. The fact that the Arab’s ‘blackness’ was of a similar nature as that of the Africans (but allegedly with a more ‘refined’ complexion) was pointed out frequently. Ibn Hawqal [d. 969), in his Kitab surat al-ard [103], notes that the African Beja (Bujah), while darker than the Ethiopians, are the same complexion as the Arabs. Al-Jahiz [d. 869), in his Fakhr al-sudan ala al-bidan, 220 quotes from the Zanj (East Africans): “Our blackness is not different from the blackness of the Banu Sulaym and other Arab tribes.”
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^That is amazing wesleymuhammad. I had already thought the Arabs intellectually challenged: by virtue of their importing slaves, giving them weapons, and expecting them to be loyal soldiers (the Turkic Mamlukes).
Of course a person with normal intelligence would know that armed slaves don't stay slaves for very long.
But now the obsession with skin color: I lost count, what is that, a dozen shades of Black? WOW, you really need to have a really, really, tiny, tiny, mind for that kind of thing. No wonder the Turks had such an easy time taking their land, culture, religion, and identity.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
When I say Prophet Muhammad was Black and not White, I mean he was a black-skinned Arab (who were an Africoid people originally), not a white-skinned Arabian (no semantic game here). There were many groups in Arabia at the time of the Prophet who had migrated there and ‘indigenized’ to an extent. Some of these were white-skinned. There was thus in 7th century Arabia, among others, black-skinned Arabs (al-arab al-a’rabi) and white-skinned migrants. There were also fair-skinned Arabs groups who fair-skinned resulted from miscegenation. The aggregate of the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Muhammad was a noble black-skinned Arab and not a white-skinned Arabian or fair-skinned mixed-breed.
That the pure Arab was a black-skinned Arab was pointed out by several of the Arab authors that you (Mike) were unable to consult (for obvious reasons):
Ibn Abi al-Hadid, in his Sharh nahj al-balaghah, [V:56] quotes the famous Arab grammarian Mubarrad (d. 285/898), the leading figure in the Basran grammatical tradition:
“The Arabs used to take pride in their (dark) brown and black complexion (al-sumra wa al-sawad) and they had a distaste for a white and fair complexion (al-humra wa al-shaqra), and they used to say that such was the complexion of the non-Arabs.”
Likewise, the Arab lexicographer Ibn Manzur (d. 711/1311) in his famous Arabic lexicon, Lisan al-arab [IV:245f], notes that the phrase aswad al-jilda, ‘black-skinned,’ idiomatically meant khalis al-‘arab, “the pure Arabs,” “because the color of most of the Arabs is dark (al-udma).” In other words, blackness of skin among the Arabs indicated purity of Arab ethnicity. Likewise did the famous grammarian from the century prior, Muhammad b. Barri al-‘Adawi (d. 589/1193) note that an akhdar or black-skinned Arab was “a pure Arab (‘arabi mahd)” with a pure genealogy, “because Arabs describe their color as black (al-aswad).”
Just a reminder of the clarification I tried to offer earlier. Yes, in the American context "Black" and "White" are ambiguous racial terms. However, as noted, I am not using these terms in the American racial sense. I simply mean "black-skinned" and “white-skinned”. Now, blackness was understood by the Classical Arabs as a color with several shades. The linguist Abu Mansur al-Tha’labi (d. 1036) enumerates the different “classifications of human blackness (fi tartib sawad al-insan)” in his Fiqh al-lugha 82:
“When his maximum [blackness] (alahu) is less than sawad (black), then he is asmar (dark brown). If his blackness is greater with yellow enhancing it then he is asham. If his blackness exceeds al-sumra then he is ādam. If it exceeds that, then it is asham. If his blackness is intense, then he is adlam.”
An even more detailed classification is provided by Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Minhājī al-Asyūtī (d. 1475) in his Jawāhir al-‘uqud wa-mu’īn al-qudāt wal-muwaqqi’īn wal-shuhūd, which is a two volume composition of principles and models to be followed by judges, notaries and witnesses in drafting legal decisions. Al-Asyuti has a section on human complexions, in which he reports about the many shades of blackness (and whiteness) and their technical legal descriptions:
“If a person’s complexion is very black (shadīd al-sawād), he is described as hālik. If his/her blackness is mixed with red, he/she is daghmān. If his complexion is lighter than that, he is asham. If the blackness is mixed with yellow, it is ashum. If his complexion in dark (kudra), it is described as arbad. If it is lighter than that (i.e. arbad), it is abyad. If there is less yellow and the complexion inclines toward black, it is ādam. If it is lighter than arbad and darker than ādam, it is shadīd al-udma. If it is lighter than ādam, it is shadīd al-sumra. If lighter than that, it is asmar. If lighter still, it is raqīq al-sumra [light brown]. If lighter and inclines towards a fair complexion it is described as light brown [safi al-sumra] with fair-skin [al-humra] prevailing. It is also described as raqīq al-sumra with fairness.” [II:574]
Note, among other things, that the term abyad which, in non-human contexts denotes the color white, in human contexts is a shade of black. Now the Arabs were a black-skinned group, who identified their complexion as aswad (black), usually meaning asmar, dark brown. Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1200), in his Kitāb tanwīr al-ghabash fī fadl ‘l-sūdān wa’l-habash, describes the Ethiopian as asmar, ‘dark-brown’, the same self-description of the Arabs. The fact that the Arab’s ‘blackness’ was of a similar nature as that of the Africans (but allegedly with a more ‘refined’ complexion) was pointed out frequently. Ibn Hawqal [d. 969), in his Kitab surat al-ard [103], notes that the African Beja (Bujah), while darker than the Ethiopians, are the same complexion as the Arabs. Al-Jahiz [d. 869), in his Fakhr al-sudan ala al-bidan, 220 quotes from the Zanj (East Africans): “Our blackness is not different from the blackness of the Banu Sulaym and other Arab tribes.”
1) what category are the following people they seem like they could fit one of the black categories you mentioned above rather than being particularly reddish
2)in your opinion does Allah as per what the have a preference for people of a particular skin type as per the Qu'ran or other book?
3) Is God and Allah the same? you had indicated that Allah was a man in your writings. How does that square with the black man being God? Do you mean black people are Allah?
4) If God and Allah are not the same is God the creator or is Allah the creator? I would find it strange to have God and Allah to be different because that doesn't seem to square with the Qu'ran. Most scholars would say Allah is the Arabic word for God and it means the same thing, the creator
thank you Dr.Muhammad
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^That is amazing wesleymuhammad. I had already thought the Arabs intellectually challenged: by virtue of their importing slaves, giving them weapons, and expecting them to be loyal soldiers (the Turkic Mamlukes).
Of course a person with normal intelligence would know that armed slaves don't stay slaves for very long.
But now the obsession with skin color: I lost count, what is that, a dozen shades of Black? WOW, you really need to have a really, really, tiny, tiny, mind for that kind of thing. No wonder the Turks had such an easy time taking their land, culture, religion, and identity.
Well, I would separate the two issues. The seeming 'obsession' with ranges and shades of colors is consistent with the nature of the Arabic language itself, which gives words a huge array of meanings all determined by context. I think this 'obsession' is more an obsession to be precise.
Regarding the small mindedness of the whole 'mamluk' project, please note that this was an Abbasid project, not an Umayyad project. Why does this matter? The Umayyad caliphs (most of them) were Arabs,the Abbasi were mostly hajin, mixed breeds, most with Persian or Byzantine mothers. How does that factor into your 'Arab IQ test'? Just curious.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: what category are the following people they seem like they could fit one of the black categories you mentioned above rather than being particularly reddish
2)in your opinion does Allah as per what the have a preference for people of a particular skin type as per the Qu'ran or other book?
3) Is God and Allah the same? you had indicated that Allah was a man in your writings. How does that square with the black man being God? Do you mean black people are Allah?
4) If God and Allah are not the same is God the creator or is Allah the creator? I would find it strange to have God and Allah to be different because that doesn't seem to square with the Qu'ran. Most scholars would say Allah is the Arabic word for God and it means the same thing, the creator
thank you Dr.Muhammad
Thank you lioness. Before I attempt to answer your first question, allow me to complete the al-Asyuti quote. After enumerating the different shades and classifications of black, he enumerates those of white or fair-skinned-ness:
“And if a person’s complexion is pure white, it is ansah. If his whiteness is a fairskinned-ness (shuqra), it is ashqar. If a person’s complexion is lighter than that, it is ashkal. If, with this complexion there is additional redness, then it is ashqar. If this complexion has freckles, it is anmash. If his complexion is light, inclining to yellow but without illness, it is ashab."
Now, I could imagine a number of categories into which Bin Laden and the boys could fit: my first thought would be asali, honey-colored, or hinti, wheat-colored. There overall category I think would still be ahmar, red. ahmar is a macro-color which includes pink, Bordeaux, and light brown. It is also possible they fall into al-Asyuti's last stages of 'black' before transitioning to 'white':
"If lighter [than asmar], it is raqīq al-sumra [light brown]. If lighter and inclines towards a fair complexion it is described as light brown [safi al-sumra] with fair-skin [al-humra] prevailing. It is also described as raqīq al-sumra with fairness.”
Probably safi al-sumra.
Regarding your second question (If I understand it):
Allah is God (the Creator). Is there evidence in the Qur'an for Allah's preference for a particular complexion? I am aware of none.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: what category are the following people they seem like they could fit one of the black categories you mentioned above rather than being particularly reddish
2)in your opinion does Allah as per what the have a preference for people of a particular skin type as per the Qu'ran or other book?
3) Is God and Allah the same? you had indicated that Allah was a man in your writings. How does that square with the black man being God? Do you mean black people are Allah?
4) If God and Allah are not the same is God the creator or is Allah the creator? I would find it strange to have God and Allah to be different because that doesn't seem to square with the Qu'ran. Most scholars would say Allah is the Arabic word for God and it means the same thing, the creator
thank you Dr.Muhammad
Thank you lioness. Before I attempt to answer your first question, allow me to complete the al-Asyuti quote. After enumerating the different shades and classifications of black, he enumerates those of white or fair-skinned-ness:
“And if a person’s complexion is pure white, it is ansah. If his whiteness is a fairskinned-ness (shuqra), it is ashqar. If a person’s complexion is lighter than that, it is ashkal. If, with this complexion there is additional redness, then it is ashqar. If this complexion has freckles, it is anmash. If his complexion is light, inclining to yellow but without illness, it is ashab."
Now, I could imagine a number of categories into which Bin Laden and the boys could fit: my first thought would be asali, honey-colored, or hinti, wheat-colored. There overall category I think would still be ahmar, red. ahmar is a macro-color which includes pink, Bordeaux, and light brown. It is also possible they fall into al-Asyuti's last stages of 'black' before transitioning to 'white':
"If lighter [than asmar], it is raqīq al-sumra [light brown]. If lighter and inclines towards a fair complexion it is described as light brown [safi al-sumra] with fair-skin [al-humra] prevailing. It is also described as raqīq al-sumra with fairness.”
Probably safi al-sumra.
Regarding your second question (If I understand it):
Allah is God (the Creator). Is there evidence in the Qur'an for Allah's preference for a particular complexion? I am aware of none.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^That is amazing wesleymuhammad. I had already thought the Arabs intellectually challenged: by virtue of their importing slaves, giving them weapons, and expecting them to be loyal soldiers (the Turkic Mamlukes).
Of course a person with normal intelligence would know that armed slaves don't stay slaves for very long.
But now the obsession with skin color: I lost count, what is that, a dozen shades of Black? WOW, you really need to have a really, really, tiny, tiny, mind for that kind of thing. No wonder the Turks had such an easy time taking their land, culture, religion, and identity.
Well, I would separate the two issues. The seeming 'obsession' with ranges and shades of colors is consistent with the nature of the Arabic language itself, which gives words a huge array of meanings all determined by context. I think this 'obsession' is more an obsession to be precise.
Regarding the small mindedness of the whole 'mamluk' project, please note that this was an Abbasid project, not an Umayyad project. Why does this matter? The Umayyad caliphs (most of them) were Arabs,the Abbasi were mostly hajin, mixed breeds, most with Persian or Byzantine mothers. How does that factor into your 'Arab IQ test'? Just curious.
You are correct about the Abbasids beginning those policies, I have no knowledge of their racial composition at that time, so I will take your word for it.
As to my opinion of them: I put the Assyrians, Persians, and Arabs, in the same bag. Low-class Negroes who were able to seize power during periods of power vacuum, and were totally ill-prepared to administer power (in the non-technical sense), or to maintain power. (Add Hebrews to the list).
Several years ago, I found out that tribal Arabs practiced clitorictomies, I have found nothing to improve my opinion of them since.
I should say that my interest in them is merely to establish the true racial nature of the ancient world, admiration plays no part. That is reserved for the Sumerians, Egyptians, and Nubians.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
As to my opinion of them: I put the Assyrians, Persians, and Arabs, in the same bag. Low-class Negroes who were able to seize power during periods of power vacuum, and were totally ill-prepared to administer power (in the non-technical sense), or to maintain power. (Add Hebrews to the list).
Several years ago, I found out that tribal Arabs practiced clitorictomies, I have found nothing to improve my opinion of them since.
I should say that my interest in them is merely to establish the true racial nature of the ancient world, admiration plays no part. That is reserved for the Sumerians, Egyptians, and Nubians.
This is an interesting perspective, but an odd one. I have not researched the cultural history of clitorictomies, but I do know there were many what I with others would call 'barbaric' practices of the pre-Islamic Arabs. But there were practices among the ancient Kemetians, Sumerians, and no doubt Nubians that I have problems with also. I think a deep understanding of the Umayyad dynasty, which was a true 'Black Power' dynasty, might change your mind - if it is an open mind - about them being "Low-class Negroes who were able to seize power during periods of power vacuum, and were totally ill-prepared to administer power." I am currently working on a project to totally revise and correct the image of the Ummayyads that suffered so much at the hands of their vanquishers, the Abbasids.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
The term anthropomorphism is a Greek compound from the terms anthropos meaning “man” and morphe meaning “form” and it denotes, as I use it in the Truth of God and The Book of God, belief in God’s possession of a human form or body. This was the belief of the entire ancient world of color, at least those cultures for which we have documentary evidence of their theological/mythological thinking. In ancient Kemet (Egypt), ancient Sumer (Chaldea), ancient India and Arabia, in the ancient Near East generally God and the gods were divine men, with divine human forms. The God of Biblical and early Islamic tradition was/is anthropomorphic as well, as I demonstrate in the books.
This is important because, of course, we who believe in the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad do not accept that God is an immaterial, bodiless spirit. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught us that God is a man, with a human form. Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike condemn this teaching as unbiblical and un-Islamic. I have demonstrated in the Truth of God and the Book of God that they are wrong and The Honorable Elijah Muhammad is right.
Thank you for your earlier replies. I had read some essays you wrote on your belief that Allah (God) is a man.
1) Does this mean Allah (God) s a living person, a man who is living now in 2011?
Or is Allah (God) a person that once lived but is now dead?
2) In Christianity God is believed to have appeared in human form, Jesus Christ. When you say that Allah (God) is a man do you mean some particular person? Looking at Jesus Christ he was not a normal man. He had supernatural powers and performed miracles according to scripture. When you say Allah (God) is a man do you say he (?) has supernatural powers that he has but no other men have? But looking at Jesus once again he is considered divine but he doesn't get called Jesus the Creator. He made some fish appear but he didn't make a mountain appear. There are billions of men on this planet. None of then has the power to create something out of thin air, not a penny or drop of wine or blade of grass. Then how could the creator who created the whole planet, animals, oceans, the sun and so on be a man. From my experience most men have trouble changing a flat tire or cooking an omelet. Some might have called the Prophet Muhammad of the 7th century to have been divine or at least divinely inspired, Yet no one even claims he could snap his fingers and make a loaf of bread appear instantly.
Did Allah (God) create trees? If he was a man I don't get it men cannot create trees, sheep etc.
I could only see this making sense if Allah (God) is a supernatural being who does have the power to create mountains and rivers but also sometimes takes the form of a man. Because men cannot do these acts of creations out of nothing. So if Allah (God) sometimes takes the form of a man it makes sense. But "taking the form of" does not mean "is a man"
To put it simply:
Man: has the ability to make a house if he has access to wood, stone, etc. or some other raw materials
Allah (God): has the ability to create planets and universes, can make raw materials like wood and stone from nothing
So how can Allah (God) be a man? It seems the basic definitions don't correspond, one is much more powerful than the other
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The term anthropomorphism is a Greek compound from the terms anthropos meaning “man” and morphe meaning “form” and it denotes, as I use it in the Truth of God and The Book of God, belief in God’s possession of a human form or body. This was the belief of the entire ancient world of color, at least those cultures for which we have documentary evidence of their theological/mythological thinking. In ancient Kemet (Egypt), ancient Sumer (Chaldea), ancient India and Arabia, in the ancient Near East generally God and the gods were divine men, with divine human forms. The God of Biblical and early Islamic tradition was/is anthropomorphic as well, as I demonstrate in the books.
This is important because, of course, we who believe in the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad do not accept that God is an immaterial, bodiless spirit. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught us that God is a man, with a human form. Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike condemn this teaching as unbiblical and un-Islamic. I have demonstrated in the Truth of God and the Book of God that they are wrong and The Honorable Elijah Muhammad is right.
Thank you for your earlier replies. I had read some essays you wrote on your belief that Allah (God) is a man.
1) Does this mean Allah (God) s a living person, a man who is living now in 2011?
Or is Allah (God) a person that once lived but is now dead?
2) In Christianity God is believed to have appeared in human form, Jesus Christ. When you say that Allah (God) is a man do you mean some particular person? Looking at Jesus Christ he was not a normal man. He had supernatural powers and performed miracles according to scripture. When you say Allah (God) is a man do you say he (?) has supernatural powers that he has but no other men have? But looking at Jesus once again he is considered divine but he doesn't get called Jesus the Creator. He made some fish appear but he didn't make a mountain appear. There are billions of men on this planet. None of then has the power to create something out of thin air, not a penny or drop of wine or blade of grass. Then how could the creator who created the whole planet, animals, oceans, the sun and so on be a man. From my experience most men have trouble changing a flat tire or cooking an omelet. Some might have called the Prophet Muhammad of the 7th century to have been divine or at least divinely inspired, Yet no one even claims he could snap his fingers and make a loaf of bread appear instantly.
Did Allah (God) create trees? If he was a man I don't get it men cannot create trees, sheep etc.
I could only see this making sense if Allah (God) is a supernatural being who does have the power to create mountains and rivers but also sometimes takes the form of a man. Because men cannot do these acts of creations out of nothing. So if Allah (God) sometimes takes the form of a man it makes sense. But "taking the form of" does not mean "is a man"
To put it simply:
Man: has the ability to make a house if he has access to wood, stone, etc. or some other raw materials
Allah (God): has the ability to create planets and universes, can make raw materials like wood and stone from nothing
So how can Allah (God) be a man? It seems the basic definitions don't correspond, one is much more powerful than the other
Thank you for the questions Lioness. I must confess, though, I usually do not wear my "critical historian" hat and my "theologian" hat at the same time. In this particular forum, I really resist doing so. Your questions are very good ones and ones I would love to entertain at a more appropriate forum. If you are on Facebook, I encourage you to join The Allah Team Study Group. There you can post these types of theological questions to me and I will have no problem 'switching hats'. Or, if there is a theological forum that you would like to invite me to, I am open to the idea. Here, I hesitate. I do hope you understand.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wesleymuhammad: Thank you for the questions Lioness. I must confess, though, I usually do not wear my "critical historian" hat and my "theologian" hat at the same time. In this particular forum, I really resist doing so. Your questions are very good ones and ones I would love to entertain at a more appropriate forum. If you are on Facebook, I encourage you to join The Allah Team Study Group. There you can post these types of theological questions to me and I will have no problem 'switching hats'. Or, if there is a theological forum that you would like to invite me to, I am open to the idea. Here, I hesitate. I do hope you understand. [/QB]
what if one were to suggest that if the history and theology dovetail that is the way to a solid foundation, the complete circle, the sum being greater than the parts.
Christians, for example, will delve into science and biology "intelligent design" to counter evolutionists who they see as a threat to their beliefs. A similar thing with Islamic science, if one has to change hats, it is perceived as weakness. But if you can wear a hat that can serve both purposes at once, then your head can't be touched because you don't have to remove it.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: "He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: "Who amongst you is Muhammad?" At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his companions) leaning on his arm. We replied, "This white man reclining on his arm." He then then addressed him, "O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib." -Sahih Bukhari 1:3:63
I saw the Messenger of Allah (may peace be open him) pronouncing taslim on his right and on his left till I saw the whiteness of his cheek" -Sahih Muslim 4:1208
More form the Hadith
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 63: "Narrated Anas bin Malik: While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: "Who amongst you is Muhammad?" At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his companions) leaning on his arm. We replied, "This white man reclining on his arm." The an then addressed him, "O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib." --- Volume 4, Book 56, Number 744: Narrated Isma'il bin Abi Khalid: I heard Abii Juhaifa saying, "I saw the Prophet, and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali resembled him." I said to Abu- Juhaifa, "Describe him for me." He said, "He was white and his beard was black with some white hair. He promised to give us 13 young she-camels, but he expired before we could get them."
Volume 2, Book 17, Number 122: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Dinar: My father said, "I heard Ibn 'Umar reciting the poetic verses of Abu Talib: And a white (person) (i.e. the Prophet) who is requested to pray for rain and who takes care of the orphans and is the guardian of widows." --- Volume 2, Book 17, Number 141: Narrated Anas bin Malik The Prophet never raised his hands for any invocation except for that of Istisqa' and he used to raise them so much that the whiteness of his armpits became visible. --- Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367: He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet."
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:I guess someone didn't familiarize themselves with the classical Arabic or read Wesley Muhammad's article let along Tariq Berry's site. The term "white" as they point out in the Arab dialect referred to somebody the color of Beyonce or millions of Afro Americans not people of Europe. And that was only in later times as before in Muhammed's time the term simply referred to the brilliant or shining and unblemished black skin.
Dr. Muhammad, dana here is saying that "white" is used in the historical Arabian context to represent a shade of skin like Beyonce's.
In regard to the specific quotes above referring to Prophet Muhammad as "white" do these particular quotes support Prophet Muhammad being of a shade of brown similar to Beyonce?
quote:Originally posted by wesleymuhammad: Thank you for the questions Lioness. I must confess, though, I usually do not wear my "critical historian" hat and my "theologian" hat at the same time. In this particular forum, I really resist doing so. Your questions are very good ones and ones I would love to entertain at a more appropriate forum. If you are on Facebook, I encourage you to join The Allah Team Study Group. There you can post these types of theological questions to me and I will have no problem 'switching hats'. Or, if there is a theological forum that you would like to invite me to, I am open to the idea. Here, I hesitate. I do hope you understand.
what if one were to suggest that if the history and theology dovetail that is the way to a solid foundation, the complete circle, the sum being greater than the parts.
Christians, for example, will delve into science and biology "intelligent design" to counter evolutionists who they see as a threat to their beliefs. A similar thing with Islamic science, if one has to change hats, it is perceived as weakness. But if you can wear a hat that can serve both purposes at once, then your head can't be touched because you don't have to remove it. [/QB]
I do understand that Beloved, and always when I am a theologian ,I am also a critical historian. For example, in my book Truth of God: The Bible, the Qur'an and the Secret of the Black God. However, frequently when I am being a critical historian, I WONT wear my theologian hat, and this because of the subject and/or place of discussion. In other words, there are times and places where wearing both hats is appropriate and advisable, and there are times and places where 'waxing theological' can undermine your work as a critical historian. I try to choose wisely. I do not believe this forum is the best place, certainly not appended to this particular strictly historical discussion.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
The term "white" as they point out in the Arab dialect referred to somebody the color of Beyonce or millions of Afro Americans not people of Europe. And that was only in later times as before in Muhammed's time the term simply referred to the brilliant or shining and unblemished black skin.
Dr. Muhammad, dana here is saying that "white" is used in the historical Arabian context to represent a shade of skin like Beyonce's.
In regard to the specific quotes above referring to Prophet Muhammad as "white" do these particular quotes support Prophet Muhammad being of a shade of brown similar to Beyonce?
.
Actually ,Dana's statement was more nuanced than that, and 100% correct. She correctly points out that, while in many dialects today 'white' refers to a complexion such as Beyonce's (or mine, even), at an earlier period - the period of Classical Arabic - the term white "simply referred to the brilliant or shining and unblemished black skin." This is correct.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wesleymuhammad: Actually ,Dana's statement was more nuanced than that, and 100% correct. She correctly points out that, while in many dialects today 'white' refers to a complexion such as Beyonce's (or mine, even), at an earlier period - the period of Classical Arabic - the term white "simply referred to the brilliant or shining and unblemished black skin." This is correct.
What is the word in classical Arabic for white?
Is this the same word used to describe things such as milk, bones, teeth, eggs, salt?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wesleymuhammad: Actually ,Dana's statement was more nuanced than that, and 100% correct. She correctly points out that, while in many dialects today 'white' refers to a complexion such as Beyonce's (or mine, even), at an earlier period - the period of Classical Arabic - the term white "simply referred to the brilliant or shining and unblemished black skin." This is correct.
What is the word in classical Arabic for white?
Is this the same word used to describe things such as milk, bones, teeth, eggs, salt?
The term is abyad/bayad, and yes it is the term normally used to denote the whiteness of such objects as milk, teeth, ect. However, Classical Arabic has a linguistic phenomenon called 'al-addad', which we call antiphrasis, in which in certain contexts a word signifies its lexical opposite, al-didd. Abyad is the classical example. Thus A. Morabia, writing in the Encyclopedia of Islam (s.v. Lawn), notes:
"One of the most striking manifestations of the symbolic connotations of colours among the Arabs, is the phenomenon of opposites (al-addad). We have seen, in studying the semantic value of certain adjectives of colour, that they were sometimes capable of embracing two diametrically opposite meanings. This phenomenon is particularly to be noted in the case of white and black...To signify wine, the Arabs used a number of euphemisms of the type 'the fair drink', 'the golden one', etc...Even today, in certain parts of the Orient and the Maghrib, in order to avoid pronouncing the word 'black'...opposites are used. In Morrocco, al-abyad sometimes denotes tar or coal."
This is particularly the case when abyad is used to describe human complexions: it then takes on its ‘didd’ significance. See e.g. Arabist Jeham Allam's study of Classical Arabic color terminology (“A Sociolinguistic Study on the Use of Color Terminology in Egyptian Colloquial and Classical Arabic [2000],” where he observes:
“color terms often acquire, in certain fixed allocations, a range that goes beyond what they normally possess, e.g., “white” in the expression “white coffee” refers to a deep shade of brown…when referring to skin, an Arabic speaker may use [abyad] (“white”) as a euphemism for [aswad] (“black”).”
Recall the words of the important Syrian hadith scholar and historian of Islam, Shāms al-Dīn Abū `Abd Allāh al-Dhahabī (d. 1348), which I quoted above:
“When Arabs say, ‘so-and-so is white (abyad),’ they mean a golden brown complexion with a black appearance (al-hintī al-lawn bi-hilya sudā’). Like the complexion of the people of India, brown and black (asmar wa ādam), i.e. a clear, refined blackness (sawad al-takrūr).”
Thus, when abyad is used to describe the human complexion, it assumes its ‘didd’ significance and means a refined black complexion [free of blemishes] with a golden-brown hue. This golden brown hue is no doubt due to the luminosity or glow that is also implied by the term: the gloss and sheen (saqala wa safa’) that sits on and thus interacts with a refined black complexion.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wesleymuhammad: A. Morabia, writing in the Encyclopedia of Islam (s.v. Lawn), notes:
"One of the most striking manifestations of the symbolic connotations of colours among the Arabs, is the phenomenon of opposites (al-addad). We have seen, in studying the semantic value of certain adjectives of colour, that they were sometimes capable of embracing two diametrically opposite meanings. This phenomenon is particularly to be noted in the case of white and black...To signify wine, the Arabs used a number of euphemisms of the type 'the fair drink', 'the golden one', etc...Even today, in certain parts of the Orient and the Maghrib, in order to avoid pronouncing the word 'black'...opposites are used. In Morrocco, al-abyad sometimes denotes tar or coal."
Does the above apply to human skin color? Does it apply specifically to India and Pakistan?
The above seems to be from a book entitled:
Islam in India and Pakistan By Annemarie Schimmel 1982 Harvard University
One of the most striking manifestations of the symbolic connotations of colours among the Arabs, is the phenomenon of opposites (al-addad). We have seen, in studying the semantic value of certain adjectives of colour, that they were sometimes capable of embracing two diametrically opposite meanings. This phenomenon is particularly to be noted in the case of white and black which have common adjectives. To signify wine, the Arabs used a number of euphemisms of the type 'the fair drink', 'the golden one', etc. It seems to have been the same reasoning that led them, superstitiously, to avoid the use of certain terms, and to evoke them by sufficiently eloquent imagery or by antiphrasis, in cases where the context rendered the sense unequivocal. Even today, in certain parts of the Orient and the Maghrib, in order to avoid pronouncing the word 'black' (the accursed colour, the colour of Hell), opposites are used.
____________________________________
[further down page continues]
Aswad and sayyid present and etymological relationship that is loaded with meaning. The Arabs sensed that black was a dominant colour exercising over them a fascination that was mingled with fear. Black, darkness, the night, mystery all of these demand respect. The black stone of the Ka'ba is a pillar of spiritual influence. Black is the coat of "the unknown journey". It is also the joint symbol of vengeance and revolt (cf. the flag of the Abbasids). In the history of superstitions in the lands of Islam , black occupies a privileged position. By a kind of homeopathic magic it is used as a charm against "the evil eye". The black cat is endowed with enormous magic power: it is a creation of Satan, and anyone who eats it's flesh is immunized against illness: it's spleen, when applied to a woman stops menstruation. For the Muslims as for so many other people, the black crow exercises a baleful influence; meeting the bird is an unfavorable omen, since the bird is a herald of separation; is it not assumed that the Prophet said that the crow must be killed since it is wicked and perverse? The chains of Hell are black. A black cloud is a sign of divine wrath. Cain killed able with a black rock (kisas 8, 108, 121, 186-7, 193-194, 298) Al-sawdd is the black bile source of sorrow and fear. "Black liver" is a term applied to a sworn enemy; "black heart" is a degenerate and vulgar personality "black news" denotes a calamity; "black life" is unfortunate; a "black face" belongs to discredited person; "black death" is reserved for that caused by strangulation.
-this sounds like the same type of connotations, many negative, that we never liked from the Western tradition. (at the same time priests wear black and formal suits are black -go figure)
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting to notice when we consider what "black" means, the nature it being a social construct, In the video I posted earlier (ripped off from alurubenson)
thread title:
Black Schools in Holland
you have Dutch people calling Arabs of various backgrounds including Turkish people and others "black" Yes, others did look more African but most in the video would never be referred to as "black" in America. Yet in Holland these get called "black schools". The very people, an example light brown Turkish people that many "black" people like to identify as mainly "white" -but in Holland apparently, due to their Islamic culture they are identified as "blacks". Similarly Australian aborigines get called "blacks" sometimes n's also, yet they are quite genetically different from Africans. Yet the stigma they feel is very real. Then you might see some very dark Indian people in New York. But they don't get identified as "black" The term has no fixed meaning.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Interesting to notice when we consider what "black" means, the nature it being a social construct, In the video I posted earlier (ripped off from alurubenson)
thread title:
Black Schools in Holland
you have Dutch people calling Arabs of various backgrounds including Turkish people and others "black" Yes, others did look more African but most in the video would never be referred to as "black" in America. Yet in Holland these get called "black schools". The very people, an example light brown Turkish people that many "black" people like to identify as mainly "white" -but in Holland apparently, due to their Islamic culture they are identified as "blacks". Similarly Australian aborigines get called "blacks" sometimes n's also, yet they are quite genetically different from Africans. Yet the stigma they feel is very real. Then you might see some very dark Indian people in New York. But they don't get identified as "black" The term has no fixed meaning.
These are all modern notions of 'blackness'. WE must always be careful to keep the contexts in mind. I agree with you that 'black' today has wide and contradictory meanings today, in the Arab and non-Arab world. But we must not retroject modern meanings into the ancient discourse, without do cause. In America I am Black. In 7th century Arabia I am surely ahmar, "red=white". Abyad in modern Arabic applies to a golden brown like Beyonce. In Classical Arabic it applied to black skin with a golden glow.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
If I were to post a random pic. of a Arab and claim they are “Japheth Mulattos” based on appearance/complexion, you would be nodding. But if I ask which of these 3 gentlemen is a Mulatto based on complexion, I get no answer from someone who is a expert on complexion terms.
Most of us on this blog are mixed people of some degree. How does that nullify the fact that ancient Arabs were the same people as Ethiopians, Nubians and other black skinned and in many cases tar and lava colored people. I don't think Dr. Muhammad personally cares what modern Arabs or Arabians and Muslims are. His interest is similar to my interest. My interest is that the ancient Arabs were black African related peoples who brought forth black African related religions the last of which was Islam. Those therefore need to be understood in their BLACK AFRICAN CONTEXT.
The earliest Muslims emerged out of Christianity, Judaism and other early AFRICAN BELIEF systems so I'm not certain what the problem is with people trying to unearth THOSE FACTS.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Interesting to notice when we consider what "black" means, the nature it being a social construct, In the video I posted earlier (ripped off from alurubenson)
thread title:
Black Schools in Holland
you have Dutch people calling Arabs of various backgrounds including Turkish people and others "black" Yes, others did look more African but most in the video would never be referred to as "black" in America. Yet in Holland these get called "black schools". The very people, an example light brown Turkish people that many "black" people like to identify as mainly "white" -but in Holland apparently, due to their Islamic culture they are identified as "blacks". Similarly Australian aborigines get called "blacks" sometimes n's also, yet they are quite genetically different from Africans. Yet the stigma they feel is very real. Then you might see some very dark Indian people in New York. But they don't get identified as "black" The term has no fixed meaning.
What the H--- does that have to do with the fact that African-affiliated kinky haired TAR COLORED people predominated in Arabia with Nubian-looking kinky haired ones before 600 years ago, while scholars like Bernard Lewis put paintings of Central Asian people TURKOMAN in his books about "Arabs", NITWIT?
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sero: How would these people by classified?
Since no one wishes to respond to sucha a simplistic question, I WILL. These ARE Syrian bedouin Arabized by early Shammar or Anaeaza ARABS who came originally from the YAMAN to SYRIA many centuries ago. As I have stated many times such people began moving from the Syrian desert back into the Arabian peninsula after the 16th century.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^That is amazing wesleymuhammad. I had already thought the Arabs intellectually challenged: by virtue of their importing slaves, giving them weapons, and expecting them to be loyal soldiers (the Turkic Mamlukes).
Of course a person with normal intelligence would know that armed slaves don't stay slaves for very long.
But now the obsession with skin color: I lost count, what is that, a dozen shades of Black? WOW, you really need to have a really, really, tiny, tiny, mind for that kind of thing. No wonder the Turks had such an easy time taking their land, culture, religion, and identity.
Well, I would separate the two issues. The seeming 'obsession' with ranges and shades of colors is consistent with the nature of the Arabic language itself, which gives words a huge array of meanings all determined by context. I think this 'obsession' is more an obsession to be precise.
Regarding the small mindedness of the whole 'mamluk' project, please note that this was an Abbasid project, not an Umayyad project. Why does this matter? The Umayyad caliphs (most of them) were Arabs,the Abbasi were mostly hajin, mixed breeds, most with Persian or Byzantine mothers. How does that factor into your 'Arab IQ test'? Just curious.
You are correct about the Abbasids beginning those policies, I have no knowledge of their racial composition at that time, so I will take your word for it.
As to my opinion of them: I put the Assyrians, Persians, and Arabs, in the same bag. Low-class Negroes who were able to seize power during periods of power vacuum, and were totally ill-prepared to administer power (in the non-technical sense), or to maintain power. (Add Hebrews to the list).
Several years ago, I found out that tribal Arabs practiced clitorictomies, I have found nothing to improve my opinion of them since.
I should say that my interest in them is merely to establish the true racial nature of the ancient world, admiration plays no part. That is reserved for the Sumerians, Egyptians, and Nubians.
Clitorectomy, as anybody who knows something about Africa KNOWS is a "traditional" "tribal" BLACK African practice which dates back far back to ancient Egypt. That is why these Africans further east IN ARABIA retained that practice and transferred it to the Muslims of all origins. As Diop and Asante have informed, African Gods " directed" this rite of passage as with the related rite of circumcision. They have to do with the conception of spiritual duality with relationship to humanness, marriage and fertility - something which doesn't appear to have deep roots in the West.
Of course the practice itself has evolved or devolved however you want to look at it and been reinterpreted according to later beliefs and edicts.
In my view, both practices clitorectomy AND circumcisionm can be done away with.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Ummmm, your snakiness.... couldn't you have chosen a more true to life photo of Beyonce with makeup on. LOL! I was wondering who this was. I had to stare at her for some seconds. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: And that's the confounded thing about "race" which is often subject to arbitrary definition--as in the U.S.
If Saleh were U.S. born but of a Yemeni family that migrated to the U.S.[just like the Christian Lebanese: Ralph Nader, Helen Thomas, etc.] 3 or 4 generations back he could easily be a member of the so-called "Black Caucus". Why? Because his phenotype does evidently contain elements of African DNA. Well, how so? The hair and facial structure. In Dakar, Senegal, Saleh would get unsolicited greetings from Mauritanians.
Whether or not there are arbitrary definitions about what black is in Europe or America today - one thing that isn't confounding is the fact that people that looked like this man or an African American that looks like him would have been called by early Arabs - "white mixed with red" or simply red and that was said IN THEIR WORDS to "resemble as slave", and a non-Arab and "one of the seven rare things of this world. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Clitorectomy, as anybody who knows something about Africa KNOWS is a "traditional" "tribal" BLACK African practice which dates back far back to ancient Egypt. That is why these Africans further east IN ARABIA retained that practice and transferred it to the Muslims of all origins. As Diop and Asante have informed, African Gods " directed" this rite of passage as with the related rite of circumcision. They have to do with the conception of spiritual duality with relationship to humanness, marriage and fertility - something which doesn't appear to have deep roots in the West.
Of course the practice itself has evolved or devolved however you want to look at it and been reinterpreted according to later beliefs and edicts.
In my view, both practices clitorectomy AND circumcision can be done away with.
Circumcision (removal of the foreskin) is a "rite of passage" firmly rooted in sound hygienic policy.
Clitorectomy (removal of the clitoris) and infibulation, (scarring and sealing of the vagina) are NOT rites of passage. They are control policies, and acts of violence against women. Done by weak men, of minimal intelligence, who are afraid of female sexuality.
The fact that it is ritualized, does not change the basis fact that it is a criminal enterprise intended to benefit men and victimize women - making them little more than penile receptacles and birth canals.
Seeing as how it renders the female incapable of providing a satisfying sexual experience, for either partner, I can only assume that these men turn elsewhere for such fulfillment.
I have seen it referred to as pharaonic circumcision, but I know of no such Egyptian policy.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Clitorectomy, as anybody who knows something about Africa KNOWS is a "traditional" "tribal" BLACK African practice which dates back far back to ancient Egypt. That is why these Africans further east IN ARABIA retained that practice and transferred it to the Muslims of all origins. As Diop and Asante have informed, African Gods " directed" this rite of passage as with the related rite of circumcision. They have to do with the conception of spiritual duality with relationship to humanness, marriage and fertility - something which doesn't appear to have deep roots in the West.
Of course the practice itself has evolved or devolved however you want to look at it and been reinterpreted according to later beliefs and edicts.
In my view, both practices clitorectomy AND circumcision can be done away with.
Circumcision (removal of the foreskin) is a "rite of passage" firmly rooted in sound hygienic policy.
Clitorectomy (removal of the clitoris) and infibulation, (scarring and sealing of the vagina) are NOT rites of passage. They are control policies, and acts of violence against women. Done by weak men, of minimal intelligence, who are afraid of female sexuality.
The fact that it is ritualized, does not change the basis fact that it is a criminal enterprise intended to benefit men and victimize women - making them little more than penile receptacles and birth canals.
Seeing as how it renders the female incapable of providing a satisfying sexual experience, for either partner, I can only assume that these men turn elsewhere for such fulfillment.
I have seen it referred to as pharaonic circumcision, but I know of no such Egyptian policy.
Mike thank you for correcting this lackey, dana
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: What the H--- does that have to do with the fact that African-affiliated kinky haired TAR COLORED people predominated in Arabia with Nubian-looking kinky haired ones before 600 years ago, while scholars like Bernard Lewis put paintings of Central Asian people TURKOMAN in his books about "Arabs", NITWIT? [/QB]
where's your proof that kinky hair was predominant in 6th century Arabia? (or other AD centuries?)
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QB]
From Marib, Yemen, A votive statue
gravestone of a young woman named Aban, of the clan of Mahdhar, second century AD, Qataban
Sabaean From Yemen Woman with braided hair.
Coin, tetradrachm (16.8g), Saba, South Arabia, c. 4th-3rd century BC, Sear -, Munro-Hay Type 1.0.4, Huth 1.
Male head of artist Sabaean, Saba, Kingdom, Carved, Bust,
Calcite stela, South Arabia, 1st century BC. The inscriptionL Aban of the tribe of Mahdhar
Sabean Alabaster Stele Yemen, South Arabia.Ca. 3rd cent. B.C. - 2nd cent. A.D.16-3/4"H.Cream and red mottled alabaster plank stele or grave marker having a relief male head at top bearing almond shaped, recessed eyes, long, thin nose and small, pursed lips. Broken in two parts, the lower bears two lines of Sabaean inscription.
Arabia Petraea, also called Provincia Arabia or simply Arabia, was a frontier province of the Roman Empire beginning in the 2nd century; it consisted of the former Nabataean kingdom in modern Jordan, southern modern Syria, the Sinai Peninsula and northwestern Saudi Arabia. Its capital was Petra. It was bordered on the north by Syria, on the west by Iudaea and Aegyptus.
It was annexed by Trajan, like many other eastern frontier provinces of the Roman Empire, but held onto, unlike Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria, well after Trajan's rule -its desert frontier being called the Limes Arabicus. It produced no usurpers and no emperors (Philippus, though Arab, was from Shahbā, a Syrian city added to the province of Arabia at a point between 193 and 225—Philippus was born around 204). As a frontier province, it included a desert populated by the nomadic Saraceni, and bordering the Parthian hinterland.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Clitorectomy, as anybody who knows something about Africa KNOWS is a "traditional" "tribal" BLACK African practice which dates back far back to ancient Egypt. That is why these Africans further east IN ARABIA retained that practice and transferred it to the Muslims of all origins. As Diop and Asante have informed, African Gods " directed" this rite of passage as with the related rite of circumcision. They have to do with the conception of spiritual duality with relationship to humanness, marriage and fertility - something which doesn't appear to have deep roots in the West.
Of course the practice itself has evolved or devolved however you want to look at it and been reinterpreted according to later beliefs and edicts.
In my view, both practices clitorectomy AND circumcision can be done away with.
Circumcision (removal of the foreskin) is a "rite of passage" firmly rooted in sound hygienic policy.
Clitorectomy (removal of the clitoris) and infibulation, (scarring and sealing of the vagina) are NOT rites of passage. They are control policies, and acts of violence against women. Done by weak men, of minimal intelligence, who are afraid of female sexuality.
The fact that it is ritualized, does not change the basis fact that it is a criminal enterprise intended to benefit men and victimize women - making them little more than penile receptacles and birth canals.
Seeing as how it renders the female incapable of providing a satisfying sexual experience, for either partner, I can only assume that these men turn elsewhere for such fulfillment.
I have seen it referred to as pharaonic circumcision, but I know of no such Egyptian policy.
Mike thank you for correcting this lackey, dana
and let me respectfully correct both you and Mikey-
both male CIRCUMCISION AND/OR EXCISION, as well as female CIRCUMCISION both go far far far far back and are symbolic in their original nature, and are African in origin. As Dana said.
I also posted info on the subject once before, awhile ago.
Correct, clitorectomy and infibulation have no ancient symbolism to them, as relates to what I stated above re; Male Circumcision and/or Excision (two different things, both were originally practiced) and Female Circumcision.
female circumcision does not necessarily = clitorectomy...
in it's original practice, the symbolism was in the removal of the clitoral foreskin/cloak, not the removal of the clitoris- the clitoris was not removed...
Actually, technically speaking, infibulation is the stitching together of the vulva leaving a small opening for the passing of menstrual blood and urine.
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The usual way to preform infibulation is to cut slits into the inside of the vaginal lips. As the wounds heal, the lips fuse together - i.e. scarring.
The fact that ignorant, inbreed, Bush or desert Negroes, developed a practice, just one of their many stupidities. Does not mean that it is indicative of generalized African thinking or practice - Or a thing to be admired. It is simply something that foolish people came up with. It is now the duty of civilized Black people to try and teach them better.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Arabia Petraea, also called Provincia Arabia or simply Arabia, was a frontier province of the Roman Empire beginning in the 2nd century; it consisted of the former Nabataean kingdom in modern Jordan, southern modern Syria, the Sinai Peninsula and northwestern Saudi Arabia. Its capital was Petra. It was bordered on the north by Syria, on the west by Iudaea and Aegyptus.
It was annexed by Trajan, like many other eastern frontier provinces of the Roman Empire, but held onto, unlike Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria, well after Trajan's rule -its desert frontier being called the Limes Arabicus. It produced no usurpers and no emperors (Philippus, though Arab, was from Shahbā, a Syrian city added to the province of Arabia at a point between 193 and 225—Philippus was born around 204). As a frontier province, it included a desert populated by the nomadic Saraceni, and bordering the Parthian hinterland.
Idiot, The Sabaean people were South Arabian people
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are all Sabaean Mike this is not a negroid. Look at his features moron, furthermore look at other Sabaean art. Are you still promoting curly hair = black?
That's retard anthropology. Look at those thin ass lips, big straight nose. True some Africans have this but it is rare.
Mike did you notice the man is wearing a hat some sort of head gear. This would be obvious to anyone but a moron due to the fact that there is a horizontal line going across the forehead, the band of the head piece.
Doesn't matter if it was his real hair
you never learn
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic