Help IslamDunk with your generous contribution.

The haters are growing in numbers, Islam is being attacked every day by people working full time (as Shamoun claims). We as Muslims need to work even harder to let people know the truth of Islam. To do that we need your help. We need your contribution to this project. Donate towards our work and support our cause. Use the Donate Tab on your right hand side in the home window.

Teeth Breaking Responses To Those Who Want To Extinguish The Light Of Allah

TTT is our brother/sister site that deals with writing articles responding to the most common attacks on Islam. The articles are unarguable and most scholastic (in the English language) following a unique traditional style, giving explanations of scholars, expositions of commentaries and most important of all in a simple short and clear way that everyone can understand.

Help Us Spread The Message

In order to reach as many people as possible IslamDunk needs your help. Almost everyone has a facebook account, an email list or other social connections on the web. All you need to do is use one of our logos or post a link or post our articles and videos, favor them, rate them and keep doing that over and over. This work that we are doing needs to reach every corner of the Earth so that everyone will know the truth of Islam

Shamoun's Lowly Character

Sam thinks he can beat everyone in a debate and that he has already done so. Things have not even happened yet he can predict with certainty outcomes. He thinks no one can answer him. Check out a list of answers right here.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Exposing Wesley Muhammad on Prophet Muhammad's Complexion: Refutation of NOI’s Racist Theology


by  Waqar Akbar Cheema & Gabriel Keresztes Abdul Rahman Al-Romaani
 
Wesley Muhammad PhD of Nation of Islam (NOI) has made his career following the steps of Wallace Fard Muhammad and Elijah Muhammad claiming that the black man is divine by nature and that it is the body that contains Allah’s radiance.  A deep explanation of their theology is not needed here, however one can do some research and can find much of NOI material, especially Wesley’s articles, where he outlines the theology of the group NOI.  Such theology has made scholars of Islam deem the group as outside the fold of ISLAM.  

The racist approach that Wesley has taken to his academics cannot be fully understood but speculated as a reactionary one: blacks have been oppressed around the world for centuries and it’s only reasonable and fair that they should make it known to the world.  However in doing so, there have been many groups that have formed causing the same damage that whites have done in the past.  Instead of trying to solve racism, racism was only painted with a different color.  Such is the case of NOI who is not only a Black Nationalist Movement but a religion, a theology built on color.  A reaction to Christianity’s white Jesus gave NOI’s black god, black man divine, back prophets, black nation and chosen people.  This has not only affected the relationship between NOI and whites, blacks and other (be them Christians or others), but also the dynamics between orthodox Muslim communities.  With a convincing resume and academic studies, Wesley and others like him have managed to attract some of the mainstream Muslims (especially blacks) to follow their way.  
 
In this article we will deal specifically with one issue which ties all, and that is the color of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  To a normal Muslim this might not be an issue, and one can go on their whole life without even thinking of such a topic being an issue. Islam’s foundation and practice is based on ideologies and principles not on persons.  Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not venerated or worshiped (except by deviant-ignorant), nor is his color important to the ideology or practice of Islam.  It is true that scholars have written books and composed poetry on the physical characteristics of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but never has such an issue become a theological one.  The Shamail of the Prophet by Al-Tirmidhi and other works have been recorded and described the physical attributes of prophet Muhammad.  Such were done out of love for him, out of scholarship but not out of racism and intention to propagate a theology that is based on color and to give superiority to a color skin over the other (something that Wesley does whether explicitly or implicitly).   Wesley objected to such a statement quoting a Muslim scholar, Ahmad bin Abi Sulayman- a companion of the great Maliki jurist, Sahnun), who said “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black (aswad) should be killed“ (al-Shifa).  We respond by saying that you will always find someone who will give death fatwas, for many unreasonable reasons. Osama bin Laden’s famous fatwa to “kill Americans wherever you find them” is only one such example.  Second, when we go and analyze the circumstantial evidence around the text of Ahmand b. Abi Sulayman we see that Muhammad al-Zarqani in Sharah Al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyya says that the statement was made not because of looking down upon black complexion but because it goes against the facts known through mutawatir reports. And according to the Maliki school of thought anyone who denies any characteristic of the Prophet (pbuh) should be killed even if it is known that degrading or disparaging was not intended.  Wesley’s scholarship failed to mention that or was not interested in researching a bit more about it. 
 
Wesley 1The color of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) might be important only as a fact, and would he have been white or black or Chinese for that matter it should not add or take away from a Muslim’s faith in Allah.  
 
We decided to take Wesley’s article and show the rest of the world, especially his followers, what happens when someone puts on the specs of racism and will see everything in one color.  Wesley tries to prove in his article that Prophet Muhammad was a black man.  To go further one needs to understand that black here does not mean colored or brown as an Arab might be but black as AFRICAN BLACK, just like Wesley and most of the followers of NOI.  This is important because it ties in to the whole theology of NOI and their movement of racism.  Of course in the attempt to gain converts and superiority over humanity, people such as Wesley have claimed that most if not all of the prophets were black. Wesley 2
 
It is important that we start with a verse from the Quran to put everyone at ease and to show that Allah has created human beings in different colors and that such makes no difference to Him:
 
O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the most God fearing (righteous). Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (Quran, Hujarat v. 13)
 
Refuting Wesley’s article
 
It is very important for the reader to pay close attention to the following refutation and see the academic twists that Wesley tries to make be it out of ignorance (which is hard to believe as he claims to know Arabic)  or on purpose.  We will refute his claims by analyzing the meaning of the words in reference to skin color, analyzing the Arabic of the narrations in question, quoting narrations which give the full picture of the issue in question, and showing how Wesley has selectively quoted and misquoted texts in order to propagate his racist ideology.
 
Mr. Wesley Muhammad in his article tries hard to ‘prove’ that Prophet Muhammad may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was black in complexion. The racism within him prompts him to come up with such ‘interesting research’. Let us analyze the issue and see where his theory stands in the light of evidence.  We will also analyze his intellectual honesty.
 
Meanings of the keywords used to describe the complexion
With regards to the meanings and connotation of the words used to describe the complexion we must remember that in any language it’s the usage of the words that matters more than their dictionary meanings. To facilitate things for non Arabic readers, the dictionary meanings of the keywords around which the discussion revolves are given, as it will help understand their usage better. All the meanings are from Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon.
 
Meaning of Adam/Udma;
 
آدم  Of the colour termed أُدمة (Book I, p.37)
 
أُدمة... and in human beings, a tawny colour; or darkness of complexion; syn. سُمرة or an intermixture, or a tinge, of blackness or intense سُمرة (Book I, p.36)
 
Meaning of Asmar/Sumra:
 
أسمر  [Tawny, or brownish; dusky; dark-complexioned or dark-coloured;] of the colour termed سُمرة (Book I, p.1426)
 
سُمرة  [A tawny, or brownish, colour, of various shades, like the various hues of wheat; duskiness; darkness of complexion or colour;] certain colour, well known, between white and black, …  (Book I, p.1425)
 
Meaning of Ahmar/Humrah:
 
حُمرة [Redness;] a well-known colour; (Msb, K;) the colour of that which is termed أحمر …. But when relating to complexion, whiteness; (Book I, p.640)
 
Meaning of Azhar/Zuhrah:
 
أزهر Shining; giving light; bright. (S.,K) …. White; (S.,K;) and beautiful: (K.:) or of a bright white colour: (TA:) or of any shining colour: (AH.n,R:) (Book I, p.1262)
 
زُهرة Whiteness; (Yaakoon,S,K;) and beauty: (K:) whiteness, or fairness, characteristic of good birth: (S:) or bright whiteness: (TA:) or any shining colour. (AHn,R) (Book I, p.1262)
 
How the Arabs use the words?
As Mr. Wesley said, Imam al-Dhahbi has described as to how the Arabs use these words.
Here are the actual words of al-Dhahbi (d. 748 A.H.) and their rightful translation:
 
إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ
 
“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda). And if it is the complexion the People of India they say, ‘asmar’ and ‘adam’. And if it is of Toucouleur Negroes (sawad al-Takrur) they say ‘aswad’ and likewise everyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black; they call, ‘aswad’ or ‘shadid-ul-udmah’.” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 1/39 & 3/448, Darul Hadith, Cairo 2006)
 
In the second instance where these words appear, al-Dhahbi continues:
 
فَمَعْنَى ذَلِكَ: أَنَّ بَنِي آدَمَ لا ينفكون، عن أحد الأمرين. وكل لَوْنٍ بِهَذَا الاعْتِبَارِ يَدُوْرُ بَيْنَ السَّوَادِ وَالبَيَاضِ الَّذِي هُوَ الحُمْرَةُ.
 
“So this means, mankind cannot escape either of these two things (fairness and darkness of complexion). And every complexion is a shade between blackness and, whiteness which (in this context) is redness.” .”(Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 3/448)
 
Word about the trickery of Mr. Wesley on this quotation follows towards the end of the article.
 
Meaning of ‘Abyad’ when used for people:
 
Mr. Wesley also tends to argue that Arabs use ‘abyad’ not to mean whiteness of complexion but the purity of one’s character.  It might be used to mean purity of one’s character but to say that it is not used to mean whiteness of complexion is a mistake. This is evident from the very page of the classical work Lisan al-‘Arab from which Wesley quoted, but he failed to be honest enough to present the whole thing. Moreover, this can be said of some usage only, there are instances when the statements categorically relate ‘abyad’ to color/complexion. 
We shall see the details of Lisan al-‘Arab quote towards the end. And the examples forcing the understanding of ‘abyad’ relating to colour/complexion will fall within our scope of discussion.
 
Principle of ‘addad
 
Coming to the idea of ‘addad’ (a word understood to imply the opposite of its first meaning) which Wesley brings forward, this might be the case in some rare instances. But if it’s with regard to colors in some contexts it does not mean ‘addad’ applies always. To suggest this is insanity. And again we shall see some usages that just do not allow any such sense of the word.
 
Complexion of the Prophet (peace be upon him)
 
Here in a quote narrations from different Companions about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him.
 
Abu Bakr (RA)
 
On being questioned about the appearance of Holy Prophet (pbuh) by a monk, Abu Bakr (RA) said:
 
أبيض اللون، مشرب بحمرة
 
“White in complexion (abyad al-lawn), imbued with redness.” (Kanzul Ummal, Hadith 18524 cf. al-Zawzni, Abdul Razzaq)
 
Same is mentioned in al-Ins al-Jalil bi-Tarikh al-Quds wal Khalil of Abdul Rahman bin Muhammad al-‘Alimi (d. 928 A.H.)
 
Now here the fact that ‘abyad’ is attached with the word ‘lawn’ (lit. colour) kills the idea that it is all about character.
 
‘Umar (RA):
 
Ibn ‘Asaakir (d. 571 A.H.) quotes;
 
Bashir al-‘Abdi says, people came to ‘Umar bin al-Khattab and asked him about the appearance of the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him. He said:
 
كان نبي الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) أبيض اللون مشربا حمرة
 
“The Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was of white complexion (abyad al-lawn) imbued with redness (mushraban humrah).” (Tarikh Damishq 3/264 No. 653, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut 1995)
 
‘Aisha (RA):
 
Ibn Asaakir also gives the following narration:
 
عن عائشة قالت أهدي للنبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) شملة  سوداء فلبسها وقال كيف ترينها علي يا عائشة قلت ما أحسنها عليك يا رسول الله يشوب سوادها بياضك وبياضك سوادها
 
Narrated ‘Aisha: A black turban (shimlatu sawda) was gifted to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), he put it on and asked, ‘How do you see on me O ‘Aisha?” I said, “How beautiful it looks on you O the Messenger of Allah! Its blackness (sawaduha) suits on your whiteness (bayadak) and your whiteness (bayadak) on its blackness (sawaduha). (Tarikh Damishq 3/310-311 No. 705)
 
Now this leaves nothing ambiguous. Here blackness (sawad) of turban is brought in contrast to whiteness/fairness (bayad) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), so it cannot be anything of the kind of addad or any other sense of ‘bayad’.
 
Jabir bin ‘Abdullah (RA):
 
In Tabqatul Kubra, also sometimes referred to as, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, we read:
 
عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ: كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلّى الله عليه وسلم أَبْيَضَ مُشْرَبًا بِحُمْرَةٍ 
 
Jabir bin ‘Abdullah said: “The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was of white complexion imbued with redness (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).” (Tabqat al-Kubra 1/419, Dar al-Sader Beirut 1968)
 
Abu Huraira (RA):
 
Similar Abu Huraira (RA) narrates that some Bedouins came and inquired about the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him, the Companions guided him. Saying this Abu Huraira (RA) describes how the Prophet appeared, saying:
 
وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أبيض مشربا بحمرة
 
“The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was of white complexion imbued with redness (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).” (Kanzul Ummal 18533)
 
‘Ali (RA):
 
Another very close companion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, ‘Ali (RA) described the complexion of the Holy Prophet in the following words:
 
كَانَ أَبْيَضَ مشرَّباً بَيَاضُهُ حُمْرَةً، وَكَانَ أَسْوَدَ الْحَدَقَةِ
 
“He had white complexion, his whiteness being imbued with redness (abyad musharraban bayaduhu humrah) and his iris was black (awsad).” (Dalail al-Nubuwwah lil-Baihaqi 1/212-213 Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya Beirut 1405 A.H.)
 
Reports to this effect from ‘Ali (RA) are found in many works of Hadith.
 
Abu Tufail (RA):
 
According to Sahih Muslim, when Jurairi asked the last to die Companion, about the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- he said:
 
كَانَ أَبْيَضَ مَلِيحًا 
 
“He was beautifully white (abyada malihan).”  (Sahih Muslim 2340 Darul Ahya al-Turath, Beirut)
 
Abu Umamah (RA):
 
Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat al-Kubra narrates from Abu Umamah that he described about the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, as:
 
رَجُلًا أَبْيَضَ تَعْلُوهُ حُمْرَةٌ
 
“A man of white complexion with red tinge in it (abyad ta’luhu humrah).” (Tabaqat al-Kubra 1/413)
 
Anas (RA):
 
There are numerous narrations from the Anas (RA) about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
 
Rab’ia bin Abdul Rahman narrates from Anas (RA)  who while describing the appearance of the Holy Prophet said:
وَلَا بِالْأَبْيَضِ الْأَمْهَقِ، وَلَا بِالْآدَمِ
 
“And he was neither white as lime (abyad al-amhaq) , nor brown (adam).” (Shama’il Tirmidhi, Hadith 1)
 
Same is narrated in Tabawat al-Kubra of Ibn Sa’d etc.
 
This narration has important points pertinent to our discussion. The very fact that the narration says ‘abyad al-amhaq’ i.e. ‘white as lime’ belies the assertion that ‘abyad’ does not mean ‘whiteness’ when used for complexion. 
 
Also the wording asks one to laugh at Wesley’s idea of taking ‘abyad’ to mean the opposite for it is unfathomable to find some sane person saying, ‘black as lime.’
 
Also it proves the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- was far from being dark for in that case there was no need to say it was not lime white - a sharp contrast to blackness.
 
In fact his complexion was white but not extremely white. The detail of it is explained in another narration from Anas (RA).
 
Humayd said, he heard Anas (RA) saying:
 
وَكَانَ أَبْيَضَ بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ
 
“And he was white (abyad), his whiteness leaning to be tan (bayaduhu ilas-sumrah).” (Dala’il al-Nubuwah 1/204)
 
This Hadith shows his complexion was not even pure ‘asmar’ (tan) but rather something between pure white and pure tan. Surely describing complexion is not very easy!
 
In another narration from Anas (RA) we learn,
 
Thabit narrated from Anas (RA) describing the complexion of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, as:
 
كَانَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ
 
“The Messenger of Allah –peace be upon him- was had bright white complexion (azhar al-lawn).” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2330)
 
Hafiz Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) explained ‘azhar al-lawn’ saying;
أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ أَيْ أَبْيَضُ مُشَرَّبٌ بِحُمْرَةٍ
 
“azhar al-lawn’, that is: white imbued with redness (abyad musharrab bi-humrah)” (Fath al-Bari 6/569 Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut 1379 A.H.)
 
Narration from Anas (RA) quoted by Wesley
 
Now we come to the narration from Anas (Ra) quoted by Wesley.
 
Humayd narrated from Anas (ra) that he said:
 
أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ
 
“Tan in color (asmar al-lawn).” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 1754)
 
About this narration, consider the following point made by Ali bin Sultan al-Qari (d. 1014):
 
وَقَالَ الْعِرَاقِيُّ: هَذِهِ اللَّفْظَةُ انْفَرَدَ بِهَا حُمَيْدٌ عَنْ أَنَسٍ وَرَوَاهُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ الرُّوَاةِ عَنْهُ بِلَفْظِ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ، ثُمَّ نَظَرْنَا إِلَى مَنْ رَوَى صِفَةَ لَوْنِهِ صلّى الله عليه وسلم غَيْرَ أَنَسٍ فَكُلُّهُمْ وَصَفُوهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ وَهُمْ خَمْسَةَ عَشَرَ صَحَابِيًّا
 
And al-Iraqi said, “These words are the solitary report of Anas through Humayd and reports of others from him (Anas) come with the word ‘azhar al-lawn’. Further we see reports from (Companions) other than Anas, all of them describe it with whiteness and not tawny complexion and they are fifteen companions explain his complexion like this –peace and blessings be upon him.” (Jama’ al-Wasa’il fi Sharah al-Shama’il 1/14)
 
Prophet Muhammad’s –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- complexion was not purely tan, it was white tending to be tan or white imbued with redness, not white as lime, neither dark nor purely tan.
 
This narration is rather odd and for the fact that it goes against all the narrations from other companions and even other reports from Anas (RA). It is reported through a single narrator i.e. Humayd and even his narrations do not consistently say the same. As mentioned above in one narration Humayd himself reports from Anas (RA) that he said:
 
“And he was white (abyad), his whiteness leaning to be tan (bayaduhu ilas-sumrah).” (Dala’il al-Nubuwah 1/204)
 
This is the scholarly way of handling an odd narration. Mark the difference- scholars do not agree with one narration based on an objective science comparing different narrations on the subject and then deciding on the merit whereas Wesley merely gives in to his subjective whims and desires and:
 
1- Fails to share all the various narrations from different Companions on the subject.
 
2- Twists hadiths with multiple tricks, like alluding to the idea of ‘addad’ or taking ‘abyad’ not to refer to complexion. Above details show he cannot consistently use either of these and usage of the word ‘abyad’ is itself enough to reject his ideas.
 
3- Rejects the hadiths which he is unable to twist without giving any proof for what he stands for.
 
Narration about the blackness of foot
 
Wesley plays foul and clever when he mentions that Tabaqat al-Kubra has pages dedicated to the description of physical appearance of the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him- but then fails to quote the most relevant of them. He dubs the most explicit narrations about the complexion of the Messenger of Allah –peace be upon him- as later invention of Persians without citing any proof. And what more, he quotes a narration to find some support for his theological beliefs. The narration as quoted by him goes as:
“The Messenger of Allah (s) stretched his left foot, such that the blackness of its exposed part (zahiruha aswad) was visible.” (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-kabir, I/i,127)
To expose the trick, let me just quote the same narration from Sunan Abu Dawud where it is narrated with the same chain of narrators but with a little detail. It goes as:
 
كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا جَلَسَ فِي الصَّلَاةِ، افْتَرَشَ رِجْلَهُ الْيُسْرَى حَتَّى اسْوَدَّ ظَهْرُ قَدَمِهِ
 
“When the Prophet, peace be upon him, sat during prayers (salaah), he stretched his left foot, such that blackness of foot was exposed.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 962, Makteba l-‘Asriyyah, Beirut)
 
Clearly this is about the left foot only and that too related to prayers (salaah) and we know when a person regularly offers prayers, on his left foot blackness appears due to frequent contact with the ground (Abu ‘Abdul Rahman al-‘Azimabadi in ‘Awn al-Ma’bud 3/170) And surely this it must had been even more for we know back then they used rough prayer mats or prayed on ground.
 
It is appropriate at this time to show a narration that puts Wesley in check on his black foot narration attempt.  We are not using this narration to prove our point necessarily, as most people know that the armpits of a human being are usually lighter than the rest of his skin.  We are just giving an example of how unscholarly Wesley can get and how he picks and chooses and can only see black out of all the ahadeeth that talk about the description of the prophet.  It is important to note here that Bukhari (the most authentic book of ahadith) records it in the chapter entitled “Characteristics of the Prophet” hadith nr. 3372 narrated by Anas:
 
أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان لا يرفع يديه في شيء من دعائه إلا في الاستسقاء فإنه كان يرفع يديه حتى يرى بياض إبطيه
 
Allah's Apostle did not use to raise his hands in his invocations except in the Istisqa (i.e. invoking Allah for the rain) in which he used to raise his hands so high that one could see the whiteness of his armpits(bayad ibtayh).
 
Mark the last words
 
“Whiteness of his armpits”
 
Exposing more lies
 
Besides his play with the ideas about meaning of ‘abyad’ and failing to quote most relevant narrations and stretching narrations out of context and things like that, here are some glaring examples of Wesley’s intellectual dishonesty:
 
What did Imam al-Dhahbi actually say?
 
Mr. Wesley wrote:
According to the important Syrian hadith scholar and historian of Islam, Shāms al-Dīn Abū `Abd Allāh al-Dhahabī (d. 1348), in his Siyar a’lām al-nubalā’ [II:168]:
“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).”
Here he gives the impression that words ‘asmar wa adam’ and ‘sawd al-takrur’ etc. were also about Arabs. Before commenting on this, let us see what al-Dhahbi actually wrote:
 
إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ
 
“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda). And if it is the complexion the People of India they say, ‘asmar’ and ‘adam’. And if it is of Toucouleur Negroes (sawad al-Takrur) they say ‘aswad’ and likewise everyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black; they call, ‘aswad’ or ‘shadid-ul-udmah’.” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 1/39 & 3/448, Darul Hadith, Cairo 2006)
 
So evidently Imam al-Dhahbi has mentioned three different types of complexion. Wheatish, tan and finally overwhelmingly black, and he makes tan a reference to people of India and black a reference to people of certain African tribes. Mr. Wesley clearly lies and makes all of it look as if about the meaning of ‘abyad.’ Though Imam al-Dhahbi does mean that ‘abyad’ does not mean something like pure white but the flow of his statement maintains ‘abyad’ is whiter than tan, which in turn is tends to be whiter than black.
 
The quote from Lisan al-Arab
 
Mr. Wesley writes:
Ibn Manzur [Lisan al-arab IV: 209, 210] notes:
“The Arabs don’t say a man is white [or: “white man,” rajul abyad] due to a white complexion. Rather, whiteness [al-abyad] with them means an external appearance that is free from blemish [al-zahir al-naqi min al-‘uqub]; when they mean a white complexion they say ‘red’ (ahmar)… when the Arabs say, ‘so-and-so is white (abyad – bayad), they [only] mean a noble character (al-karam fi l-akhlaq), not skin color. It is when they say ‘so-and-so is red’ (ahmar – hamra’) that they mean white skin. And the Arabs attribute white skin to the slaves.”
“Red (al-hamra’) refers to non-Arabs due to their fair complexion which predominates among them. And the Arabs used to say about the non-Arabs with whom white skin was characteristic, such as the Romans, Persians, and their neighbors: ‘They are red-skinned (al-hamra’)…” al-hamra’ means the Persians and Romans…And the Arabs attribute white skin to the slaves.”
This is misleading.
 
The statement which Mr. Wesley translated as:
“The Arabs don’t say a man is white [or: “white man,” rajul abyad] due to a white complexion. Rather, whiteness [al-abyad] with them means an external appearance that is free from blemish [al-zahir al-naqi min al-‘uqub]; when they mean a white complexion they say ‘red’ (ahmar)
It is actually what the author of Lisan al-‘Arab quotes from Shamir. And after this statement the author, Ibn Manzur, quotes Ibn Athir. Ibn Athir’s statement is hidden behind the three dots given by Mr. Wesley.
Mr. Wesley put it as:
… when they mean a white complexion they say ‘red’ (ahmar) when the Arabs say, ‘so-and-so is white (abyad – bayad), they [only] mean a noble character (al-karam fi l-akhlaq), not skin color.
The dots highlighted above hide much important text behind them. Ibn Manzur writes:
 
قَالَ ابْنُ الأَثير: وَفِي هَذَا الْقَوْلِ نَظَرٌ فإِنهم قَدِ اسْتَعْمَلُوا الأَبيض فِي أَلوان النَّاسِ وَغَيْرِهِمْ؛
 
Ibn Athir said: In this statement (of Shamir) is a problem for they do use ‘abyad’ for complexions of the people and other things.” (Lisan al-‘Arab 4/209 Dar al-Sadir, Beirut 1414 A.H.)
 
He then gives examples of such usages. This is about the usage of the word in general. Otherwise we have seen above in certain usages it will be insane to say that ‘abyad’ is not about complexion.
 
Alleged depictions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
 
It is appropriate at this time to show another cheap attempt of Dr. Wesley to gain credibility to his arguments by showing a very famous picture that he claims is a picture of a white Muhammad, which is a result of distorted depictions that took place after non black converts to Islam began distorting not only Islam but the true figure of prophet Muhammad.  
 
We have compared the picture (to the left) he uses  with a picA famous depiction of Imam Ali by some Shiitesture of Imam Ali (to the right) and have found some amazing similaritiAlleged picture of "White Muhammad" from Persia  shown by Wesleyes.  What is also shocking is that Wesley uses this picture in many of his presentations and articles as if this picture is the consensus of Muslim scholars and the Muslim nation.  He does the same by showing pictures of actors from the famous movie (The Message) by Mustapha Akkad, as if this movie weighs any scholarly evidence.  Of course this is another cheap attempt to shock his audience.  People should also keep in mind that depictions of Prophet Muhammad are not allowed, be it in the Sunni tradition or the Shia tradition.  It is also important to highlight the baseless accusation that Dr. Wesley makes to converts of Islam who are non Arab or white.
 
This shows the scholarship that he has and practices. As the companions of the prophet spread to different lands, conquering different countries where the inhabitants were white or light skinned, the Arabs of Makkah or Madinah never lost their lineage or heritage so that one can say that such a blatant corruption could happen.  One needs not to go to a great extent to prove this.  The simplest  way to do this is to go back to the tradition of the Arabian peninsula tribes, the city and Bedouin of Arabia, and know their lineage and their descent.  Their odes and poems, their literature and lineages are all preserved from the youngest to the oldest.  When one visits Mekka or Madinah one can sit with people from the Quraish, people of Banu Shaibah who are the key holders of the Kabbah from the time of prophet Muhammad and other tribes.  One can see the difference in their skin color.  
 
Some are darker, some are light, and some are in between.  The population dynamics of tribes and the gene pool allow for variation in skinGabriel K. and two other Muslims color and such Prophet Muhammad –may Allah’s blessings be upon him- happened to be lighter in color, and when we say that we don’t mean white like a  European white (like Al Ameria Tribe kidmyself, Gabriel, in the picture to the left), but white like an Arab white, somewhere between light and brown.  In the presented picture you can see myself a white European (left), an Arab (Arabized African)  from Sudan (center) and an Arab (Arabized Asian) from Al Marri tribe which is a Bolochi tribe from Asia (right).   This is not a google picture taken out of context this is a real picture three different colored skinned Muslims, brothers in faith.  What you are required to focus on is the Arab to the picture on to the right which is a boy from the Al-Ameri tribe, a tribe from Yemen.  Notice the color of his skin in contrast to the Sudanese and European Muslim. This picture says a thousand words in the context of this article, especially when reading the narrations about prophet Muhammad being not too brown nor lime-white. 
 
Allegation against Imam al-Shafi’i:
 
Finally we want to leave our readers with a short piece of the kind of theology and ideology the associates of Dr. Wesley propagate.  This is a short entry recorded on the Black Arabia blog, a site where Dr. Wesley posts much of his work.  The short entry is entitled “Imam Shafi and that Early Black Islam”. 
روى أحد تلامذة الشافعي أنه إشترى له طيبا بدينار ، فسأله الشافعي : ممن إشتريت ..؟؟ ، فقال : من الرجل العطار الأشقر الأزرق .. فقال الشافعي : أشقر وأزرق ..؟؟ ، إذهب ورد العطر ، ماجاءني خير قط من أشقر 
 
"One of Al-Shafa'i's students related that he bought some scents for Al-Shafa'i for a dinar. Al-Shafa'i asked him (the student) who he bought the scents from. The man replied, 'From that blue-eyed, very fair-complexioned (أشقر) perfumer.' Al-Shafa'i said, 'Blue-eyed, very fair-complexioned (أشقر)?! Take it back! Nothing good has ever come to me from a very fair complexioned (أشقر) person!'"
Now certainly this is misleading. And the way it is quoted clearly shows it was just picked from a random online Arabic discussion forum.
 
Let us quote it with due reference to a classical work.
 
قال الربيع : اشتريت للشافعي طيبا بدينار ، فقال : ممن اشتريت ؟ قلت : من ذاك الأشقر الأزرق . قال : أشقر أزرق ! رده ، رده ، ما جاءني خير قط من أشقر
أبو حاتم : حدثنا حرملة ، حدثنا الشافعي ، يقول : احذر الأعور ، والأعرج ، والأحول ، والأشقر ، والكوسج ، وكل ناقص الخلق ، فإنه صاحب التواء ، ومعاملته عسرة .
 
Al-Rabi’ said: “I bought scent for al-Shafi’i for a Dinar. He asked, ‘From whom you bought the scent?’ I said: ‘From so-and-so blue-eyed albino!.’ he said; "’Blue-eyed albino! Return it, return it! I haven’t experienced any good from an albino.’
Abu Hatim said, Harmalah narrated to us, al-Shafi’i said, ‘Beware of the one-eyed, the lame, the squint, the albino, and everyone with a deformity (especially those born with it). These are people of deficiencies and its a trouble dealing with them.’ (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubala 10/40-41)
 
Following narration from the same section of the same book from which the quote under discussion comes helps understand the thing better.
 
قال الشافعي : خرجت إلى اليمن في طلب كتب الفراسة حتى كتبتها وجمعتها
 
Al-Shafi’i said: “I traveled to Yemen and kept seeking the books on Physiognomy till I wrote and collected them.” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubala 10/41)
 
Physiognomy is all about assessment of people’s character or personality from their outer appearance.
 
What our great Imam said was not even intended to disparage those people but to be on the guard against the troubles that can come up in dealing with them. he had learnt this from his study of physiognomy.
 
Now this makes the thing clear. His comment was not about a people with a particular complexion but about those suffering from albinism and other deformities. Its shameful to use it to imply racism. Truly disgusting!
 
Conclusion
 
As we can see from above Wesley has gone to great lengths to distort many of the meanings of terms, while quoting Islamic texts and making a case for his perverse theology.  Such is the case of most people these days who attack Islam and want to destroy Islam. There are those who quote Quran, Sunnah, commentaries and other authentic sources yet to prove that Prophet Muhammad  –may Allah’s blessings be upon him- was a racist slave owner.  It is mind boggling to see such insincerity from two different spectrums dealing with the same texts.  
Indeed if the problem of racism is to be solved in the world, people have to start looking at pure Islam with an objective view and open mind, and take the following advice of Prophet Muhammad  –may Allah’s blessings be upon him-that he gave to the world before departing it:
 
“O People! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person, except in piety.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 22978)

* The links to Wesley’s articles (from BlackArabia.blogspot.com) were last accessed on November 5, 2011 8:50 a.m. GMT
Indeed Allah knows the best!

139 comments:

Jibreelk said...

I'm reposting the comment of anonymous as we had a small technical issue and had to re post the article

Anonymous said...
MY QUESTION IS, HAS PROPHET MUHAMMAD PEACE AND BLESSING OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD ALLAH BE UPON HIM FOREVER, EVER REFERRED HIMSELF AS OF THE SO CALLED LILY WHITE EUROPEAN DESCENT, OR OF THE SO CALLED COPT OR NUBIAN ONE?

Anonymous said...

I'm not a member of the Nation of Islam and I would like to debate you on this issue. First take a look at these:

http://www.savethetruearabs.com/gpage2.html

http://www.savethetruearabs.com/index.html

Miskeen Al Darimi was from the famous pure Arab tribe of Darim. The tribe of Darim is a tribe descended from the well-known Adnani tribe of Tamim .

Miskeen once proposed to a woman, but she rejected him because of his poorness and his blackness. The woman married another man instead who was richer than Miskeen, but who was from a tribe not as noble and pure as Miskeen's tribe. Miskeen once saw the woman and man together and he stopped and said to them: I am Miskeen-for those who know me! My color is asmar (dark) - the color of the Arabs!

خطب مسكينٌ فتاةً من قومه فكرهته لسواد لونه وقلة ماله، وتزوجت بعده رجلاً من قومه ذا يسار ليس له مثل نسب مسكين، فمر بهما مسكين ذات يوم، وتلك المرأة جالسة مع زوجها، فقال:

أنا مسكين لمن يعـرفـنـي

لوني السمرة ألوان العـرب

Anonymous said...

Debate please - we are well aware of Wesley's arguments and his sites. But none of the less your quotations of Miskeen does not refute what so ever our article.

1. He was not the prophet

2. We never made an argument that THERE ARE NO ARABS WHO ARE DARK OR VERY DARK

3. The ahadith that REFER TO PROPHET MUHAMMAD's complexion are very clear and concise.

4. No one ca say that the Arabs are only dark

Wesley tries to use his academic magic on people digging up things that distract people and fool people into his RACIST THEOLOGY

Anonymous said...

You say that the hadiths that refer to the Prophet Mohamed's (SAWS) complexion are clear. So tell me the meaning of "white" in the descriptions and tell me why he (SAWS) was described as asmar at the same time.

Jibreelk said...

Well my brother if you read the article the meaning of white was given based on the same commentary the Wesley tries to use. The hadith about the black turban kills the claim that the principle of addad is used at all times. The meaning of the word is based on the context. If you read the article again you will see how it's deal with ahadith that seem to have contradictory meanings. The science of ahadith is deep and Wesley only took one hadith and try to maximize it. We have showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that the prophet was described as light skinned but you need to keep that in mind as he did not look European or white like that, but he was a light ARAB. You can see light Arabs, dark Arabs and all from the same tribe and background. I showed by picture and I can show you again some of my neighbors and students who are from the Al Ameri tribe from Yemen and some of them are light, while others are dark. So we want to ask you why was the prophet described as YOUR WHITENESS SUITS THE BLACKNESS OF THE TURBAN. This narration clears out the meaning, as his blackness could not suit on it's blackness and the reverse is also used in the hadith.
Please re read the article and try to understand if you are not NOI where Wesley is coming from. I am white Europen white and I don't lament and cry that the prohet was not European white HE was Arab. But he was the prophet period, no matter what color but truth should be spoken. If people use him being black or white for racist ideologies be it Arab supremacist or black nationalism, that is their problem and that is not allowed in Islam and it's a sin. They will have to answer Allah.
But our main point of the argument is that Weslye's theology does not stand and that Islam is not a faith based on color.
Peace

Wesley Muhammad, PhD said...

This is Dr. Wesley Muhammad, the object of the above 'refutation'. This is a very disappointing attempt at an academic correction and it indicates clearly that the two co-authors have more zeal than learning on this particular subject. I must echo Mr Anonymous: since you 'scholars' and putative 'defenders' of the Deen wont accept his offer to debate this issue, maybe you will accept mine. Will you write a 'refutation' against someone, and then not accept their invitation to debate the merits of your refutation and the claims made that spawned this 'refutation'? Will you hide behind your website? Gabriel Keresztes Abdul Rahman Al-Romaani knows how to get in touch with me. Waqar Akbar Cheema, you have described yourself as "a fanatic lover of Shaikh Deedat (ra)". Well, Deedat was willing to debate live, not just write make-shift refutations for a website (the perversity of modern technology!). What say you, Waqar? Are you cut from the same cloth of Deedat, whom you fanatically love? Lets see.

Waqar Akbar said...

Good to hear from you Mr. Wesley

You are so good in making facebook notes (then blocking people) and publishing blog posts. Let the people see you refute the refutation.

"perversity of modern technology"? .. this page comes only in refutation to you WEB-PAGE and FACEBOOK NOTE!

And who likes to hide? People were somehow blocked to access and comment on your facebook note. Is that not called hiding from the truth? Or is it that merely putting the words "PhD" with your name you expect people to swallow whatever you concoct hook, line and sinker?

To begin with I seriously doubt your integrity for the reasons shown in the article. You are best at misquoting. I cannot trust you quoting from any book while I am not able to empirically see it and consider its merits, something nearly impossible in a live debate. This debate is not to revolve around one or two definite texts (like Bible and/or Quran)

Otherwise the likes of you can make full packed halls clap as hell by making up and forging quotes as you did with al-Dhahbi's work and Lisan al-'Arab.

In the first place you got to either (if it is anyway possible) prove yourself worthy enough to be trusted even for a moment, or you got to prove the above refutation wrong to convince me to give you some consideration.

Jibreelk said...

Dr. Wesley - maybe you should let your readers know that you are faster with buttons and your speech than with your actions, and that you have blocked me from your Facebook right away, as well as others who tried to post our refutation on your page. So why lie and deceive that we are running and hiding since we are the ones who refuted you, and you are the one who booked. You knew very well where to find us, as everyone sees from your above post, however we could not find you despite your KNOWS HOW TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ME statement as IF YOU REMEMBER YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BLOCKED ME. So please stop lying dear mr. PHD. AS for Waqar, he is your worst nightmare.
Refute SIR Refute
First of all you should unblock us. Second you should tell everyone the truth of who has been running and blocking. Third, refute our article and then we can talk. So far you have not scored any points with us by lying that we are running while it's you WHO IS BLOCKING US.
WE ARE WAITING FOR YOU WITH OUR ARMS OPEN AND WITH THE TRUTH OPEN. THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT TO DO THE RIGHT THING. If you are an academic with a PHD than please act like one, note like a little child.
We'll keep the lights on for you.

Wesley Muhammad, PhD said...

Waqar, you doubt my integrity because you say I mistranslated al-Dhahabi? I have a doctorate in Islamic Studies. I read Classical Arabic, Modern Hebrew, German, French, and English. I began training in Arabic in 1999. I was reading Classical Arabic texts independently since 2002-2003. Let me remind you Waqar what you confessed on April 11, 2010:

“I know English and Urdu fully but not so Arabic though over two years of extensive reading has improved my vocabulary a lot and i've got basic understanding of grammar as well. Hopefully this summers I take some proper course to improve.”

And we are supposed to believe your translation of the Arabic, why? Because you are Pakistani? Please. You have no entitlement in Arabic learning. You don't even know Arabic yet. You still need to take those 'proper Arabic' summer courses. When I want help with Urdu, I will give you a call. But with Arabic, you have shown in the above case your amateurism.

Yes Waqar, I do have online publications on the subject. But the difference is: I ALSO engage this subject in LIVE arenas, as I am invited you to do. The perversity of this modern technology to which I alluded is the use of it as a shield allowing people to throw a rock a then hide.

Gabriel: Indeed I blocked you on my Facebook page, because I invited you to a scholarly discussion online (!) about this very issue, and you declined. Instead, you wanted to use my page as a minbar and spam 'khtubas' all over the place. You are clearly a preacher, not a scholar.

So I take all the above to say: you are not interested (again) in debating me on this subject.

By the way, Waqar: Believe me, I would have the actual Arabic texts with me, so you wont have to depend on my or anyone else's translation. But I know that does not help you much, because you are admittedly still learning this Arabic thing.

I wont be going back and forth with you two here. This was an amateur attempt at a refutation, done by wannabe preachers trying to pass as scholars. I am inviting Waqar and Gabriel to a debate on Prophet Muhammad: Black-skinned or White-skinned? This is the subject of my writings and the subject of their writing.

Waqar Akbar said...

OK, lets have it!

Employ all your Arabic knowledge and explain in detail that not mine but your translation of al-Dhahbi's quote is correct. Show the world, and I'll accept your debate challenge!

Now, don't run away! One simple thing .. for the following Arabic text, the correct translation is the one given by you and mine is wrong

-------------

* Arabic text (you ,mr. wesley, may like to confirm if this actually is the text)

إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ

* Wesley's Translation:

“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).”

* Waqar's translation:

“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda). And if it is the complexion the People of India they say, ‘asmar’ and ‘adam’. And if it is of Toucouleur Negroes (sawad al-Takrur) they say ‘aswad’ and likewise everyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black; they call, ‘aswad’ or ‘shadid-ul-udmah’.”

---------------

All Mr. Wesley is required to do is to explain which words i translated wrong, what all i assumed from myself and and and what all i LEFT OUT while translating (mr. wesley must be getting what's the big deal about leaving out words :P)

This is my commitment with Mr. Wesley and every reader and concerned person, if Mr. Wesley can prove that for the given Arabic text above, not mine but his translation is correct, I'll debate him wherever he wishes.

Let's stick to it now.

This will prove how much does a self studying student knows the Arabic language and what is the actual worth of the knowledge of the "PhD", Mr. Wesley!

I hope other readers will agree, its not too big a deal, or it ought not to be.

I am waiting Sir Dr.!!!

Anonymous said...

http://www.savethetruearabs.com/gpage2.html

http://www.savethetruearabs.com/index.html

These are not Wesley's sites. They are my sites and the translations are mine. If you have doubts or questions about the translations, come to http://www.savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general and discuss your questions and doubts.

Jibreelk said...

Mister Anonymous - that's fine if they are your translations, however so far you have said nothing except go to this site and that site and you have asked to debate however you have put forward nothing. If you have come here, and asked to debate, put your stuff forward as we have and we will look at it.
Waqar made the first move - anyhow in our articles we were exposing mr. Wesley. If you are on the same thought as him than yes it applies to you as well.

As you can see above Waqar just showed one small example of DR Wesley's dishonesty. Let's see what he will say, or maybe you can help him?

Anonymous said...

Peace,

I am not Dr. Wesley or the previous anonymous folks who have posted previously. This is my first time posting. So don't confuse me with anyone else. I know Arabic very well, as well. And here are my comments on this issue:

As it concerns the translation of (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda) Dr. Wesley's translation is more accurate than Waqar's. Waqar's says this: “When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda).

'Wheatish complexion' is correct. However 'with slight darkness' is incorrect. No Arabic word that means 'slight' is used in 'hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda'. And 'dark' is a mistranslation, because sawda is the feminine of aswad, which means BLACK. And Waqar has no problem translating 'sawaad' as 'negroes.' Which by the way is also incorrect, because 'sawaad' means 'blackness.' Sood or Soodan is used for 'negroes' or 'black people' in general, from India to Arabia to Africa. Waqar would not translate 'aswad' as anything other than 'black' so why does he not accurately translate aswad's feminine form 'sawda'?

A word for word tranlsation of what is said is: 'hintiy: wheatish' 'al-lawn: color' 'bi: with' 'hilyatin: an appearence' 'sawda: black.'

So Waqar is incorrect on a few accounts here where Dr. Weseley IS correct. And despite the fact that I may not agree with the rest of Dr. Wesley's translation he is MOST CORRECT where it matters. So Waqar, here is where you are wrong:

Interestingly enough 'buckwheat/kasha' is called hintah sawdaa' i.e. 'black wheat.' Go take a look at some whole kasha kernels and it will give you a good idea of how dark the Arabs meant when they said 'white/abyad.' This is why one hadeeth describes him as 'abyad' and another as 'asmar' and how they are not in contradiction.

Anonymous said...

Corrections for Waqar Akbar Cheema & Gabriel Keresztes Abdul Rahman Al-Romaani:

1. No usage of 'slight' in the passage.
2. sawda means BLACK, not just 'dark', as it is the feminine of aswad. You should admit you were trying to be tricky here. Black is black. You are trying to imply a darkness that is not blackness. But when the Arabs intend that they say 'red' or 'blue' with A LITTLE or SOME blackness in it, they don't say A BLACK APPEARANCE.
3. In your article you translated 'ashqar' as albino. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM??? Albinism in Modern Standard Arabic is muhqah (soft h). In Classical Arabic someone who is amhaq is described as white to the point that it is ugly. Bright white is a murhah(soft h) someone who is amrah is white with not even the slightest blackness mixed into his color to ANY degree. Those words would qualify for albinism. NOT shuqrah. Leprosy which has often been associated with albinism is baras (sawd) and a leper is abras. humrah is described as bayaadh with shuqrah, or lightness/whitness with shuqrah. Humrah is stated as the color of the Persians, Romans/Byzantines and the Levantines. These folks were not albinos!!! There is a hadeeth that says that Ayesha was shuqraa'. But no one thinks that means she was an ALBINO!! You accuse Dr. Wesley of something that YOU ARE DOING YOURSELF, which is CHANGING THE MEANING OF WORDS AND MISTRANSLATING.
4. You also translated azraq as 'blue eyed' when the word just means 'light colored eyes,' from hazel to green to grey to blue. It is literally described as both 'khudrah feel-3ain': greenness in the eye' or when 'yataghalalbu sawaadahaa bayaadun' 'lightness overwhelms its (the eye's) blackness.' Hence, zurqah refers to light colored eyes, despite the actual color.
5. Sawaad DOES NOT mean Negroes, it means 'blackness'
6. When the Arabs say someone is 'white/abyad' they are saying that he has a'wheatish color with a BLACK appearance' NOT a 'slightly dark appearence'. UNLESS they qualify it with a something like 'shuqrah' which makes it qualify as NOT having a black appearance, but rather an appearence typical of most 'white Arabs', 'persians' or dark southern Europeans (Romans).

Go to www.baheth.info to verify the meaning of the Arabic word used above.

Anonymous said...

More corrections:

Sumrah DOES NOT MEAN tan. sumrah = wurqah and wurqah is blackness in earth color, or from earth color to blackness (both definitions are given in Lisanul-Arab). Wurqah is a color in camels that increases until the camel becomes jet black (ad-ham). awraq is the epithet given to ashes and wurqaa to charcoal BECAUSE OF THEIR (DARK) COLOR. wurqah is the color of dark wood smoke and awraq is the epithet for the (desert) wolf because of its dark color. The person who is awraq is asmar OR aadam (this makes sense because aadam is asmar shadeed). sumrah is a color that is close to blackness (yadrib ilaa sawaad khafee) udmah is sumrah (i.e. wurqah) shadeedah, NOT just brown, but dark/blackish brown. So asmar is BROWN and Aadm is VERY DARK BROWN. Asmar is blackness in earth color. Aaadam is very asmar (sumrah shadeedah) and As-ham (black like a crow) is very Aadam (udmah shadeedah). Come on guys. Lane's isn't giving it to you straight. But what can you expect from an Colonialst era Englishman?

Anonymous said...

JibreelK,

I'm the first Anonymous. Concerning my translation, you can find it at my website. It's:

Shams Al Deen Mohamed ibn Ahmed ibn Othman Al Dhahabi, a well-known historian also of the 13th century, says in his famous book Siyar A'alaam Al Nubalaa, "When the Arabs say that a person is white, they mean that he has a black appearance with a light-brownish undertone". The Arabic definition of white complexion is "al lown al hinti bi hilya sawdaa" اللون‏ ‏الحنطي‏ ‏بحلية‏ ‏سودا‏‏ء . "Al lown" means complexion, "al hinti" means light brown, and "bi hilya sawdaa" means with a black appearance. It's a black appearance with a light-brownish undertone. The "hilya" of a person is what's apparent in his/her color or appearance. So a person with a "hilya" (appearance) "sawdaa" (black) has a black appearance. So a person called "white" ابيض by the Arabs of the past had a blackish appearance with a light-brown undertone.

http://www.savethetruearabs.com/gpage2.html

You can also find my translation on page 50 of my book The Unknown Arabs, which was first published in 2002. I said on page 50 of the book:

Shams El-Din Mohamed ibn Ahmed ibn Othman El-Dhahabi, a well-known historian also of the same period (13th-14th century), says in his famous book Seyar A'alaam Al-Nubalaa, "When the Arabs say that a person is white, they mean that he is black with a light-brownish undertone". The Arabic definition of a white complexion is, “el-lown el hinti bi hilya sawdaa”. El-lown means color, el-hinti means light brown, and bi hilya sawdaa means with a black appearance. It’s a black complexion with a light brownish undertone, if you know what I mean. The hilya of a person is what’s apparent in his/her color or appearance. So, a person with a hilya (appearance) sawdaa (black) has a black appearance. A person called white by the Arabs of the past had a blackish complexion with a light-brown undertone. Anyway, without a doubt, a person with such a complexion would be called black today.

Do you have a problem with my translation? Hilya is also described by Ibn Mandhour in Lisaan Al-Arab as:

قال ابن منظور في لسان العرب:

"والحِلْيَةُ الخِلْقة. والحِلْيَةُ: الصفة والصُّورة. والتَّحْلِيةُ: الوَصْف. وتَحَلاَّه: عَرَفَ صِفَته. والحلْية: تَحْلِيَتُك وجهَ الرجلِ إذا وصَفْته."

So, what's your problem with my translation?

Save the True Arabs said...

I, the first Anonymous, am now Save the True Arabs.

Save the True Arabs said...

And don't forget that the Prophet (SAWS) was described as asmar, too.

عن يعقوب بن سفيان، حدثني عمرو بن عون وسعيد بن منصور قالا: حدثنا خالد بن عبد الله عن حميد الطويل، عن أنس بن مالك قال: كان رسول الله أسمر اللون.


Ya'qoub ibn Sufyan related that 'Amru ibn 'Awn and Said ibn Mansour said that Khalid ibn Abdella related from Hamid Al-Tawil that Anas ibn Maalik said:

"The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) was asmar complexioned."

وحدثناه محمد بن المثنى قال: حدثنا عبد الوهاب قال: حدثنا حميد عن أنس قال: لم يكن رسول الله بالطويل ولا بالقصير، وكان إذا مشى تكفأ، و كان أسمر اللون.

"Mohamed ibn Al-Muthanna said that Abdel Wahhaab said that Hamid related that Anas said:

"The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) wasn't tall and he wasn't short. When he walked, he leaned forward. And he was asmar complexioned."

Read more: http://www.savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=32#ixzz1f5WlxzME

Al-Tha'aalabi says in his book Fiqh Al-Lugha:

Chapter 13 - The Degrees of Blackness in Humans

If there is a slight blackness in his/her complexion, he/she is asmar.

If his/her blackness is more intense with some yellow showing, he/she is asham (with Arabic letter saad) أصحم .

If his/her blackness is more intense than asmar, he/she is adam آدم.

If his/her blackness is more intense than that (adam آدم), he/she is asham (with Arabic letter seen) أسحم .

If he/she is is extremely black, he/she is adlam أدلم.

الفصل
الثالث عشر (في تَرْتِيبِ سَوَادِ الإنْسَانِ)

إذا
عَلاَهُ أَدْنَى سَوَادٍ فَهُوَ أسْمَرُ

فإنْ
زَادَ سَوَادُهُ مَعَ صُفْرَةٍ تَعْلُوهُ فَهُوَ أَصْحَمُ

فإنْ
زَادَ سَوَادُهُ عَلَى السُّمْرَةِ فَهُوَ آدَمُ

فإنْ
زَادَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ فَهُوَ أَسْحَمُ

فإنِ
اشْتَدَّ سَوَادُهُ فَهُوَ أدْلَمُ.

Al-Shaikh Mohamed ibn Ahmed ibn Ali ibn Abdel Khaliq Shams Al-Din Al-Minhaaji Al-Asyouti gives an extremely precise explanation of the different complexions in humans in his book Jawaahir Al-Uqoud wa Mu’een Al-Qudaa wa Al-Mowqi’een wa Al-Shuhoud. He says:

“Complexions

If a person if very black-skinned, his complexion is called haalik.

If a person’s blackness is mixed with red, his complexion is called daghmaan.

If a person’s complexion is lighter than that, his complexion is called as-hamm.

If a person’s blackness is mixed with yellow, his complexion is called as-humm.

If there is darkness (kudra) in his complexion, his complexion is called arbad.

If a person’s complexion is lighter than that, his complexion is called abyad (white).

If a person’s complexion has less yellow and inclines more towards black, his complexion is called adam.

إذا كان الرجل شديد السواد

قيل: حالك.

فإن خالط سواده حمرة

قيل: دغمان.

فإن صفا لونه

قيل: أسحم.

فإن خالط السواد صفرا

قيل: أصحم.

فإن كدر لونه

قيل: أربد.

فإن صفا عن ذلك

قيل : أبيض.

فإن رقت الصفرة، ومال إلى السواد

قيل: آدمي اللون

http://www.savethetruearabs.com/gpage2.html

Waqar Akbar said...

Mr. Anonymous (who tells me that Wesley's translation is correct bla bla)

You are so innocent!

Let's get to the brasstacks ... let's first decide if Wesley's translation is worthy enough to show that his integrity should not be doubted (it has to come down to integrity for he is well versed in Arabic as he claims)

Imam Dhahbi wrote

إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ

Now to anyone who has even the modicum of understanding of the Arabic language it has 3 distinct parts

-1-

إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ

He tells what the Arabs mean when someone is called "abyad"

-2-

فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ،

Simply tells us that if someone has the complexion of the people of India, they say "asmar" and "adam"

-3-

وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ

Again quite simply he is telling that if it is the complexion of the black people (negroes) of al-takrur, they say "aswad"

And there is the 4th part in which he says


وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ

And likewise whosoever has overwhelmingly black complexion they say "aswad" or "shadid al-udma"

----------

No devil or saint can deny he is talking of different complexion and the "well learned" and a "great scholar" Mr. Wesley puts it in a way as if what he said about the complexion of the Indians and the Negroes (black people) of al-Takrur is part of the explanation to the usage of "abyad" ...

Is there anyone who claims mr. wesley's translation is correct? or my observation stated above is wrong? Anyone?

OK, lets bring down the matter to this. If Mr. Wesley or anyone else can prove this I'll accept the invitation to debate? if not mr. wesley you ought to stop fooling the people by cheaply crying about ur useless credentials ...

---

By the way one should have moral courage to show his name ... and btw, it'll be even dirtier to use other than ur own name

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"To facilitate things for non Arabic readers, the dictionary meanings of the keywords around which the discussion revolves are given, as it will help understand their usage better. All the meanings are from Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon.

Meaning of Adam/Udma;

آدم Of the colour termed أُدمة (Book I, p.37)

أُدمة... and in human beings, a tawny colour; or darkness of complexion; syn. سُمرة or an intermixture, or a tinge, of blackness or intense سُمرة (Book I, p.36)"

That definition is NOT correct. Adam does NOT mean tawny. Adam means dark asmar and asmar itself means dark-skinned, so adam is very dark-skinned. This is the definition of tawny:

Adj. 1. tawny - of a light brown to brownish orange color; the color of tanned leather

Adam or al-udma is NOT light brown - it's dark asmar. Al-Tabari said the following about Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia's complexion:

كان يلقب القارى من أدمته

"He was nicknamed 'bitumen' because of his adam complexion."

Here is what bitumen looks like:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vMDpm0hAzes/S9wtB6UbmfI/AAAAAAAAAD4/33VIVnYwRvk/s1600/bitumen.jpg

Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia had a son named Al-Hasan. Ibn Hazim says the following about Al-Hasan the son of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia :

"Al-Hasan (the son of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia) was nick-named The Father of the Tar because he was so asmar complexioned."

"كان يلقب أبا الزفت لشدة سمرته"

Who was Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia? Read about him here and this should give readers a very clear picture of what the color of the pure Arabs of the past was:

http://www.savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=10

Waqar Akbar said...

You can come up with random things from anywhere ... this is not a scholarly way to translate something as you wish then show a random picture and make your case ...

I am waiting for Mr. Wesley or anyone to justify the act of making three distinct statements appear as explanation of "abyad" ... if you do that, we move forward ... else you are wasting the time around

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar Akbar,

I know that you responded to the second Anonymous. I was the first Anonymous and now I am Save the True Arabs. Can you respond to what I wrote? Can you also not mention Wesley. The topic here now is the meaning of the term white to the Arabs of the past and the complexion of the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS). This is what I am here to debate. Not anything that Wesley Mohamed said. Also, you said:

"And there is the 4th part in which he says

وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ

And likewise whosoever has overwhelmingly black complexion they say "aswad" or "shadid al-udma"

Read this description of Ali ibn Abi Taalib found in Taarikh Al-Khulafaa by Imam Al-Suyouti and tell me what you think:

In his book Tarikh Al-Khulafaa (The History of the Caliphs), Imam Al-Suyuti described Ali ibn Abi Talib as follows:


و كان علي شيخا سمينا أصلع كثير الشعر ربعة إلى القصر عظيم البطن عظيم اللحية جدا قد ملأت ما بين منكبيه بيضاء كأنها قطن آدم شديد الأدمة

Ali was a heavyset, bald, hairy man of average height which leaned toward shortness. He had a large stomach and a large beard which filled all that was between his shoulders. His beard was white as if it was cotton and he was shadid al-udma."

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar Akbar,

You said:

"I am waiting for Mr. Wesley or anyone to justify the act of making three distinct statements appear as explanation of "abyad" ... if you do that, we move forward ... else you are wasting the time around"

What do you mean? Only this part explains the meaning of "abyad":

إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ،

"When the Arabs described someone as white (abyad), they meant a hinti complexion with a black hilya (appearance)."

If anyone said that the other parts are an explanation of the term "abyad", he/she is wrong. OK. Now let's talk about the part that explains the meaning of "abyad".

Waqar Akbar said...

OK, to organize the discussion first we get to the real big issue and concentrate on it ...

We shall wait for Mr. Wesley to show what knowledge lead him to make those three statements appear as explanations of the usage of "abyad."

Any other comment will be *** DELETED ***.. if you have something else to say, hold your breath until Mr. Wesley enlightens us ...

And if he justifies what he did, I am available for debate

READERS PLEASE READ THIS COMMENT WITH DUE ATTENTION ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK TO POST A COMMENT!

Waqar Akbar said...

"Save the True Arabs" .. i rather pity you now

The text and Wesley translation are below

“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).”


إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ

---

Wesley translates this phrase as;

إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ

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’).

Then he writes next,

""" Like the complexion of the people of India, brown and black (asmar wa ādam), """"

Is this the translation of

فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ،

???

next he writes, "" i.e. a clear, refined blackness (sawad al-takrūr).”""""

Is this the translation of

وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ

???

Can you tell me what is the meaning of فَإِنْ كَانَ and وَإِنْ كَانَ ??

And What is the justification to use "Like ..." and "i.e. ..." and connect three distinct statements ....???

Either accept the intellectual dishonesty on the part of Mr. PhD or justify the above. No other way!

And don't try to be smart here, I know how the liars and their cohorts throw red herrings and avoid the real point

Save the True Arabs said...

No. That translation isn't correct. I thought the topic here was the meaning of abyad to the Arabs of the past. Do you agree with my translation here:

إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ،

"When the Arabs described someone as white (abyad), they meant a hinti complexion with a black hilya (appearance)."

And what do you mean by "don't try to be smart here"? And what is the real point here?

Waqar Akbar said...

This is for Mr. Wesley still ... so YOU AGREE, Mr. Wesley FAILED TO TRANSLATE CORRECTLY AND OUR CRITICISM IS VALID AT LEAST IN SAYING THAT HE ABUSED THE OVERALL STATEMENT ...

Its about his challenge for debate ... that translation is not just incorrect but speaks of how Mr. Wesley is ABUSING the texts to make people believe that "abyad" is same as "asmar", "adam" and "aswad."

As to yourself. Make a response to our paper, in whole or in part, and share the link here and then we shall answer you in-sha'Allah ... but be sure, don't tell me so and so picture on so and so blog shows what and what not ... be mature!

You are just rambling around on the issue .. some of what u said is already answered in the paper (like the narration about prophet (saaw) being asmar), some of what u say is irrelevant, "darkness" or blackness" as english is today understood means the same at least with regards to complexion. about "hilya" in that quote it signifies that when talking of people's complexion "abyad" does not mean bluntly yellowish/wheatish color but beatified with tinge of blackness. The tinge is justified if you look at the quote in full. al-Dhahbi has repeated the same in his book at another point and follows it with another sentence which kills what u r trying to imply or what Mr. Wesley the Liar made of the statement.

Details and references on all this, WHEN you make a proper response uploaded somewhere that can be cited.

For now, let me wait to listen to Mr. Dr. while you agreed his translation is not correct and i maintain it is outright fabrication to meet dirty ends, let us wait for him to try justify it.

Now, PLEASE DEAR READERS, DO NOT COMMENT, AND LET US ALL WAIT FOR MR. WESLEY TO EMPLOY HIS TREASURED KNOWLEDGE TO TRY JUSTIFY WHAT I CALL HIS TAMPERING WITH THE STATEMENT.

NO ONE TO COMMENT EXCEPT MR. WESLEY NOW .... PLEASE .... (all other comments will be deleted ... sorry in advance)

Waqar Akbar said...

In a day or two, I'll posting my sequel to the points raised by other commentators and then all these people are welcome to debate in comments to that post. This is now exclusively for Mr. Wesley to say why he abused the text.

To others I'll respond on what's actually true about the first statement and what is not. So here WE WAIT for Mr. Wesley alone. Other's to keep the breath.

Call it a Wesley bashing session or whatever. it is require to deflate the scholarship balloon of the dishonest theologian.

THIS IS JUST A NOTIFICATION AND WILL BE REMOVED IN DUE TIME

Jibreelk said...

Sorry guys I was out of this -as I was busy yesterday. Now I see what i missed
First of all - Savethetrue arabs - you are just throwing things around. If you decided you can respond to the points we raised and if you are right we are NOT WESLEY to run around and not admit where we are wrong. However from the looks of it, even though you speak Arabic you don't have a scholarship approach to things.

Please try to organize your answer as opposed to just throw things out there. First and foremost we know very well that you are connect to Mr. Wesley and that he posts on your blog.

Second we know that he probably told you to go to this site and start writing as he gets guys like you to do his dirty work and try to save his face when HE GETS EXPOSED LIKE WAQAR JUST EXPOSED HIM ON HIS TRANSLATION.

Third - please take one thing at a time and cite your sources. We have cited ours in scholarly manner
If you make a claim back it up NOT ONLY WITH DICTIONARIES BUT WITH CONTEXT OF narrations and rational.

We don't want those WHITE DOES NOT MEAN WHITE type of statements that Wesley makes. We need to keep things clean so that the truth of this matter comes out.

Also you said that you don't agree with Wesley and you are not NOI or am I wrong? I have a question for you.. why do you help this twisted theologian to try to prove his perverted point that GOD IS A BLACK MAN?

Come up with an academic paper as we did and we will respond
and LAST BUT NOT LEAST BE CAREFUL

WE DID NOT TRANSLATE BLUE EYED WE TOOK WESLEY'S FRIENDS TRANSLATIONS JUST TO SHOW WHAT KIND OF APPROACH THEY USE AND HOW PERVERTED THEY ARE You can see their article on the back arabia blog
here http://blackarabia.blogspot.com/2011/10/imam-shafii-and-that-early-black-islam.html
Get that black Islam he?
So make sure you state facts so you don't end up loosing your credibility like Wesley just did
May Allah show us the truth

Jibreelk said...

One VERY IMPORTANT THING - This blog does not operate as Wesley's Facebook page and other works. We do not censor anyone unless they swear and use foul language. So please - SITE ADMINISTRATORS - do not delete any comments. If any comments were deleted we apologize and we will try to repost them or we invite the person to re post. Sorry again and thank you for understanding our small error.

Having said that let the discussion proceed. Allahu Akbar.

And let mr. Wesley who does not even have the GUTS TO CONTACT ME or WAQAR to say HEY GUYS I POSTED A REPPLY, know that we will BURN HIM NEXT. He claimed that we are hiding and running. Man this guy is just like Sam Shamoun, and he will go down in history just like Shamoun. LOOK WHAT HE DID


1. HE BLOCKED US SO IT'S A BIT HARD FOR US TO KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING EXCEPT IF WE VISIT HIS SITE WHICH we don't always have time to do. Once we USED TO BE ON FACEBOOK, BUT DR. PHD decided to bank us as HE COULD NOT STAND his deceived followers to question him and see the truth of his PHD.

2. HE GOES AROUND BRAGGING I'M A PHD IN ISLAMIC STUDY - YOU ARE A COMPUTER STUDIES STUDEN AND A BIOLOGY STUDENT - HAVE SOME GUTS TO debate and let us know you responded mr, not just go around so that you can give your followers a piece of mind after THEIR BELIEFS IN YOUR FALSEHOOD HAVE BEEN SHAKEN BY US EXPOSING YOU.

Mr. Wesley please unblock us so we can have proper access to you .. as we don't know where you at other than Detroit and that's a bit hard for us to reach right now LOL

Please stop lying as it only stains your PHD and tell your followers the truth of who is posting in secret and who is not letting the other party know that work has been posted.

Will you make some confessions or not?

Waqar Akbar said...

Ok, I comply ... here is a deleted comment reproduced ... the other did not have any argument so I did not save it, everyone is welcome to post (or re-post) whatever he wishes

------------------
Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

Waqar,

I am the second anonymous poster who listed your errors 1 by 1. Save your insults about me not having moral courage because I posted anonymously. The merit and worth of my words should be enough. You claimed that I said that Dr. Weseley's translation was correct and blah, blah blah. Well, firstly I never said 'blah, blah blah.' Secondly, I clearly stated that Dr. Wesely's translation was PARTIALLY incorrect but that it was correct where it MATTERS MOST. Here is what I told you:

"So Waqar is incorrect on a few accounts here where Dr. Weseley IS correct. And despite the fact that I may not agree with the rest of Dr. Wesley's translation he is MOST CORRECT where it matters"

Where does it matter? Here is where it matters:

"When Arabs say, ‘so-and-so is white (abyad),’ they mean a golden brown complexion with a black appearance (al-hint? al-lawn bi-hilya sud?’)."

This part of his translation is CORRECT!! And even if you bash him on the rest of his translation (and deservingly so) it doesn't take away from the correctness of the above translation.

The INCORRECT portion of Dr. Wesley's translation is:

"Like the complexion of the people of India, brown and black (asmar wa ?dam), i.e. a clear, refined blackness (sawad al-takr?r)."

Now do you want me to deal with YOUR incorrect statements and translations? Don't try to make this a Dr. Wesley bashing session, rather deal with the truth. You overly focus on what Dr. Wesley said that was false but you IGNORE the part that is TRUE. Dr. Wesley clearly mistranslated the last sentence of that quote but he translated the first part correctly. The first part says that Aybad CAN be used for Asmar. Whether you discredit Dr. Wesely on his other statements or not you cannot discredit the truth of THAT STATEMENT by trying to discredit Dr. Wesley.

November 29, 2011 3:13 PM
---------------------

It'll be appreciated If mr. "Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)" can verify for the verbatim reproduction of his comment

Anonymous said...

i posted several comments and they have been deleted....Wesley can answer for himself if and when he wants to but we are here to debate you on the same subject...so why the delay?

Save the True Arabs said...

JibreelK,

You said:

"Savethetrue arabs - you are just throwing things around. If you decided you can respond to the points we raised and if you are right we are NOT WESLEY to run around and not admit where we are wrong. However from the looks of it, even though you speak Arabic you don't have a scholarship approach to things."

Whatever a cite, I site as proof of something specific. Can you give me an example of how I am "throwing things around"?

You said:

"First and foremost we know very well that you are connect to Mr. Wesley and that he posts on your blog."

Can you swear to Allah that what you say here is true? How am I connected to Wesley any more than you are? And where and what did he post on my blog?

You said:

"Second we know that he probably told you to go to this site and start writing..."

Allah says:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اجْتَنِبُوا كَثِيراً مِّنَ الظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعْضَ الظَّنِّ إِثْمٌ

O ye who believe! Shun much suspicion; for lo! some suspicion is a crime.

Again, can you swear to Allah that Wesley told me to "go to this site and start writing"?

You said:

"as he gets guys like you to do his dirty work and try to save his face"

What do you mean by "guys like me"? Do you know me?

You said:

"Third - please take one thing at a time and cite your sources. "

I thought I did, but will do if I didn't inshaAllah.

You said:

"If you make a claim back it up NOT ONLY WITH DICTIONARIES BUT WITH CONTEXT OF narrations and rational."

If I use "dictionaries", I use books like Lisan Al-Arab and Al Tahdheeb and Fiqh Al-Lugha and they a reliable sources for all serious Arabic scholars.

You said:

"Also you said that you don't agree with Wesley and you are not NOI or am I wrong?"

No, you are not wrong. I don't agree with the translation Wesley gave here and I am NOT a member of the NOI nor have I ever been nor have I ever given anyone a reason to believe that I am.

You said:

"I have a question for you.. why do you help this twisted theologian to try to prove his perverted point that GOD IS A BLACK MAN?"

Where did I do that?! و العياذ بالله I challenge you to prove to me and to readers that I did such a thing! You are responsible in front of Allah for all false accusations that you make. Be careful.

Save the True Arabs said...

...continuation:

You said:

"WE DID NOT TRANSLATE BLUE EYED WE TOOK WESLEY'S FRIENDS TRANSLATIONS JUST TO SHOW WHAT KIND OF APPROACH THEY USE AND HOW PERVERTED THEY ARE You can see their article on the back arabia blog
here http://blackarabia.blogspot.com/2011/10/imam-shafii-and-that-early-black-islam.html
Get that black Islam he?"

I'm not responsible for what Wesley did with the quote from Imam Al-Shafa'ie that I translated and mentioned on my forum. Here is what I said exactly:

I don't really get Enlightened Ones's point. I wish he would come back and explain further. For example, he said:

"The preference fr light skin is worldwide! even before media, look at ancient painting..."

This is not really true. Does he know that Imam Al-Shafa'i said the following about light skin:

روى أحد تلامذة الشافعي أنه إشترى له طيبا بدينار ، فسأله الشافعي : ممن إشتريت ..؟؟ ، فقال : من الرجل العطار الأشقر الأزرق .. فقال الشافعي : أشقر وأزرق ..؟؟ ، إذهب ورد العطر ، ماجاءني خير قط من أشقر ...!!

One of Al-Shafa'i's students related that he bought some scents for Al-Shafa'i for a dinar. Al-Shafa'i asked him (the student) who he bought the scents from. The man replied, "From that blue-eyed, very fair-complexioned (أشقر) perfumer." Al-Shafa'i said, "Blue-eyed, very fair-complexioned (أشقر)?! Take it back! Nothing good has ever come to me from a very fair complexioned (أشقر) person!"

NOTE:

I'm just reporting what was said. I do not feel this way about fair-skinned people or people with blue eyes.

That's exactly what I said and this is where I said it:

http://www.savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=94

What Wesley did with it is not my responsibility. Though I must add that I was hesitant about translating it because I feared something like this might happen.

You said:

"Having said that let the discussion proceed. Allahu Akbar."

Where would you like to begin inshaAllah?

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

Waqar,

Yes, that is my post. Thank you for reposting it.

Save the True Arabs said...

I assume that you don't believe that the Arabs of the past used the term "abyad" to mean a complexion much darker than what the term means today. I assume that you don't believe that the term "abyad" meant to the Arabs of the past a complexion which is considered black today. So let's begin with the definition of "abyad". Al-Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi says in volume 2 of his book Siyar A'alaam Al-Nubalaa:

إن العرب إذا قالت : فلان أبيض ، فإنهم يريدون الحنطي اللون بحلية سوداء

"Verily, when the Arabs said that so-and-so was abyad (white), they meant that he had a hinti complexion with a black hilya."

Now. To show readers what is meant by a hinti complexion, I'm posting a link to a person described as hinti complexioned in Arabic:

http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/images/quso1.jpe

Next to the photo is written: لون البشرة : حنطي (Complexion: Hinti)

Remember that Al-Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi describes abyad (white) as a hinti complexion WITH A BLACK HILYA. The hilya of a person is what is apparent in a person's color or appearance. In his book Lisaan Al-Arab, Ibn Mandhour describes hilya as "appearance":

قال ابن منظور في لسان العرب:

والحِلْيَةُ
الخِلْقة. والحِلْيَةُ: الصفة والصُّورة. والتَّحْلِيةُ: الوَصْف. وتَحَلاَّه: عَرَفَ صِفَته. والحلْية: تَحْلِيَتُك وجهَ الرجلِ إذا وصَفْته

So Al-Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi describes abyad (white) not simply as hinti complexioned, but as a hinti complexion WITH A BLACK APPEARANCE. Do you disagree with anything I've said so far?

Save the True Arabs said...

By the way, who's darker - the guy in the picture who is described as hinti complexioned (the person in the link I just posted) or Wesley in the picture posted in the article written by Waqar?

Jibreelk said...

1. Yes my friend you are trowing things around. You should raise one issue at a time, not go to give dictionary meaning, then post again, then reply to my post and so on. Take one thing at a time and wait with patience for the response. We have invited you to post an article reply. That leaves a paper trail and it will be easy for those who follow. So for example you want to talk about al Dahabi's statement, than wait for us to reply and then you post again. If you keep flooding the post (as not we have some issues between you and I which I will address), it will distract readers. Again as we have said if you really think you are up for it and can REFUTE US, please write an article response and we will reply. If not be a bit more patient as we will respond. We take our time and make sure we cover the issue properly as well as give our readers the ability to follow.

2. I apologize sincerely for my mistake, and no one should be proud to admit one's mistake. I am sorry I suspected you of working with Wesley. I am sorry my brother. May Allah forgive me.

3. I have asked you to cite things and make sure you put meanings in perspective or narrations and rational. You have not done that yet. Again if you think you can REFUTE OUR ARTICLE. IT will be our pleasure to refute you back. You are missing a few points but it shows that you did not read our article very carefully and you are haphazard. Don't take that as an insult, it is an observation. I will elaborate more in our responses later. Don't just go based on dictionary meanings. If you have read our article which clearly you did not properly, you have seen that we have put all the dictionary meanings in perspective of the ahadith. Again we will post a response soon and you will see what we mean, especially when the dictionary meanings are put in a rational perspective based on the context of the narrations that use the words. Taking dictionary meanings and what people have said about words is what Ahmadia do. They always try to play on the meaning of the words MAHDI in the dictionary and the meaning of KHATAM. I am not sure if you have had any experience with them, but man the way you are dealing with the subject and the way Wesley deals with it, reminds me of the way they used to deal with it.

Jibreelk said...

3. As to my question if you are helping Wesley - if you know it or not you are indirectly helping him. Do you know what kind of perverted theology lies beneath this discussion? How come you are TRYING to refute us, but you did not refute him? If you are a Muslim and you know what sick things this guy is teaching, why have you not done anything to correct him, keeping in mind that YOU DISAGREE WITH SOME OF HIS TRANSLATION. I am sure if you look deeper you will disagree with more? Can you answer me?

4. If you have read our article properly you have seen that the statement of imam Al Shafi was only taken by us from their site to show what kind of perverted theology and hatred they teach. We have never attributed to you. However can you verify that you are NOT THE ONE WHO HAS SAID
You also translated azraq as 'blue eyed' when the word just means 'light colored eyes,'

5. Where do I want to discussion to proceed - as we have seen and again you posted about abyad and trying to start another discussion even though related I must admit, but again your focus is all over. I want you to write an article refuting the points we have made, and so we will be able to answer them. If not stick to one thing and I say let us begin with point one, and that is Imam al Dahabis statement. Waqar will post on this issue soon.

So I encourage you to write a paper as it would be easier to respond and easier for readers to follow.

Second please clarify if you are the one who has accused us of translating azrak as blue eyes in the earlier posts. As there were two anonymous and we are confused who was who.

Jizak Allah khairun.

I hope that you will go and spend as much time refuting Wesley and engaging with him and exposing his mistranslation and perverse understanding of things. I hope.

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

Jibreelk,

I wrote: "You also translated azraq as 'blue eyed' when the word just means 'light colored eyes,'" I will post everything that i posted as anonymous under this my name so that you do not get confused:

Peace,

I am not Dr. Wesley or the previous anonymous folks who have posted previously. This is my first time posting. So don't confuse me with anyone else. I know Arabic very well, as well. And here are my comments on this issue:

As it concerns the translation of (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda) Dr. Wesley's translation is more accurate than Waqar's. Waqar's says this: “When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda).

'Wheatish complexion' is correct. However 'with slight darkness' is incorrect. No Arabic word that means 'slight' is used in 'hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda'. And 'dark' is a mistranslation, because sawda is the feminine of aswad, which means BLACK. And Waqar has no problem translating 'sawaad' as 'negroes.' Which by the way is also incorrect, because 'sawaad' means 'blackness.' Sood or Soodan is used for 'negroes' or 'black people' in general, from India to Arabia to Africa. Waqar would not translate 'aswad' as anything other than 'black' so why does he not accurately translate aswad's feminine form 'sawda'?

A word for word tranlsation of what is said is: 'hintiy: wheatish' 'al-lawn: color' 'bi: with' 'hilyatin: an appearence' 'sawda: black.'

So Waqar is incorrect on a few accounts here where Dr. Weseley IS correct. And despite the fact that I may not agree with the rest of Dr. Wesley's translation he is MOST CORRECT where it matters. So Waqar, here is where you are wrong:

Interestingly enough 'buckwheat/kasha' is called hintah sawdaa' i.e. 'black wheat.' Go take a look at some whole kasha kernels and it will give you a good idea of how dark the Arabs meant when they said 'white/abyad.' This is why one hadeeth describes him as 'abyad' and another as 'asmar' and how they are not in contradiction.

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

I posted this:

Corrections for Waqar Akbar Cheema & Gabriel Keresztes Abdul Rahman Al-Romaani:

1. No usage of 'slight' in the passage.
2. sawda means BLACK, not just 'dark', as it is the feminine of aswad. You should admit you were trying to be tricky here. Black is black. You are trying to imply a darkness that is not blackness. But when the Arabs intend that they say 'red' or 'blue' with A LITTLE or SOME blackness in it, they don't say A BLACK APPEARANCE.
3. In your article you translated 'ashqar' as albino. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM??? Albinism in Modern Standard Arabic is muhqah (soft h). In Classical Arabic someone who is amhaq is described as white to the point that it is ugly. Bright white is a murhah(soft h) someone who is amrah is white with not even the slightest blackness mixed into his color to ANY degree. Those words would qualify for albinism. NOT shuqrah. Leprosy which has often been associated with albinism is baras (sawd) and a leper is abras. humrah is described as bayaadh with shuqrah, or lightness/whitness with shuqrah. Humrah is stated as the color of the Persians, Romans/Byzantines and the Levantines. These folks were not albinos!!! There is a hadeeth that says that Ayesha was shuqraa'. But no one thinks that means she was an ALBINO!! You accuse Dr. Wesley of something that YOU ARE DOING YOURSELF, which is CHANGING THE MEANING OF WORDS AND MISTRANSLATING.
4. You also translated azraq as 'blue eyed' when the word just means 'light colored eyes,' from hazel to green to grey to blue. It is literally described as both 'khudrah feel-3ain': greenness in the eye' or when 'yataghalalbu sawaadahaa bayaadun' 'lightness overwhelms its (the eye's) blackness.' Hence, zurqah refers to light colored eyes, despite the actual color.
5. Sawaad DOES NOT mean Negroes, it means 'blackness'
6. When the Arabs say someone is 'white/abyad' they are saying that he has a'wheatish color with a BLACK appearance' NOT a 'slightly dark appearence'. UNLESS they qualify it with a something like 'shuqrah' which makes it qualify as NOT having a black appearance, but rather an appearence typical of most 'white Arabs', 'persians' or dark southern Europeans (Romans).

Go to www.baheth.info to verify the meaning of the Arabic word used above.

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

I posted this:
More corrections:

Sumrah DOES NOT MEAN tan. sumrah = wurqah and wurqah is blackness in earth color, or from earth color to blackness (both definitions are given in Lisanul-Arab). Wurqah is a color in camels that increases until the camel becomes jet black (ad-ham). awraq is the epithet given to ashes and wurqaa to charcoal BECAUSE OF THEIR (DARK) COLOR. wurqah is the color of dark wood smoke and awraq is the epithet for the (desert) wolf because of its dark color. The person who is awraq is asmar OR aadam (this makes sense because aadam is asmar shadeed). sumrah is a color that is close to blackness (yadrib ilaa sawaad khafee) udmah is sumrah (i.e. wurqah) shadeedah, NOT just brown, but dark/blackish brown. So asmar is BROWN and Aadm is VERY DARK BROWN. Asmar is blackness in earth color. Aaadam is very asmar (sumrah shadeedah) and As-ham (black like a crow) is very Aadam (udmah shadeedah). Come on guys. Lane's isn't giving it to you straight. But what can you expect from an Colonialst era Englishman?

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

Let me add, that context NEVER overrules dictionary meanings. It might SHADE a meaning, as in if we were talking about high school 'BOYS', we wouldn't be referring to 'BOYS' under 11. Here the context of 'high school' gave shade to what sort of 'boy' was meant in this context. But 'BOY' still means 'BOY', i.e. a male who has not reached FULL maturity. The same thing goes for Arabic words. You can't take shuqra' and make it mean Albino when it has NO precedent for that, and then claim that the context shaded it that way. Here you FALSELY gave it context by assuming that Al-Shafi'i and his companion were fairskinned themselves!! So you had to make ashqar LIGHTER than fairskinned. Ayesha in the hadeeth is called both shaqraa' and hamraa' (literally humayraa') both terms implying fairskinnedness like persians, olive-skinned mediterranean greco-romans and levantine Christians of the time. But you claim it means ALBINO!!??? And then you spit on Dr. Wesley for having a pro-black agenda when it seems that you have a pro-white agenda. You can't call that context. Al-Shafi'i was severely prejudiced against very fair skinned people (probably) with colored eyes (azraq is a color associated with the Greco-Roman Byzantine's skin color AND eye color) it seems. That may hurt you. And you may love this scholar. But it is true. And don't accuse me of helping Dr. Wesley in ALL of his errors. I am helping him with what he says that is TRUE. And I would do the same with whatever you said that were true. Is God a man? No. Is God black? No. Are blacks innately supeirior to whites or vice-versa? No. Is ethnic or color prejudice wrong? Yes. Were the Arabs of pre-islamic Arabia and early Islam black? Yes. Was the prophet Muhammad (sas) a color that would be considered black today? According to the correct understanding of the descriptions given, YES. Are modern day Muslims and (mixed and Arabicized non-Arab) Arabs in denial of the facts today? YES. Are you one of those in denial? It would seem so. Should you be in denial? No. Why are you in denial? I think it is because you have a vested and unfortunately prejudiced interest against the forefathers of Islam, our last prophet (sas) and the original Arabs being black. You should change this mentality of yours.

Waqar Akbar said...

@ Mr. "Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)"

-- Is Mr. Wesley's translation "Partially" incorrect? --

tell me, are you just dying to dilute the issue of his outright dishonesty and playing with the text?

.. a person translates
فَإِنْ كَانَ and وَإِنْ كَانَ as "like" and "i.e." and connects "abyad" from first statement to "aswad" of the last statement and you say that is not what matters the most? you saying still it is "partially" wrong??

Of the three statements he translated he literally abused two of them in translation and abused the first one by connecting it to his fabrication with 2nd and 3rd and here you tell me its "partially" incorrect ... huh

-- What does the first statement mean? --

The first statement reads

إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ،

Which Wesley translated as

"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’)."

Word for word, this part is ok (though it could be improved), but the trick on his part is when he links it to "asmar", "adam" and "aswad" by abusing the text, as explained already

Now my translation, "“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda)."

You have problem with "slight" .. this is justified because the statement as a whole shows he is moving from what is termed as "fair" to "dark" in today's english language ... and here all he means is to say that "wheatish" color is not pale or yellow in appearance but has darkness in its appearance .. but this cannot be equated with asmar or adam for al-dhahbi has clearly used the words distinctly ... "abyad" according to his explanation is not pale yellowish/wheatish but has a shade but is still lighter than asmar and adam which are in turn lighter than aswad ...

the real part explaining "abyad" is "hintiy al-lawn" and "hilya al-sawda" is just a flavoring on it, that "abyad" in common Arab use on complexions does not mean pale yellowish/wheatish but with some dark shade ... what you are doing is to altogether eat away the "hintiy al-lawn" part and connect "abyad" to blackness which are directly antonyms ... this way you are just a step short of the Wesley the Liar who cunningly connects "abyad" to "asmar" and "aswad" of the following statements

as we already quoted in the article al-dhahbi has given the statement at two places in his work and at the second instance he follows it with this statement

فَمَعْنَى ذَلِكَ: أَنَّ بَنِي آدَمَ لا ينفكون، عن أحد الأمرين. وكل لَوْنٍ بِهَذَا الاعْتِبَارِ يَدُوْرُ بَيْنَ السَّوَادِ وَالبَيَاضِ الَّذِي هُوَ الحُمْرَةُ.

“So this means, mankind cannot escape either of these two things (fairness and darkness of complexion). And every complexion is a shade between blackness (sawad) and, whiteness (bayad) which (in this context) is redness.” .”(Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 3/448)

See he is saying every complexion of mankind is between "sawad" and "bayad", if "bayad" is "asmar" are you telling us that he did not count white people among the mankind?

You claim, **// The first part says that Aybad CAN be used for Asmar.//**

** If "abyad" is "asmar" then how to translate this hadith describing the complexion of the Prophet (saaw) which we quoted earlier

وَكَانَ أَبْيَضَ بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ

Waqar Akbar said...

continued ........

Moreover, If "abyad" is "asmar" why al-Dhahbi does not apply "abyad" to the complexion of people of india and uses different words i.e. "asmar" and "adam" for their complexion?? The simple reason is, he just explained the meaning of "abyad" as sth lighter than "asmar" and "adam" (but is still not pale yellow/golden/wheatish) which are in turn lighter than "aswad" and "shadid al-uduma"

-- What about the loads of other evidences shared in the refutation? What about all the ahadith that categorically explain the complexion?

hadith which says "abyad malih", "azhar al-lawn", the hadith about turban showing contrast of "abyad" and "aswad", "abyad imbued with humrah" .. will u also reject them as later concoctions as our dr. liar does? how do you see them?

The ahadith we quoted conclusively prove that its just a matter of racist theology that is driving people to deny and twist clear ahadith to make of the prophet (saaw) what he was not.

Dwell more on the usage and better stick to the usage for describing the complexion of the Prophet (saaw), the real subject here. dictionaries have every far fetched, rare and common usage. Its the usage in the text under consideration that matter the most.

We discuss "abyad" for now. lest one is a racist follower of the NoI cult, the meaning of "ashqar" cannot be fair-complexioned people as such because the usage denies it, as I'll explain when we come to it in-sha'Allah

Jibreelk said...

Mr. "Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)"
You need to hold your horses man and take one topic at a time as we told our brother Save the True Arabs

It only shows that you lack scholarship. Christian missionaries post tons of arguments and cannot take up on at a time when they debate with us. Did you learn your debate tactics from them?

Please if you think you are up to it and no one HAS BEEN SO FAR NOT EVEN WESLEY... write an article refutation point by point if you think you can box. Till then if you want to discuss any matter and you think you have a point stick to one topic and an point.

I JUST DON'T GET IT HOW COME NO ONE CAN WRITE AN ARTICLE RESPONSE TO SHOW SOME TRUE SCHOLARSHIP?

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas_ said...

@Waqar Akbar:

"-- Is Mr. Wesley's translation "Partially" incorrect? --

tell me, are you just dying to dilute the issue of his outright dishonesty and playing with the text?"

You can't read. I didn't ask a question. I made a statement. I clearly stated that his translation WAS INDEED partially incorrect.

"Word for word, this part is ok (though it could be improved), but the trick on his part is when he links it to "asmar", "adam" and "aswad" by abusing the text, as explained already"

Agreed. Although gold brown doesn't need very much improvement at all.
"Now my translation, "“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda)."

You have problem with "slight" .. this is justified because the statement as a whole shows he is moving from what is termed as "fair" to "dark" in today's english language ... and here all he means is to say that "wheatish" color is not pale or yellow in appearance but has darkness in its appearance .. but this cannot be equated with asmar or adam for al-dhahbi has clearly used the words distinctly ... "abyad" according to his explanation is not pale yellowish/wheatish but has a shade but is still lighter than asmar and adam which are in turn lighter than aswad ... "

Your adding of slight is no more justified than Dr. Wesley's omissions. Becaue Abyad is distinguished from asmar does no mean that it cannot be classified as Asmar. Aadam is distinguished from Asmar yet it is described as asmar shadeed. Abyad is light asmar, just as Aadam is heavy asmar. Wheatish color is CLEAR as day, don't try to redefine wheatish color. Wheatish was used becase it is appropriate. It is NOT talking about any color lighter than the colors of wheat. In addition it added darkness saying that it has a BLACK appearence. Don't twist things.

"what you are doing is to altogether eat away the "hintiy al-lawn" part and connect "abyad" to blackness which are directly antonyms"

You say they are antonyms. But who knows Classical Arabic better YOU or Al-Dhahabi? Al-Dhahabi is explaining the CLASSICAL ARABIC IDIOMATIC usage of the color white amongst Arabs. You fail to understand the micro and the macro. For the Arabs wheatish skin color that still maintained a black appearence was a form of whiteness and they used white in this manner. Just like someone who is 'white' amongst dark African tribes is still black to you, but white to them. The black appearence is the macro, as the Arabs described their color as blackness. The white is the micro as this color was light enough compared to their general blackness to be considered white.

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

@Waqar Akbar

continued ...
Waqar you stated:
---
فَمَعْنَى ذَلِكَ: أَنَّ بَنِي آدَمَ لا ينفكون، عن أحد الأمرين. وكل لَوْنٍ بِهَذَا الاعْتِبَارِ يَدُوْرُ بَيْنَ السَّوَادِ وَالبَيَاضِ الَّذِي هُوَ الحُمْرَةُ.

“So this means, mankind cannot escape either of these two things (fairness and darkness of complexion). And every complexion is a shade between blackness (sawad) and, whiteness (bayad) which (in this context) is redness.” .”(Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 3/448)

See he is saying every complexion of mankind is between "sawad" and "bayad", if "bayad" is "asmar" are you telling us that he did not count white people among the mankind?
-----

The answer is right here in front of your face and you can't see it. Think IDIOMATIC USAGE. Here AlDhahabi clearly states that the whiteness that he is talking about is humrah. Humrah is described as whiteness with shuqrah, and is the color of the Persians, Greco-Romans Byzantines and fair-skinned levantine Christians. Just as there are different kinds of Blackness there are different kinds of Whiteness. THINK micro and the macro. Bayaadh is not ALWAYS light Asmar. And I never said that. Stop thinking in absolutes. It is light Asmar when the Arabs use it and don't qualify it as humrah, shuqrah, zurqah, muhqah or murhah, or even suh-bah. Whiteness at its darkest (to the Arabs) WAS wheatish colors with still a (macro) black appearence. This is where blackness and whiteness meet on an equal footing. As we get lighter whiteness increases and blackness almost dissappears. And as we get darker blackness increases and whiteness almost dissapears. But hintyl-lawni sems to be the last stop as it concerns what the Arabs saw as the whitest manifestation of blackness, and blackest manifestation of whiteness.

You said:
---
You claim, **// The first part says that Aybad CAN be used for Asmar.//**

** If "abyad" is "asmar" then how to translate this hadith describing the complexion of the Prophet (saaw) which we quoted earlier

وَكَانَ أَبْيَضَ بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ
---

You are twisting my words. I said CAN be used, NOT 'always is' used. This relates to what I spoke to previously in this post. It is classifying his whiteness as a form of sumrah, meaning he was white in a way that could still classify him as asmar, then in the macro he still aswad. Remember the Arab's had a micro and a macro outlook on color. Comparing their colors to the tanned and olive-skinned Persians and Greco-Romans they considered themseleves black. Comparing themslves to each other, only those who were literally as black as crows were considered black. So what Dr. Wesley, Save the true Arabs, me and especially Al-Dhahabi are saying is that the Arabs also called people whom they considered as light skinned BLACKS to be WHITE. And just like they had different names for the different levels of blackness, which ranged from literally black to relatively white, those colors were considered black even in comparison to dark/tanned caucasians like Persians and Greco-Romans. They also had names for those they considered to just be white from red and blue to bright white like the terms amrah and amhaq.

It is also clearly stated in Lisanul-Arab that when the Arabs referred to someone who was white like the TANNED Persians and Greco-Romans (to include their paler members) they referred to him as red (Ahmar) and preferred this term over Abyad. Which is why Al-dhahabi clarifies, 'Whiteness THAT IS Redness.'

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

@Waqar Akbar

You said:

---hadith which says "abyad malih", "azhar al-lawn", the hadith about turban showing contrast of "abyad" and "aswad", "abyad imbued with humrah" .. will u also reject them as later concoctions as our dr. liar does? how do you see them? ---

You should know that all of this has been explained before. Firstly your evidence is not eevidence. Malih and azhar are about radiance and beauty NOT literal whiteness. Are you saying dark brown peoples in all their shades cannot be radiant or beautiful because of their dark browness? Because that seems to be what is driving your understanding of these words. Secondly humrah can take two meanings, one is whiteness that is ligther than sumrah and one is reddish earth tones. Now if someone is said to be Asmar with humrah and someone who is red in the sense of 'white' is TOO light to be called asmar then think about that. It must be referring to reddish earth tones. in http://www.savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi you cn get all the education you guys need on this. Savethetruearabs is an expert in this field and if you would take the time to carefully reveiw what he has been saying you'd ALL learn something. Amghar is red ochre colored and is asmar bihumrah. It is wheat colored with a black appearance as well: http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/60335/60335,1143324748,2/stock-photo-a-pile-of-red-ochre-powdered-pigment-isolated-on-a-white-background-1126006.jpg

The reddish brown color of the gazelle is a3far is is also considered white with redness.

Please stop dwelling in your modern pre-conceptions and hit the books and learn the meanings of these words.

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

@Waqar

Also, THINGS are not light people's colors. A black hat is a black hat, as is a black turban. It will be described on a micro level. So a black hat is purely black. And a white hat is purely white. But the whiteness of a person does't make him PURELY white, nor does his blackness make him PURELY black.

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

When is say purely white don't take that too far. I'm not denying the existence of cream, as opposed to linen white or lily white or off white. But these are white to the point where ANY blackness however slight is EXTREMELY negligable and almost non-existent. But this is how white and black is used with objects, but people are not viewed consistently in this way. Again, remember the micro and the macro. The Arabs describe their colors as Sawaad (blackness), yet they have particular Arabs who are called Soodanul-Arab like Antar, and Ibn Dumaakah and others. This is micro blackness. These people are also called the Arab Crows and were so black that they were jet black. This is the MICRO concept of Arab blackness. The Macro concept even includes people with wheat brown and reddish tones like red ochre or roasted buckwheat. But on the MICRO level these people are white, believe it.... or not.

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar and JibreelK,

Here is my response to your article:

http://www.savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=159

Judging by what I read in an article written by JibreelK and Waqar, I'm assuming that they don't believe that the Arabs of the past used the term "abyad" (white) to mean a complexion much darker than what the term means today. I assume that they don't believe that the term "abyad" (abyad) meant to the Arabs of the past a complexion which is considered black today. So let's begin with the definition of "abyad".

Waqar and JibreelK started off wrong by giving incorrect definitions of terms used by the Arabs of the past. They wrote:

Meanings of the keywords used to describe the complexion

With regards to the meanings and connotation of the words used to describe the complexion we must remember that in any language it’s the usage of the words that matters more than their dictionary meanings. To facilitate things for non Arabic readers, the dictionary meanings of the keywords around which the discussion revolves are given, as it will help understand their usage better. All the meanings are from Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon.


Then they proceeded to list definitions of terms from Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon. I'll now list the definition that they listed that is not correct and I will explain why it is not correct inshaAllah. They wrote:

Meaning of Adam/Udma;

آدم Of the colour termed أُدمة (Book I, p.37)

أُدمة... and in human beings, a tawny colour; or darkness of complexion; syn. سُمرة or an intermixture, or a tinge, of blackness or intense سُمرة (Book I, p.36)

Save the True Arabs said...

...Continuation

It is incorrect to say that adam or al-udma means a tawny color. Adam does NOT mean tawny. Adam means very asmar and asmar itself means dark-skinned. This is the definition of tawny:

Adj. 1. tawny - of a light brown to brownish orange color; the color of tanned leather

Your translation here is not correct:

Rab’ia bin Abdul Rahman narrates from Anas (RA) who while describing the appearance of the Holy Prophet said:

وَلَا بِالْأَبْيَضِ الْأَمْهَقِ، وَلَا بِالْآدَمِ

“And he was neither white as lime (abyad al-amhaq) , nor brown (adam).” (Shama’il Tirmidhi, Hadith 1)

The correct translation is:

"He was neither an ugly white nor very asmar (adam)."

أمهق (amhaq) means an ugly white and asmar means, like I've said, very asmar and asmar itself means dark-skinned. So it means that he wasn't very asmar.

Again, adam or al-udma is NOT light brown nor is it simply brown - it's dark asmar. Al-Tabari said the following about Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia's complexion:

كان يلقب القارى من أدمته

"He was nicknamed 'bitumen' because of his adam complexion."

Here is what bitumen looks like:

[image]

Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia had a son named Al-Hasan. Ibn Hazim says the following about Al-Hasan the son of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia :

"Al-Hasan (the son of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia) was nick-named The Father of the Tar because he was so asmar complexioned."

"كان يلقب أبا الزفت لشدة سمرته"

Who was Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia? Read about him here and this should give readers a very clear picture of what the color of the pure Arabs of the past was:

http://www.savethetruearabs.proboards.co....&thread=10

Save the True Arabs said...

...Continuation

So the correct definition of adam or al-udma is very dark-skinned. It is also not correct to call adam asmar because adam means very asmar - not simply asmar.

Read what Al-Tha'aalabi says in his book Fiqh Al-Lugha. As you read, notice that this chapter of the book is entitled The Degrees of Blackness in Humans. Also notice that asmar is considered a degree of blackness and remember that black here really means black, so asmar is a lightest degree of that very dark color called black. It's not a degree of some light color. It's one of the degrees of very dark colors in human complexions. Here's what Al-Tha'alabi says in Fiqh Al-Lugha:

Chapter 13 - The Degrees of Blackness in Humans

If there is a slight blackness in his/her complexion, he/she is asmar.

If his/her blackness is more intense with some yellow showing, he/she is asham (with Arabic letter saad) أصحم .

If his/her blackness is more intense than asmar, he/she is adam آدم.

If his/her blackness is more intense than that (adam آدم), he/she is asham (with Arabic letter seen) أسحم .

If he/she is is extremely black, he/she is adlam أدلم.

الفصل
الثالث عشر (في تَرْتِيبِ سَوَادِ الإنْسَانِ)

إذا
عَلاَهُ أَدْنَى سَوَادٍ فَهُوَ أسْمَرُ

فإنْ
زَادَ سَوَادُهُ مَعَ صُفْرَةٍ تَعْلُوهُ فَهُوَ أَصْحَمُ

فإنْ
زَادَ سَوَادُهُ عَلَى السُّمْرَةِ فَهُوَ آدَمُ

فإنْ
زَادَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ فَهُوَ أَسْحَمُ

فإنِ
اشْتَدَّ سَوَادُهُ فَهُوَ أدْلَمُ.

Notice that Al Tha'alabi says:

"If his/her blackness is more intense than asmar, he/she is adam آدم."

This shows that asmar is a degree of blackness. It also shows that adam is not the same as asmar, but it is a color even darker than asmar.

JibreelK and Waqar then write:

"How the Arabs use the words?

As Mr. Wesley said, Imam al-Dhahbi has described as to how the Arabs use these words.

Here are the actual words of al-Dhahbi (d. 748 A.H.) and their rightful translation:


إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ

“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda). And if it is the complexion the People of India they say, ‘asmar’ and ‘adam’. And if it is of Toucouleur Negroes (sawad al-Takrur) they say ‘aswad’ and likewise everyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black; they call, ‘aswad’ or ‘shadid-ul-udmah’.” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 1/39 & 3/448, Darul Hadith, Cairo 2006)"

This translation of theirs is not correct. I'm not sure who did the translating, but it is not correct. They write:

"they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda)"

This is not correct..."bi-hilyatin sawda" does not mean "with slight darkness". "Bi-hilyatin sawda" means "with a black appearance". So "(hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda" means a hinti or wheat complexion with a black appearance. The hilya of a person is what’s apparent in his/her color or appearance. So, a person with a hilya (appearance) sawdaa (black) has a black appearance. So a person described as abyad (white) by the Arabs of the past actually had a black appearance. Ibn Mandhour describes hilya (حلية) as:

والحلية هي ما يرى من لون الشخص وظاهرهِ وهيئتهِ

"A hilya is what is apparent in a person's color and his/her appearance and form."

Therefore a person with a black hilya has a black appearance and people described by the Arabs of the past had a black hilya, so they had a black appearance.

َ

Save the True Arabs said...

...Continuation

Hilya is also described by Ibn Mandhour in Lisaan Al-Arab as:

قال ابن منظور في لسان العرب:

"والحِلْيَةُ الخِلْقة. والحِلْيَةُ: الصفة والصُّورة. والتَّحْلِيةُ: الوَصْف. وتَحَلاَّه: عَرَفَ صِفَته. والحلْية: تَحْلِيَتُك وجهَ الرجلِ إذا وصَفْته."

"Hilya is the outward appearance, the description, the image. "Tahallaahu" means he knew his description. "Tahliyatuka" the face of a man is said if you described him."

Look at how Al-Mubarrad uses the word hilya here in his book Al-Muqtadab:

فأما النعت فمثل: الطويل، والقصير، والصغير، والعاقل، والأحمق، فهذه كلها نعوتٌ جارية على أفعالها: لأن معنى الجاهل: المعروف بأنه يجهل، والطويل: المعروف بأنه طال. فكل ما كان من هذا فعلاً له أو فعلاً فيه فقد صار حلية له
.

"Concerning adjectives, words like tall, short small, intelligent, stupid are all descriptions in accordance with their verbs because the meaning of ignorant is that the person is known to be ignorant (يجهل is verb for ignorant), the meaning of tall is that the person is known be tall (طال is verb for tall). So all of these descriptions are verbs that he has or verbs that are in him and they have become his hilya."

So below is the correct translation of what Al-Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi said in volume 2 of his book Siyar A'alaam Al-Nubalaa:

إن العرب إذا قالت : فلان أبيض ، فإنهم يريدون الحنطي اللون بحلية سوداء

"Verily, when the Arabs said that so-and-so was abyad (white), they meant that he had a hinti complexion with a black hilya."

So again, a person described as abyad (white) by the Arabs of the past had a black appearance.

Al-Shaikh Mohamed ibn Ahmed ibn Ali ibn Abdel Khaliq Shams Al-Din Al-Minhaaji Al-Asyouti gives an extremely precise explanation of the different complexions in humans in his book Jawaahir Al-Uqoud wa Mu’een Al-Qudaa wa Al-Mowqi’een wa Al-Shuhoud. Here's part of what he said:

“Complexions

If a person if very black-skinned, his complexion is called haalik.

If a person’s blackness is mixed with red, his complexion is called daghmaan.

If a person’s complexion is lighter than that, his complexion is called as-hamm.

If a person’s blackness is mixed with yellow, his complexion is called as-hamm (with saad).

If there is darkness (kudra) in his complexion, his complexion is called arbad.

If a person’s complexion is lighter than that, his complexion is called abyad (white).

If a person’s complexion has less yellow and inclines more towards black, his complexion is called adam.

إذا كان الرجل شديد السواد

قيل: حالك.

فإن خالط سواده حمرة

قيل: دغمان.

فإن صفا لونه

قيل: أسحم.

فإن خالط السواد صفرا

قيل: أصحم.

فإن كدر لونه

قيل: أربد.

فإن صفا عن ذلك

قيل : أبيض.

فإن رقت الصفرة، ومال إلى السواد

قيل: آدمي اللون

Save the True Arabs said...

...Continuation

Notice here that abyad (white) is described as a color a little lighter than أربد (arbad) and أربد (arbad) means a color between black and dust-colored.

I hope that it's clear to you now that abyad (white) meant a dark complexion to the Arabs of the past.

By the way, you also incorrectly translated سواد التكرور as Toucouleur Negroes. The correct translation is "the blackness of the Takrur" and the sentence reads: "If their blackness is like the blackness of the Takrur..."

[image]

Al-Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi used the example of the Takrur to explain to readers of his time the complexion he was talking about. Apparently the Takrur had a very black complexion.

Now that you know the true meaning of abyad (white), It should be easier for you, inshaAllah, to understand these hadiths which describe the Prophet (SAWS) as asmar:


عن يعقوب بن سفيان، حدثني عمرو بن عون وسعيد بن منصور قالا: حدثنا خالد بن عبد الله عن حميد الطويل، عن أنس بن مالك قال: كان رسول الله أسمر اللون.


Ya'qoub ibn Sufyan related that 'Amru ibn 'Awn and Said ibn Mansour said that Khalid ibn Abdella related from Hamid Al-Tawil that Anas ibn Maalik said:

"The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) was asmar complexioned."

وحدثناه محمد بن المثنى قال: حدثنا عبد الوهاب قال: حدثنا حميد عن أنس قال: لم يكن رسول الله بالطويل ولا بالقصير، وكان إذا مشى تكفأ، و كان أسمر اللون.


"Mohamed ibn Al-Muthanna said that Abdel Wahhaab said that Hamid related that Anas said:

"The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) wasn't tall and he wasn't short. When he walked, he leaned forward. And he was asmar complexioned."

http://www.savethetruearabs.proboards.co....2#ixzz1f5WlxzME

Save the True Arabs said...

...Continuation

Now that you know that abyad (white) meant a dark complexion to the Arabs of the past and now that you know that the Prophet (SAWS) was also described as asmar, this other piece of information that I am about to give you inshaAllah shouldn't be very surprising to you. Earlier on you translated this sentence of Al-Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi:

وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ

as:

"And likewise whosoever has overwhelmingly black complexion they say "aswad" or "shadid al-udma"

Read this description of Ali ibn Abi Taalib found in Taarikh Al-Khulafaa by Imam Al-Suyouti and tell me what you think:

In his book Tarikh Al-Khulafaa (The History of the Caliphs), Imam Al-Suyuti described Ali ibn Abi Talib (RAA), the first cousin of the Prophet (SAWS), as follows:

و كان علي شيخا سمينا أصلع كثير الشعر ربعة إلى القصر عظيم البطن عظيم اللحية جدا قد ملأت ما بين منكبيه بيضاء كأنها قطن آدم شديد الأدمة

Ali was a heavyset, bald, hairy man of average height which leaned toward shortness. He had a large stomach and a large beard which filled all that was between his shoulders. His beard was white as if it was cotton and he was shadid al-udma."

Concerning the term أزهر اللون (azhar al-lown), Al-Imam Abu Hanifa said that those who say that azhar means white are wrong and he says that azhar means a radiant complexion no matter what color the person is. So a person can be asmar and still have an azhar complexion. Explaining the description of the Prophet (SAWS) in his book Al-Shamaail Al-Sharifa, Al-Imam Al-Suyouti says:

أ

أزهر اللون أي مشرقه نيره زاد ابن الجوزي وغيره في الرواية كأن عرقه اللؤلؤ قال في الروض الزهرة لغة إشراق في اللون أي لون كان من بياض أو غيره وقول بعضهم إن الأزهر الأبيض خاصة والزهر اسم للأبيض من النوار فقط خطأه أبو حنيفة فيه وقال إنما الزهرة إشراق في الألوان كلها


Azhar complexioned (أزهر اللون) means radiant and bright complexioned. Ibn Al-Jawzi and others added in their narrations "as if his sweat was pearls". (Al-Suhaili) said in (his book) Al-Rawd:

"Al-Zuhra (الزهرة) means radiance in complexion - whatever complexion it is...abyad (white) or any other color - and Al-Imam Abu Hanifa said that what some people say about azhar (أزهر) meaning abyad (white) specifically and al-zahr (الزهر) being the name of only white flowers is wrong and he said that al-zuhra (الزهرة) is radiance in all colors."

I think that what I have given here is more than enough proof that abyad (white) meant a dark complexion to the Arabs of the past - a complexion near the complexion asmar, which itself was an even darker complexion. I think that I have proven sufficiently that abyad (white), asmar, and adam were all complexions of people that are called "black" today.

Save the True Arabs said...

Because I have made a few modifications, please read the above article that I have written from here:

http://www.savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=159&page=1

Waqar Akbar said...

@ "Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)"
@ "Save the True Arabs"

I am responding to the points in headings.

-- RELATION BETWEEN THE KEY TERMS ---

The collective evidence shows the following simple pattern

Aswad and SHADID al-Udma refer to overwhelmingly black color (cf. al-Dhahbi's statement)

Adam is not totally or very black. SHADID al-Udma is. So adam/udma require "shadid" to be understood as too much black like Aswad. (cf. al-Dhahbi's statement- last part)

Asmar is lighter than Adam. (Cf. Tha'labi's quotation given by "save the true arabs")

And Abyad is lighter than Asmar. Abyad actually means white and refers to plain white but in complexions it is not white as lime but has some shade of darkness. So in complexions it is sth between pure Abyad (in its general use) and pure Asmar. (As shown below)

Waqar Akbar said...

-- MEANING OF ADAM AND AL-UDMA --

mr. "save the true arabs" claims;

//So the correct definition of adam or al-udma is very dark-skinned.//

This is not very true. Not Adam or al-Udma but SHADID al-Udma means very dark-skinned or overwhelmingly black. (see last line in al-Dhahbi's statement)

--- RELATION OF BAYAD AND SUMRAH ---

As categorically stated in the Hadith
وَكَانَ أَبْيَضَ بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ

i.e. the Messenger of Allah (saaw) "was abyad (white), his bayad (whiteness) leaned towards sumrah."

This is Clear enough to show that it was neither pure abyad nor pure Asmar.

mr. "Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)" sounds absolute ridiculous by saying that it means
//" he was white in a way that could still classify him as asmar, then in the macro he still aswad."//

this is cent percent explicit evidence that a person is ready to abuse common sense to reach ends in line with his preconceived notions.

Now in the relation of these terms everyone knows, Between Abyad and Aswad, there are two stages (as shown above) i.e. Asmar and Adam, and while Abyad is not even Asmar, Mr. "Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)" through his sheer novel scholarship (read - cunningness) makes the jump to Aswad in the name of Macro-Micro twist

To anyone with even the modicum of understanding of Arabic the words

بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ

simply means "his bayad that tended to be/leaned towars Asmar" and not that it can directly be called Asmar. And then making a jump to calling it Aswad is outrightly being hooligan with the language.

My contention here is supported and that of Mr. "Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)" is buldozed by the following narration.
أسمر إِلَى الْبيَاض
"Asmar that tends to be Abyad." (Musnad Ahmad, 3410)

Now the construction is same with reversal of positions of "abyad" and "asmar", together both the narrations prove, it was neither pure Abyad (i.e. white in ordinary sense) nor pure Asmar but something between the two.

I wonder if Mr. "Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)" will like to translate this as ***" he was asmar in a way that could still classify him as white"*** and if not why? except that he is just dying to paint the prophet's (saaw) picture as black, and perhaps he thinks it "ought" to be so.

Asmar is different than Abyad anyway. The evidence was shared even in the refuation to mr. Wesley

the evidence that Abyad is different than Asmar is in the comment to the report that says

أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ

To this al-Iraqi commented and Ali Qari quoted him;

هَذِهِ اللَّفْظَةُ انْفَرَدَ بِهَا حُمَيْدٌ عَنْ أَنَسٍ وَرَوَاهُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ الرُّوَاةِ عَنْهُ بِلَفْظِ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ، ثُمَّ نَظَرْنَا إِلَى مَنْ رَوَى صِفَةَ لَوْنِهِ صلّى الله عليه وسلم غَيْرَ أَنَسٍ فَكُلُّهُمْ وَصَفُوهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ وَهُمْ خَمْسَةَ عَشَرَ صَحَابِيًّا

“These words are the solitary report of Anas through Humayd and reports of others from him (Anas) come with the word ‘azhar al-lawn’. Further we see reports from (Companions) other than Anas, all of them describe it with whiteness (bayad) and not tawny (asmar) complexion and they are fifteen companions explain his complexion like this –peace and blessings be upon him.”
(Jama’ al-Wasa’il fi Sharah al-Shama’il 1/14)

(it is shown in the article that even Humayd does not consistently report this from Anas [RA])

While rest is the scholarly answer to this report in the light of science of narration, mark the words;
وَصَفُوهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ

*** "all of them describe it with whiteness (bayad) and not tawny (asmar) complexion" ***

This undoubtedly proves "bayad" is different than "sumrah".

Waqar Akbar said...

BE MINDFUL - this is said directly in relation to complexion and that too of the single individual namely, the Messenger of Allah (saaw).

I'll however wait and see if دُونَ can somehow be translated as "exactly" :P
.. for those to whom the most important issue in the world is to somehow apply one or another twisting on the words to prove sth, it might not be impossible

--- THE FIRST PART OF AL-DHAHBI'S STATEMENT ---

With all above understood, lemme try make people understand the rationate of my translation of first part of al-Dhahbi's statement

While "Abyad" is not even "Asmar" it can never be "adam" or "aswad/shadid al-udma"

So the simple meaning of بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ is that in the appearance will be some blackness. I say some or "slight" because it has to be less than "asmar" let alone be "adam" or "aswad" ...

to say that "abyad" or "bayad" signifies "asmar" or in macro it is "aswad" in first part of al-dhahbi's statement is stupidity.

This is simple description, not rhetoric, not poetry or any other complex style of speech, here a word has to remain within its natural distinctive meaning amd remember he uses the words "asmar" and those for other darker shades distinctively in the subsequent lines of the statement.

And i never denied blackness in that, but only maintained that the blackness in "abyad" is slight and keeps it distinct from "asmar" ...


--- THE EXAMPLE OF NAFS AL-ZAKIYYA ETC. ---

I wonder what these examples prove?

Do they prove, the Prophet (saaw) was black? NO!

Do they prove the Arabs were all black? NO!

I say no to the second proposition because if these examples prove anything they prove Arabs were as people not black because names like that are called for some distinctive features and something uncommon so it proves the Arabs were generally not black.

-- KINDLY TELL US SOME TRICKS TO TWIST OTHER NARRATIONS ---

Will either of you tell us how to twist and abuse the narrations that say the Prophet (saaw) was "

أبيض مشربا بحمرة

or

أَبْيَضَ تَعْلُوهُ حُمْرَةٌ

I am interested in knowing how the people with twists in their cranium will twist these words. how to take them to mean "black"? Or as Dr. Liar said in his article, that these reports were ///"generated no doubt by non-Arab converts to Islam like the Persians." /// is this the only way out to at the end of the day support the racist theology of NoI cult??

Indeed Allah Alone knows the best!

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar,

Can you respond to my article "My Response To JibreelK and Waqar" point by point? And when you respond to my points, pay attention to the scholars' (Ibn Mandhour and Al-Mubarrad) definition of "hilya" and pay attention to the scholars' (Imam Al-Dhahabi and Al-Shaikh Al-Asyouti) definition of "abyad". Try to understand these well and then tell me why you can't understand that "abyad" is a dark color near asmar and that this is why "abyad inclining to asmar" is used. Also, please stop defining asmar as tanned because if you understand Arabic, you know that it doesn't mean tanned.

Also, tell me if Ali ibn Abi Taalib's (RAA) description tells you anything. Concerning the importance of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia's description, read this information about him and tell me if it tells you anything:

To get a better idea of what the Arabs of the past looked like, let's take a close and careful look at the Prophet Mohamed's (SAWS) descendant Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia the son of Abdellah the son of Al-Hasan the son of Al-Hasan the son of Ali the son of Abu Talib.

It is a known fact that Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia was a pure-blooded Arab from his father's side and his mother's side. This is why he was nick-named The Pure-Blooded Quraishi. This is why he said the following about himself:

"You know that no one has as close relations to or relations to anyone better than he whom I am very closely related to (meaning the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS))".

What color would most people today expect a person who says such a thing to be? ِAl-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi says:

Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia was "black-skinned and huge".

Al-Tabari says:

"Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia was tall, jet-black-skinned and huge. He was nick-named The Bituminous because of his blackness and Abu Ja'afar Al-Mansour used to call him Charcoal".

Bear in mind that the person called The Bituminous and Charcoal was a pure-blooded Arab closely related to the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS). Remember that this person called The Bituminous and Charcoal said:

"You know that no one has as close relations to or relations to anyone better than he whom I am very closely related to (meaning the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS))".

Bituminous means like bitumen.

I believe that this should give readers a very clear picture of how dark-skinned Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia - the pure-blooded Arab direct descendant of the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS) was. Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia had a son named Al-Hasan. Ibn Hazim says:

"Al-Hasan (the son of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia) was so black-skinned that he was nick-named The Father of the Tar. We all know how dark tar is.

That is the description of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia the son of Abdellah the son of Al-Hasan the son of Al-Hasan the son of Ali the son of Abu Talib. That is the blackness of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia, who said about himself:

"I am descended from the Prophet (SAWS) from my mother's side AND my father's side. I am the purest of Bani Hashim (the branch of Quraish that the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS) is from) in genealogy and the noblest of them both paternally AND maternally. NO NON-ARAB BLOOD RUNS THROUGH MY VEINS!

I'm waiting for you to respond to my article "My Response To JibreelK and Waqar" point by point.

Save the True Arabs said...

And can you explain what you mean by "black" here:

Aswad and SHADID al-Udma refer to overwhelmingly black color (cf. al-Dhahbi's statement)

Adam is not totally or very black. SHADID al-Udma is. So adam/udma require "shadid" to be understood as too much black like Aswad. (cf. al-Dhahbi's statement- last part)

Also, you said:

//So the correct definition of adam or al-udma is very dark-skinned.//

This is not very true. Not Adam or al-Udma but SHADID al-Udma means very dark-skinned or overwhelmingly black. (see last line in al-Dhahbi's statement)

Waqar, asmar means dark-skinned and adam means very asmar, so adam means very dark-skinned. Shadid al-udma means very adam, so shadid al-udma means very, very dark-skinned. This is not rocket science, Waqar. It's very simple and clear.

Save the True Arabs said...

Also, you said:



"And Abyad is lighter than Asmar. Abyad actually means white and refers to plain white but in complexions it is not white as lime but has some shade of darkness. So in complexions it is sth between pure Abyad (in its general use) and pure Asmar. (As shown below)"

Where did you get this definition of "abyad"??? You are CONTRADICTING the scholars of the past. Do you realize this?

Wesley Muhammad, PhD said...

To read my response go to

http://www.drwesleymuhammad.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Abyad_and_the_Black_Arabs_Final.336113349.pdf

Anonymous said...

The end-days of CraKKKas in Islam! Wonderful!

The Ghetto Intellectual™ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Ghetto Intellectual™ said...

Peace to all. I'm African American, but I am not a Muslim (nor Christian), so I don't really have a stake in the color of the Prophet. I do, however, take issue with the following quote from your post:

//blacks have been oppressed around the world for centuries and it’s only reasonable and fair that they should make it known to the world. However in doing so, there have been many groups that have formed causing the same damage that whites have done in the past. Instead of trying to solve racism, racism was only painted with a different color.//

Trying to prove that the Prophet was black, whether you agree with it or not, should not be reduced to racism. And it certainly has not done the "same damage that whites have done in the past." Black people are not terrorizing white people. Black people were treated worse than dogs and cats and horses by white people for centuries. Also, we should be clear that white supremacy is NOT in the past. Its alive and well only more sophisticated. White supremacy and black subordination is still a global problem. Anti-black racism is still a major challenge WITHIN ISLAM. Given those facts it makes no sense to equate the black response to racism with the actual practice of subjugating a group of people based upon skin color--the functional definition of racism. Instead of "refuting" brother Wesley, you might be more effective spending your energy combating anti-black racism within Islam. If Muslims truly practiced brother/sister-hood, there would be far less emphasis by black Muslims on the Prophet Muhammad's color. kzs

Anonymous said...

What Waqar fails to understand is that the people who are referred to as 'black' people are not black at all for the most part...aswad is a secific complexion...a very very dark complexion...the majority of those now known as 'blacks' all over thw world are infact asmar or abiyud complexioned including the MAJORITY of the sub-Saharan 'Africans'.....ie Muhammad Ali calls himself Black but his complexion by clasical Arabic standards or just by visual standards is abiyud....same thing with Nelson Mandela....Obama calls himself Black but he is is not black per say...the former leader of the Southern Sudanese government John Garang was black.....another example of Adam complexioned character would be Michael Jordon....what you are DELIBERATELY ignoring is that the so called black people are called or even refer to themselves as 'Black' on a macro level but use other descriptve terms on a micro level...it was the same for the ancient Arabs...all these words abiyud, asmar, Akhdar, sumrah, asfar, aswad, Adam etc are terms used to describe the various hues of 'BLACK' people...it's a simples as that...and it it is not rocket science to figure that out...otherwise why do you think Louis Farrkahn uses the term 'Black' to describe himself and the people he addresses?....if Loius Farrakahn, Obama, Nelson Mandela and Muhammad Ali are not abyud( Macro=black ) then can you tell me what they are then?

Jibreelk said...

Save the True Arabs - I just looked briefly over your article and it was enough to find a categorical mistake in it. I TOLD YOU YOU NEED TO READ OUR ARTICLE CAREFULLY. You need to stop falling in this black black mentality, with all due respect.

You will see our response soon.
We have to deal with Wesley first inch Allah

Save the True Arabs said...

Jibreelk,

Why don't you respond to my article first since you received mine first and also so I can move on from here inshaAllah. I want to know what you consider "a categorical mistake" in my article and what you mean by saying that I'm "falling into a black black mentality". Can you respond to this first and then "deal with Wesley"? Thanks!

Anonymous said...

It took me no more than a short trip to Mauritania to discuss with otherwise "complete black" scholars to understand that NoI is not Islam, to understand that simple plain meanings of the traditions about Prophet's color belies the far fetched fabricated ideas of NoI and those who are impressed by their truly narrow minded theology ..

i commend the writers here for coming up with this piece. as shown by one of the authors in this disucssion wesley literally made up the words of syrian scholar Dhabi. in his recent response wesley basks on 'takrur' but forgets his act of linking the statement about people of india and those of takrur with description of abyad

i make sure this reaches all black muslims i know to show them the reality of the 'scholar' and the movement

i am black, but dont need to prove prophet was also black. he was not and i dont feel bad about that .. he wasnt latin, chinese, indian, japanese either. but the religion he preached is universal & solves the problem of racism, religion of wesley rejuvenates it in another way

-- Jerome

The Ghetto Intellectual™ said...

Jerome, you mean those same Mauritanians that still own black slaves??? I say again, you got the wrong target. You are calling the NOI "racist" but totally missing the real problem. Rampant anti-black racism in the Arab world. Islam has not solved the problems of racism. And it was often imposed by violence (not all the time but often enough). In Syria, Aramaic speakers had their tongues cut out if they spoke their indigenous languages. Africans had their own religions. We had hundreds of Gods and we got along fine without Islam.

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

@ Waqar

With this statement:

" mr. "Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)" sounds absolute ridiculous by saying that it means
//" he was white in a way that could still classify him as asmar, then in the macro he still aswad."//

this is cent percent explicit evidence that a person is ready to abuse common sense to reach ends in line with his preconceived notions.

Now in the relation of these terms everyone knows, Between Abyad and Aswad, there are two stages (as shown above) i.e. Asmar and Adam, and while Abyad is not even Asmar, Mr. "Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)" through his sheer novel scholarship (read - cunningness) makes the jump to Aswad in the name of Macro-Micro twist

To anyone with even the modicum of understanding of Arabic the words

بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ

simply means "his bayad that tended to be/leaned towars Asmar" and not that it can directly be called Asmar. And then making a jump to calling it Aswad is outrightly being hooligan with the language.

"
(With this statement) you show you have too myopic of a mind to understand this topic. I'll phrase it to you like one of the Anonymous people did above but with more explanation. For the most part Africans and people of the African diaspora call themselves 'BLACK' even though most of them are not literally black-skinned, but rather various hues of brown. A 'black' person can both define his color as 'black' in a general sense AND specifically as cinammon-BROWN, or caramel-BROWN, or even lightskinned-BROWN, whichever fits his ACTUAL color. And that (caramel-brown, cinammon brown, lightskinned-brown) 'black' person can call someone who is so deeply brown that his color is almost literally black 'black' as OPPOSED to his color, because he is not literally black, but the other man is for the most part. In doing this he is specifically describing the colorS of 'black' people on a micro level. So a black person can be considered 'black' and not really be black, or he can be considered 'black' and really be black. This is what I mean by the MICRO level. However, from a MACRO level all of those colors are considered 'blackness' compared to truly light-skinned people like tanned Persians, tanned Greco-Romans and even tanned Slavs for instance. Do you understand that? There is no twist there. If it confuses you read it over again and think on it. I am speaking from experience. You are trying to make white and black exclusive absolutes when they are not. In real life when referring to each other Afro-Americans call 'light-skinned' a color that is darker than tan, and yet we can still refer to tanned folks and lighter as 'light-skinned' if we are judging them from the big picture of how they match up on the global scale of color gradation. So I can call 'white people/caucasians' light-skinned or certain black people light-skinned, but just because I used the same word that doesn't mean that I mean the same color. Get me?

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

@Waqar,

Maybe this example will help you since you are coming from a very Euro/White-centric point of view:

Europeans often call tanned white-people, 'dark-skinned' and in some cases even 'black'. Why do they do this, when tanned people are still VERY fair in the big picture and far from being black at all? It is because they are looking at it from a light-skinned perspective only (MICRO LEVEL). So on a MICRO level when it comes to whiteness, darker/tanned italians, other darker/tanned mediterraneans or even darker/tanned Arabs are 'black' or 'dark-skinned.' But from a MACRO perspective they are all still 'white-skinned' people. Now jump out of your comfort zone and your Euro/white centric mindset and flip that scenario. Do a complete reversal. Now, understand that since the Arabs were a very 'black-skinned' people, from their perspective only (MICRO), a wheatish colored brown was considered 'white' or light-skinned to them (NOT ASHQAR, but ABYAD) even though on a MACRO level it was still a shade of blackness to them. Get it? No twists here. Just open up your mind and apply it some. This is really not hard. And it still goes on. So this shouldn't boggle so much.

Save the True Arabs said...

Ghetto intellectual,

Do you have anything intellectual to say about the color of the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS) or the meaning of "abyad" to the Arabs or are you just here on a futile mission to promote your gods?

Anonymous said...

@ Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)

I should laugh now. i agree with the crux of what u have uttered but i wonder if that is the case why then are you and everyone related with Mr. Wesley and NoI is wasting peoples time? you just seem to agree with authors here and all you got is the obsession to call everyone with even slight shade black. however this is pure slave mentality. just as the Europeans view everyone not white as them a "black man" you want this to be accepted by the whole Muslim world. so you at the end of the day got it from "White man" of europe

but if this can spare the afro-american community of a useless idea i wish the muslims from the traditionally muslim lands accept it.

i think this should bring us to the end of the debate. you only mean to convince people that everyone who is not a european white-man is a black-man. And by that definition Prophet was also black. At least i accept your point. we need to strive to make the world make a change in conception only. its no more about facts now, its about conceptions.

lets do something constructive now

-- Jerome

Anonymous said...

Jerome i think YOU should leave it at that because this discussion is clearly beyond you

The Ghetto Intellectual™ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Ghetto Intellectual™ said...

Save the True Arabs, I don't need to promote anything. I was addressing a point made in the thread. Do you have anything intellectual to say about racism in the Arab world? Many Arabs seem oblivious to it. And because they are oblivious to it, they don't understand why the NOI is race conscious and they confuse it with "reverse racism." That was my point.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that the authors of this refutation had to resort to an Arabic/English dictionary rather than a classical Arabic/Arabic dictionary to make their points. I think the authors bit off more than they could chew, because they thought they could refute Wesley based on ad hominem remarks about his NOI beliefs. It's obvious why they don't want to debate and why they want to stall in answering questions, especially those from True Arabs, who is a Muslim with no NOI beliefs. It seems you guys what to use an attack and retreat approach to scholarship. The lack of scholarship of the authors, who have the brazen gall to accuse others of it,is very apparent and they should turn over the task to some one more qualified to debate the issue.

Yusuf

Save the True Arabs said...

Ghetto Intellectual,

Islam has nothing to do with any racist ideas that some Muslims have. Islam is very clear on racism and for anyone to insinuate that Islam doesn't shun racism, shows that he/she knows nothing about Islam. If a person believes that Islam promotes racism against dark skin, he/she knows even less about Islam and about Arab history. Allah says in the Quran, which is the final Book of Islam, that He created our father Adam from black mud. Is this something that would come from a religion that promotes racism against dark skin? Our Prophet Mohamed (SAWS) said that Moses and Jesus were dark-skinned. Is this something that would come from a religion that promotes racism against dark skin? So whenever and wherever you find Muslims with racist ideas, don't blame Islam, blame those racist Muslims and tell them the truth about what their religion, Islam, says.

Read these articles:

http://savethetruearabs.blogspot.com/2009/08/cure-for-racial-prejudice-against-dark.html

http://savethetruearabs.blogspot.com/2009/08/cure-for-racial-prejudice-against-dark_5648.html

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

@Jerome,

Yes this is clearly beyond you. What you said I have said and what I ACTUALLY said are NOT the same thing. One of the ways that the hadeeth 'I have been sent to the black (man) and the red (man)' has been traditionally interpreted as that humanity is split up into these two colors, red, meaning white and black meaning dark hues of brown all the way to true black. The understanding is repeated by many ancient ISLAMIC scholars as the understand of the ancient Arabs themselves. Very tanned people like the Persians, who today are called 'brown' people are according to the Arabs 'Red', or white-skinned people. And dark brown people like most black Africans, their diaspora, very dark Indians (mostly found in the South), Aborigines, Melanesians, Negritos, and the minority native, ancient indigenous Negroid peoples of Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines are black peoples. Black just like Black Africans are black. The Arabs included themselves in the category of the blacks and described themselves with the same color terms as they described many black Africans. So my understanding DOES NOT come from Europeans. It actually comes from the body of Islamic knowledge itself. Please try to learn something here instead of speaking without knowledge.

The Ghetto Intellectual™ said...

True Arabs, I didn't "blame" Islam for racism. I said that anti-black racism is pervasive in the Arab world. I think your blog posts imply the very same point. I also said that if so-called Arab Muslims practice true brotherhood then the color of Allah would diminish in importance. Moreover, there would be no need for the Nation of Islam.

Save the True Arabs said...

Excuse me if I misunderstood you, Ghetto Intellectual.

Save the True Arabs said...

Ghetto Intellectual, I think you mean the color of the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS) would diminish in importance - not "the color of Allah" . There is none like unto Him.

Anonymous said...

"The racist approach that Wesley has taken to his academics cannot be fully understood but speculated as a reactionary one: blacks have been oppressed around the world for centuries and it’s only reasonable and fair that they should make it known to the world."

"However in doing so, there have been many groups that have formed causing the same damage that whites have done in the past."

Can the author(s) of this statement please give a real world example of any groups that have harmed whites? If you mean by this the NOI, then please give us an example of how they have harmed whites? The authors seem to think that they can just say anything without giving any proof to back it up. How is this scholarship?

Yusuf

Waqar Akbar said...

@ wesley, save the true arabs et al

we will make a wholesome response exposing the gimmicks and highlight the senseless obsessions of you guys in-sha'Allah ... stay tuned!

@ wesley,

your latest response is even a perfect show of your insecurities and shows to what extent you can go to "concoct new truth" .. don't worry, unlike what you did, you were allowed to have your say here and tell you what, you are throwing urself into further abyss with everything new you write ... the misguiding cloak of your scholarship will be taken off in-sha'Allah ...

Stay happy :)

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar,

If you know about this topic and know the "truth", why is it taking you so long to respond?

JbreelK,

Why did you say that you found a mistake in my response without mentioning what this so-called "mistake" is? If you know that something is a mistake, why the delay in mentioning this "mistake"?

JtbreelK and Waqar,

My response wasn't long and doesn't take all of this time to respond to if you actually have a response. Why are you delaying the revelation of what you consider "the truth"? If you are unable to respond, don't say things like "there is a mistake in your article" when you don't really see a mistake. Such behavior is dishonest and deceptive.

If you have someone behind the scenes responding for you, have him come here so that he can respond directly if he has a response.

If you have something to say, say it. If you don't have anything to say, be honest and admit that what you read in my article is the truth and help me spread this truth. That's the right thing to do. That's the Islamic thing to do. Ibn Masud says:

من جائك بالحق فاقبل منه وان كان بعيداً بغيضاً ومن جاءك بالباطل فاردده عليه وانكان قريباً حبيباً

"If a distant, despised person comes to you with the truth, accept it from him. And if a near, beloved person comes to you with falsehood, reject it."

Waqar Akbar said...

Excuse me fellow,

although I dont need to answer this, but still, we work on loads of things and continue doing so. to us this is not the ultimate obsession of life. we were the ones who decided to expose the lie and we will do it again, no matter what. in-sha'Allah .. don't cry like kids ... we will in-sha'Allah respond in due time.

speak for the truth and we will accept it.

and yes anyone who stands for the truth neither needs to hide his identity nor own another person's work.

keep the nerve

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar,

My identity is known and my work is known and I am here and not hiding. And what we are discussing here is not something trivial - we are talking about the correct description of the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS) and you need to find time to prove that the proof I have given you in my article about the meaning of abyad is a "lie". You can't just call the words of scholars of the past lies and then disappear. When you call something a lie or wrong, be ready to prove that it is a lie or wrong. If you aren't ready to prove that it is a lie or wrong, don't call it a lie or wrong. A basic understanding of Islam will tell you that it is not correct to do what you have done (accuse me of being wrong or a liar without presenting proof). And saying that you will present proof later is not proof.

Waqar Akbar said...

keep the nerve till that "later" time comes ...

bye for now

salaam

Anonymous said...

It seems like some of our brothers like to hit and run, and then still have the audacity to call someone else childish, i.e. " don't cry like kids." Don't resort to ad hominem attacks because you're having problems defending your position.

Yusuf

Save the True Arabs said...

More like tease and run, brother Yusuf.

Anonymous said...

@ Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas)

OK. so u have not taken it from the Europeans but nevertheless you end up at the same place .. dont you?

all u mean is at the MACRO all other except totally white, the Europeans, are actually black. Isn't it the case? It is!

-- Jerome

Anonymous said...

@ Waqar

brother, you and brother jibreelk are doing an amazing job. Keep up! I have been following you guys for last few weeks. Do respond to these de facto racists but yes do not let them affect the rest of your work.

this "black man" is with you and millions others of us as well. We do not share the color of our skins but we do share one religion, one objective way of looking at Islamic sources that transcends all prejudices and as you said "obsessions"

but still i'll blame the racist europeans who by virtue of their conduct have paved the way for this "reverse racism" now trying to use the garb of Islam

-- Jerome

The Ghetto Intellectual™ said...

Yes, Save the True Arabs, that should have read "color of the Prophet." kzs

Save the True Arabs said...

Jerome,

Am I a racist?

Save the True Arabs said...

Jerome,

Go back and read everything that I have said until now and then write to Waqar, JibreelK, and everyone else here explaining how you have come to the conclusion that I am a racist.

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

@Jerome,

You don't know what you are talking about. No one here is demonizing any race/skin color or claiming they are less than others in any way. We stand here NOT saying that whites are less equal than blacks, but just saying that the Classical Islamic sources clearly state that the Arabs were a 'black' people and hence so was the last prophet (sas) a type of 'black' person. Black according to our MODERN standards for black Africans or black Americans. These facts have no bearing on the righteousness of any individual black or white, unless you choose to undermine your righteousness by being a person who denies truths that he doesn't want to hear. But that is between you and God, NOT your skin color and God. You also fully misunderstood my example about how the Arabs calling wheatish brown 'white', while at the same time considering it 'black' is very similar to how the Europeans call tanned Europeans 'black' while still considering them 'white'. My point was to show Waqar that such a seemingly contradictory usage of white and black still happens today. I also made the same case with the use of 'lightskinned' by Afro-Americans. Stop refusing to understand and confusing yourself. Just accept the facts for what they are. Once you get to that point you will understand that the issue goes not further than this. It is NOT a judgement of ANYONE by their skin color.

Anonymous said...

@ save the true arabs

this is nothing but racism (may be toned down, but racism still) at the back of ur mind that you do not look at loads of traditions about the prophet's complexion and twist a few u can. why on earth one needs to do it. i am a "black man". my ancestors were mistreated by the europeans but i do not need to abuse islamic sources to restore my esteem.

@ Uswatul ...

Europeans say, all not white as them are blacks
You say even abyad in complexion at MACRO is black

what's the difference? except that europeans had "white man's burden theory" and you have air of innocence around you .. u end up doing the same

-- Jerome

Save the True Arabs said...

Jerome,

I asked you to look back at everything I've said and then explain to everybody here how you have come to the conclusion that I am a racist. Why can't you do that. It's a simple request. Isn't it your Islamic duty to do so? And how do you know what's at the back of my mind or what is in my heart? Since when have you had this power to know what's in the minds and hearts of the children of Adam? Don't you know that it is Allah alone who knows these things? Allah says:

قل لا يعلم من في السماوات والأرض الغيب إلا الله وما يشعرون أيان يبعثون النمل 65

Say: No one in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah; and they know not when they will be resurrected. (Naml 65)

You say that I don't look at the loads of traditions that describe the Prophet's (SAWS) complexion. What are you talking about??? Am I talking about anything other than these traditions??? I'm trying to explain the meanings of these traditions. Why don't you just sit back and try to learn something instead of butting in on a discussion about a topic you are totally ignorant of? Do you know anything about the meaning of abyad TO THE ARABS OF THE PAST? Do you know the meaning of asmar? Do you know the meaning of adam? Clearly you don't, so why don't you want to learn. Do you prefer ignorance over knowledge? Why???

Why do you keep saying that you are a black man? What difference does that make? And why do you choose to believe what JibreelK and Waqar are saying and disbelieve what I am saying? Might this be the result of the mistreatment by the Europeans that you spoke about your ancestors suffering from? Would knowing that the Prophet (SAWS) was not the complexion that you imagined him to be affect your Islam? You really need to work on the self esteem issues you're suffering from.

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

@Jerome

You continue to show that you should not be speaking as you do NOT understand what is being said yet.

You said:

----


Europeans say, all not white as them are blacks
You say even abyad in complexion at MACRO is black

what's the difference? except that europeans had "white man's burden theory" and you have air of innocence around you .. u end up doing the same

-----

WHY are you misquoting me? I said abyad in the MACRO is WHITE. I also said there is A color on the lighter end of MACRO black (wheatish brown) that the Arabs also called white, because on a MICRO level compared to their strong blackness in general it was close to being MACRO white. Additionally I used the European scenario as an EXAMPLE to help Waqar and even you get a grasp on the aboriginal Arab perspective and how what we are saying about the original Arabs, while quoting the original sources, makes perfect sense. Why do you fail at reading correctly? Why do you refuse to understand what is being said? 'White man's burden' ? No clue what you are talking about nor what that has to do with this topic. Thank you for saying that I have an air of innocence. That is good. However, what you sense is not innocence but sincerity. I am FAR from ignorant about this topic. I speak Arabic and I am referring to sources NOT my opinon. Unlike Waqar, Jibreelk and you. My innocence is not naivete, so do not be confused. With all due respect, please sit back, be silent, read, think and learn.

Jibreelk said...

Save the True Arabs I told you that you are jumping from place to place - the more you talk the more you get yourself in trouble.

Do you know the ghayb my friend ? Are you making accusations without knowing what's happening? Were you not scolding Jerome for doing that just a bit ago?

I told you, before that you have no patience which shows immaturity and zeal in your scholarship.

You said

My response wasn't long and doesn't take all of this time to respond to if you actually have a response. Why are you delaying the revelation of what you consider "the truth"? If you are unable to respond, don't say things like "there is a mistake in your article" when you don't really see a mistake. Such behavior is dishonest and deceptive.

I SAY - exactly what you said to Jerome

Say: No one in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah; and they know not when they will be resurrected. (Naml 65)

DO YOU KNOW THAT MY BABY DAUGHTER WAS IN THE HOSPITAL? DO YOU KNOW THAT WAQAR IS WORKING ALMOST DAY AND NIGHT trying to struggle to catch a time when there is electricity in Pakistan?

How about you be a good Muslim and apologize for trying to rush us. Do you know that good scholarship takes time? If not we end up jumping up and down like you do at every statement that is posted on blogs. We take our time, come up with a scholarly article, with a proper format and proper academic standard, than we submit.

So be patient my friend


و اصبروا إن الله مع الصابرين
“…and be patient. Indeed, Allah is with the patient.” [al-Anfal 8:46].

Please - if you quote ayats of the Quran towards people - make sure you also think of all the ayats of the Quran that apply to your situation.

As for your mistake - I already told you - you did not read our article properly
I will point it out when we write a response

Wesley took more than a month to respond - so please give us our time as we have said before we are dealing with him first. We will also respond to you.

Jibreelk said...

HIT AND RUN - WELL INDEED YOU HAVE BEEN HIT BY A TON OF BRIKS WITH OUR ARTICLE AND SO HAS BEEN WESLEY

As for the actual intended connotation in your statement - I said this to many people - sand box arguments and attacks do not impress us. We have told you before hold your horses as you are jumping - you have made an article response and so did Wesley - we are next inch Allah.

Remember - Allah is with the patient.

Save the True Arabs said...

JibreelK,

First I'd like to say that I'm sorry to hear that your daughter was in the hospital. I hope she's ok now inshaAllah. الله يشفيها

Concerning what you said about me "claiming to know the unseen", what did I say to make you accuse me of claiming to know the unseen??? I SAID NOTHING AT ALL THAT IMPLIES THAT I THINK I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNSEEN. I said:

Why did you say that you found a mistake in my response without mentioning what this so-called "mistake" is? If you know that something is a mistake, why the delay in mentioning this "mistake"?

Where do you see a claim of knowledge of the unseen in this statement of mine???

It's not like you disappeared and didn't respond at all. You responded by saying that there is a mistake in my article. If you have the time to say that there is a mistake, why don't you have the time to say what the "mistake" is? How can you say that there is a mistake and then have to do research to find out how there is a mistake? What's that all about? When you speak, you should speak with knowledge. When you say that there is a mistake, you should be ready to say where and how there is a mistake. And you have responded again now - still without mentioning this "mistake". How can you explain this? Wouldn't it have been better for you to respond to my article by saying something like:

"I see your proof and it sounds convincing enough to me. I don't have enough knowledge about this topic to say one way or another."

or

"I see your proof and I will research to see if what you said these scholars said were actually said by these scholars".

JibreelK and Waqar,

There is nothing wrong with saying لا أدري (I don't know.). It is half of all knowledge. Ali ibn Abi Taalib (RAA) said:

لا يستحي من يعلم إذا سئل عما لا يعلم أن يقول الله أعلم

"A person of knowledge doesn't feel ashamed to say Allah knows best when he is asked about something that he doesn't know."

الرجال أربعة

رجل يدري و يدري أنه يدري، فذلك عالم فاسألوه
ورجل يدري ولا يدري أنه يدري، فذلك ناسي فذكروه
ورجل لا يدري ويدري أنه لا يدري، فذلك جاهل فعلموه
ورجل لا يدري ولا يدري أنه لا يدري، فذلك أحمق فاجتنبوه

There are four types of men:

He who knows and knows that he knows. That is a learned person, so ask him.

He who knows and doesn't know that he knows. That is a forgetful person, so remind him.

He who doesn't know and knows that he doesn't know. That is an ignorant person, so teach him.

He who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know. That is a fool, so stay away from him.

And what do you think about Jerome rejecting my proof and blindly following what you are saying - or not saying? Is that the Islamic thing to do in your opinion?

Jibreelk said...

Save the True Arabs - I told you again and again you try to get ahead of yourself - and again you confirm your ignorance of debate and keeping it civilized -
The claim of unseen - I too your statement that you used against the other guy in one of your posts and used it against you - as you think we don't have answers or that we hit and run - yet you did not know why we did not respond - so I told you - do you know the unseen ? do you think we are hitting and running? do you think we don't know - and AGAIN you keep beating the same path - WE KNOW VERY WELL the hadith of the prophet WHO SAYS I DON'T KNOW HAS INDEED GIVEN A FATWA

So we suggest you give yourself advice first and that to others
Again and again you show your immaturity in debate and discussion - have patience my friend
the article is in the making
Also you did not answer me - did you attempt to refute Wesley on his black god theology ? you said you do not work with him and do not agree with him. That's good, but you should spend some time in the waiting for our article refuting his GARBAGE THEOLOGY OF BLACK GODS AND BLACK ALLAH AND BLACK EVERYTHING IS BLACK for him.
Please spend some time refuting his UFO ideologies and man in black dressed in white ideas.
Jizak Allah
I'm just trying to give you something to do since you are so impatient waiting for our response.
As I said we are responding to Wesley as our beef is with him first, than to you
With all due respect brother
If I'm a bit harsh on you forgive me - in the end we are both seeking truth and we are brothers in Islam and i hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me if I upset you in any way.
May ALlah forgive us all
Salamo Aleikum

Jibreelk said...

I am reading through Wesley's article. The more he writes on the topic the more he gets himself in trouble. Response to his article is coming soon inch Allah. We'll see if this guy really deserves his PHD. But than again anyone who can get a scholarship or 50 000 dollars can get A PHD. Last time I checked they were even selling Phd's on line.

Save the True Arabs said...

JibreelK,

You said:

"you confirm your ignorance of debate and keeping it civilized"

What's ignorant and uncivilized about my asking you to not say that my article has a mistake in it without being ready to say what the mistake is? What's wise and civilized about claiming that what someone says with proof provided, is a mistake without presenting any proof of how it is a mistake? Do you actually consider that wise and civilized? According to whose rules of debate?

You said:

"The claim of unseen - I too your statement that you used against the other guy in one of your posts and used it against you - as you think we don't have answers or that we hit and run - yet you did not know why we did not respond - so I told you - do you know the unseen ? do you think we are hitting and running?"

You are using the aya out of context. How do you equate my thinking that you don't have answers with claiming knowledge of the unseen? I think that you don't have answers because you are not answering. It's just a logical conclusion. It's not claiming knowledge of the unseen. If I see dark clouds, I can think that it is going to rain. That's not claiming knowledge of the unseen.

You said:

"WE KNOW VERY WELL the hadith of the prophet WHO SAYS I DON'T KNOW HAS INDEED GIVEN A FATWA"

That's not a hadith, brother.

You said:

"Also you did not answer me - did you attempt to refute Wesley on his black god theology ? you said you do not work with him and do not agree with him. That's good, but you should spend some time in the waiting for our article refuting his GARBAGE THEOLOGY OF BLACK GODS AND BLACK ALLAH AND BLACK EVERYTHING IS BLACK for him.
Please spend some time refuting his UFO ideologies and man in black dressed in white ideas."

I didn't find you here debating Wesley about black gods. I found you here apparently denying that abyad meant to the Arabs of the past a color that is called black today. That's why I jumped in. I have no idea of what you are talking about when you say "black gods" or "UFOs" nor do I know anything about Wesley believing in "black gods" or "UFOs". Therefore, there is no reason for me to debate him about these things.

You said:

"With all due respect brother
If I'm a bit harsh on you forgive me - in the end we are both seeking truth and we are brothers in Islam and i hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me if I upset you in any way."

There is no problem, brother. You haven't upset me in any way. I, too, hope that I haven't upset you in any way. It's certainly not my intention to do so. I'm only trying to spread a truth that most people have lost knowledge of. Allah knows my intentions. He is The Guide to the straight path.

والله من وراء القصد وهو الهادي إلى سواء السبيل

You said:

"May ALlah forgive us all"

Ameeen.

Wa 'alaikum as salaam.

Anonymous said...

ya Tarik i admir your patience with these two......but i dont think that if/when they respond with an 'article' i think it is going to be more of the same of what they have already said...thus a waste of time

Save the True Arabs said...

Thanks brother Anonymous.

Jibreelk said...

Save the True Arabs - you are just deviating from my points - first of all there are lots of reasons for you to debate Welsey - as i have listed them for you - however the reality is that you are stuck in this black white vacuum and you cannot get out of it. If you don't want to debate Wesley that's a different story - but don't say you have no reason - any Muslim who knows about this guy should refute him and show the deviant theology that he follows. In the end you did not follow us from the beginning and our discussions with Wesley were started based on the theology that he follows - We have spoke in the beginning of our article about his NOI affiliation and about his racist ideology. You JUST DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO STAND UP TO HIM, AND YOU COME HERE TRYING TO QUOTE AYATS AND BE SMART WITH SHORT TALK.

Anonymous - be sure that he does not have any patience as we have showed above. The 2nd article is on it's way and we will see inch Allah

Again have patience

Jibreelk said...

Tariq - I AM NOT USING AYATS OUT OF CONTEXT - I am just showing you that you are trying to use ayats on different people and that can be done on you

STOP TRYING TO HAVE THE LAST WORDS and accept that you were wrong in PRESUMING THINGS ABOUT WAQAR AND I . And what's funny is that you keep insisting on it, instead of humbling yourself and saying you are wrong.

It's nice that when you assume things it's a logical conclusion but when others do it's not - YOU FALL DOWN ON THEM WITH AYATS looking down on them

you said

How do you equate my thinking that you don't have answers with claiming knowledge of the unseen?

very easily as you have done to others and to me

YOU SAID WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER BECAUSE WE ARE TAKING OUR TIME - YOU DON'T KNOW WHY WE ARE TAKING OUR TIME - THERE IS NO LOGICAL CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE AS YOU DON'T SEE WHY WE ARE NOT RESPONDING
THEREFORE MY STATEMENT - DO YOU KNOW THE UNSEEN

LATER I TOLD YOU WHY WE ARE TAKING OUR TIME - You should be humble enough rather than try to keep debating every single micro point in order to gain supremacy - I APOLOGIZED WHEN I MADE A MISTAKE
IT'S YOUR TURN IF YOU ARE MUSLIM ENOUGH

PEACE

Jibreelk said...

Again please tell me why you are not helping the Muslims expose the filth Wesley is preaching? You did not give me a proper answer yet.
Maybe Allah will question you about the ability he gave you and the opportunity you had to give dawa and you did not.

Save the True Arabs said...

JibreelK,


Again, the topic here is the meaning of the term abyad. That's why I am debating you about this. If you wanted to debate Wesley about "black gods" and UFOs, you should have opened a debate with him about that. But no - you started debating him on the meaning of abyad and I jumped in because this is what I write about. This topic concerns me. Now you want to blame me for discussing something that I found you here discussing. You aren't making any kind of sense.

I'm not helping Wesley do anything. I'm here to defend MY topic:

http://www.darmm.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13492

http://www.savethetruearabs.com/catalog.1.html

Jerome said that I have racism at the back of my mind:

back of one's mind

Idioms & Phrases

back of one's mind

The remote part of one's mind or memory, as in With the idea of quitting in the back of his mind, he turned down the next assignment . [c. 1900]

Is claiming to know what is in the back of one's mind claiming knowledge of the unseen or not???

I said:

If you know that something is a mistake, why the delay in mentioning this "mistake"? My response wasn't long and doesn't take all of this time to respond to if you actually have a response. Why are you delaying the revelation of what you consider "the truth"? If you are unable to respond, don't say things like "there is a mistake in your article" when you don't really see a mistake. Such behavior is dishonest and deceptive.

If you have someone behind the scenes responding for you, have him come here so that he can respond directly if he has a response.

If you have something to say, say it. If you don't have anything to say, be honest and admit that what you read in my article is the truth and help me spread this truth. That's the right thing to do.

As you can see, I said IF this and IF that, so how can you possibly call this claiming knowledge of the unseen??? What you are saying is ridiculous.

Again, if you want to debate Wesley about "black gods" and UFOs, open a separate debate about that. But here your talk is about the meaning of abyad to the Arabs of the past and you said that there is a mistake in my article that I wrote in response to what you said. So all I'm asking you to do here and now is to prove to me and everyone here that there is, in fact, a mistake. Isn't it my right to ask this of you and isn't your duty to do this? Am I asking too much???

Save the True Arabs said...

JibreelK,

...continued

You said:

"YOU COME HERE TRYING TO QUOTE AYATS"

Do you have a problem with my quoting ayaat? Do you know a speech better than the Speech of Allah?

You said:

"YOU COME HERE TRYING TO...BE SMART"

Do you want me to be dumb? Or do you want me to play dumb? What do you mean by "trying to be smart"? Do you know me and know how smart or dumb I am? Do you see me saying dumb things here? Where do you get off telling me to not try to be smart? When you speak to me, speak with good manners. NOW you're are making me angry.

Jibreelk said...

Tarik - if you do not want to admit a mistake and you are so proud to just quote dictionary meanings in order to keep debating every macro point - you just keep doing that.

I have showed you that you assumed - this is not IN THE BACK OF YOUR MIND IDIOM

forget about Jerome this was about you thinking you can put Waqar and I down and thinking that you know that we have no answer - you are shooting at things that are unseen and unknown to you
It would be better for you to have waited and not assume things - if you want to keep defending yourself instead of admitting you are wrong well what CAN I DO? I can only say PEACE.

رَجْمًا بِالْغَيْبِ

Even though I have told you many times to have patiences, as we are writing the article.
And yet you keep insisting in your way guessing at the unknown and unseen to you

you said

If you know that something is a mistake, why the delay in mentioning this "mistake"?

and

If you have someone behind the scenes responding for you, have him come here so that he can respond directly if he has a response.

so again you are trying to assume and know the unseen

CAN YOU SWEAR BY ALLAH WE HAVE SOMEONE BEHIND THE SCENES WRITING FOR US?

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اجْتَنِبُوا كَثِيراً مِّنَ الظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعْضَ الظَّنِّ إِثْمٌ

O ye who believe! Shun much suspicion; for lo! some suspicion is a crime.

May Allah guide you away from your double standers bro.

The issue of Wesley and UFO and theology was a simple question for why you don't take some time and take him up on that as any Muslim with knowledge should. But you CHOOSE TO IGNORE THIS as a statement separate than WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE, and think I'm trying to get you off our topic and evade the topic.

Simple question - away from our discussion that's all it is. Why do you think it's not? We have already told you we are writing a response as we speak. So how do you come to the confusion

Again, if you want to debate Wesley about "black gods" and UFOs, open a separate debate about that

We have been trying to debate him for a while but we need to start with the basis - there is supposed to be a debate on the issue of AQEDAH in Windsor Canada next Summer.

Jibreelk said...

Sorry if I make you angry

But ye you are trying to be smart and quote ayats - but you are misquoting me
I'm not trying to make you look dumb but I'm trying to show you your double standards of quoting ayats
to apply to others and to look down on others

but not applying them to you

TRYING TO BE SMART - EXAMPLE

You are good at taking what Jerome said and giving a definition and treating it as an idiom but when I say

trying to be smart

you make a comment that supports my claim by saying

Do you want me to be dumb? Or do you want me to play dumb?

I hope you quote more ayats

I do speak to you with manners
I have not insulted you yet I hope

if I did again please forgive me if you can't handle the tone of my speech
I will tone it down

sorry again

I just can't stand double standards

That's all
and as you see above you have been guilty of some

If you want to admit it that's good if not keep writing

I will stop now as it's a waste of time

we are working on the article
it will soon be published ins Allah

Allah will decide between us

The readers will be the judges of the best argument and proof

salamo aleikum wrb

Anonymous said...

Salam Jibreelk but why is a whole article needed to debate this issue?...that's not debating in the traditional sense thats writing YOUR understanding/opinion in on long winded RESPONSE....so that means we have to wait and wait for this 'revelation of truth'response...actually it is not even a response it's another article because you already have writen one here...then we have to read all through it again like we did with this one and if we have an issue and want to respond/refute/dispute and reject parts or all of it...what will you do in return?...write another article????

I think it would be bettr if you STUCK to the subject matter and that subject is DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ABIYUD MEANS A DARK COMPLEXION as opposed to a TANNED complexion...it's very simple ...you could then just go back and forth with that one subject...but as it goes YOU are the one who is diverting this all over the place by asking and insisting that Tarik refer to the aqeeda of Wesley which has nothing whatsoever to do with what you infact originally wrote your refutation for...you seem to want to mix your 'lets have a bash' at WESLEY up all in one...if that be the case then we might as well talk/question/debate about YOUR madhab(?)...YOUR Aqeeda and question what YOU belive is Sunna...what Hadiths are Correct...YOUR beliefs on the opinion of scholars etc etc...what you want for Wesley could so easily be turned on YOU....but that would be pointless within the context of what we are trying to debate here and what we are....well atleast Tarik is, Anonymous and myself have attempted to do is make our undesrstanding clear to you and anyone else witnessing using well known and reliable sources...i really don't think that whatever you are going to write is going to be much different to what you have already expressed and i base that belief on the fact that you have not addressed what has been addressed to you DIRECTLY thus far...the quotes cited you could have just responded to them accept them or reject them but you have not done anything other than make very personalised attacks on Wesley and then try to gain support for it....there are many scholars both Muslim and non-Muslim who have written/narrated/referenced about the dark skinned origin of the Arabs which you audaciusly and patronisingly referred to as 'African Black' when disputing that......al-Tabari quoted a hadith which described Ali Ibn Abu Talib as Black skinned but al-Tabari was not black, neither was he an Afrocentrist and neither was he in the NOI....... "Mohamed ibn Al-Muthanna said that Abdel Wahhaab said that Hamid related that Anas said that the Prophet ( Saws ) was asmar complexioned...does this mean that he was in the NOI as well?.....Nabi Musa was described as Adam complexioned...this is what our debate should concentrate on...what do these words 'white' 'Adam' 'asmar' etc etc what do they mean?....is that not what we want to establish here?....otherwise this whole 'refutation' article is really a complete waste of time

Hisham

Anonymous said...

What do you expect from a website called I slam dunk, lol.

Save the True Arabs said...

JibreelK,

Why don't you either retrac that statement that you made about there being a "mistake" in my response or keep silent until you are able prove to me here that there is a mistake. And why do you feel that you have enough knowledge about this subject to say one way or another? Do you know that I have been studying this topic longer than you have been in this world, so instead of sitting there trying to debate me without knowledge, you need to be trying to learn something.

Save the True Arabs said...

Retract

Save the True Arabs said...

JbreelK, you said in your article:

"In this article we will deal specifically with one issue which ties all, and that is the color of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)."

Why are you now trying to change the subject to "black gods" and UFOs??? You promised in your introduction to your article to "deal specifically with one issue which ties all, and that is the color of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)". So why don't you or someone on your side respond specifically to what I said in my response? Like Hisham said, there is no need whatsoever for you to write a whole nother article.

Anonymous said...

He also said:

''A deep explanation of their theology is not needed here, however one can do some research and can find much of NOI material, especially Wesley’s articles, where he outlines the theology of the group NOI.''

Anonymous said...

So Jibreelk if a 'deep explanation ' is not needed here....why are you DIVERTING the MAIN subject towards that?

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

I hope JibreelK and Waqar have learned something here. I sincerely do pray to Allah (swt) that they have learned the truth on this topic and have corrected their error. the fact that the Arabs of the past were a black people and abyad was ALSO used to refer to a lighter shade of blackness is clear in the Classical literature. Those who profess this are not Black supremacists in any way. And these facts are truths that stand ASIDE from anyone's possible black supremacist views. Unfortunately rejection of these facts MAY actually indicate a form of 'white' supremacy.

Uswatuhul-Hasanah (sas) said...

Let clarify in case I was misunderstood. When i say a 'black people' and 'blackness' I INDEED mean black like black Africans. Let there be no confusion on that point. I'll reiterate, BLACK LIKE BLACK AFRICANS.

Of course not EVERY single Arab was black. But it was considered VERY rare to find a light skinned Arab who was not a shade of black, and Abyad amongst the Arabs was still considered a shade of blackness, i.e. wheat colored brown, or golden brown, which the Arabs described as having a 'BLACK' appearence. MOST non-black modern day Arabs today are not even dark enough to be called 'abyad' in this sense, being the lightest degree of Asmar, by the original BLACK Arabs.

Jibreelk said...

Just to give everyone an update - we are almost finished with the article.
Waqar has to pass it on to me to add some more text.
I have exams these days so I will try my best to finish it as early as I can.

We have gone very in depth and have researched every topic. As much as Tariq wanted us to reply in a day or two, he should know that proper scholarship is backed out by proper research, not by rushing as he has done throughout this discussion. He tried to rush himself and rush us and this will fire back on him.

I will not get involved in the verbal diarrhea anymore at this point, if people cannot admit their mistake on very simple points.

How can I expect them to admit their mistake on the depth on this article?
Let's see inch Allah

Save the True Arabs said...

It's funny how you are doing research after already saying that what I presented to you is wrong. You call that scholarship??? I call that "shoot first and ask questions later". All you are doing is wasting everyone's time - including your own.

Save the True Arabs said...

I think the brothers have decided to write a book on the topic.

Anonymous said...

Its been very clear here in this debate whose seasoned and whose amuateur in their field of study. islam dunk you have certainly been defeated in the worse way. kicking and screaming. i dont think its necessary for you to post the article. in fact ive been following save the true arabs, and he has been killing the refuters. therefore islam dunk your credibility has been rejected, and you've been dunked on, fishing a pool of sharks!!!! this is how it is when you dont do research...that easy your career has been retired unless of course you decide to save face (your name) by conceding to truth. ABU NAIM

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Wesley, tariq n co.

Here is our detailed response to your lies n twisting

http://www.islamdunktv.com/2012/01/refuting-wesley-and-tariq-on-complexion.html

Especially read as to what "abyad" means
what does "asmar" mean

About the complexion of 'Ali (ra)- does that even matter?
About complexion of fadl bin abbas, the shiite imams etc etc

and much more

Stop fooling people, follow Islam in simple plain manner ...

Peace be upon the one who follows the righteous guidance

Save the True Arabs said...

First of all, before I even look at your response, let me inform you that "Peace be upon the one who follows the righteous guidance" is not the greeting of a Muslim to a Muslim.

Qasim said...

ASA,
We always know when Satan (the Guilty Blue Eyed one and his servants ) is present, for he always uses his #1 tactic "divide and conquer" i.e. trying to instigate a beef between Bro. Savethearabs & Bro. Wesley Muhammad. Bro. Savethearabs is here to deal with the above said article, not Bro. Wesley. But this is expected from Shaitan, especially when he is losing. ASA

Anonymous said...

---> [sic] “ARABS. The term Arab as used in the Sudan signifies any people professing Islam, however dark-skinned they may be, so that while the term has an obvious cultural value it is strictly speaking of little ethnic significance.” [sic]

‎---> [sic] “Moreover the great nomadic tribes, such as the Kababish and Kawahla, have a smaller infusion of negro blood than the riverain tribes of the north or the sedentaries of Kordofan, though the amount varies from tribe to tribe and even in different dividsions of the same tribe, the richiest divisions, i.e., those possessing most slaves, tending to contain the highest proportion of members with negro or negroid features, so that most black blood is often found in the richest and most influential divisions of these tribes.” [sic]

~ The Encyclopedia Britannica 1943 (175th Anniversary Printing)

Anonymous said...

The hang-up on skin color which affected the Muslims at the dawn of Islam, and subsequently, shows how confused the community of Islam(and others)has become; such confusion manifests itself in the inordinate amount of time, and misdirected "scholarship", placed on a relatively trivial matter. It is the inner essence of the Qur'an and of the Prophets Themselves and not their skin color that we should focus on. The detractors of Islam and its Messenger will always be blinded to the Truth of Islam by not understanding this inner essence. Otherwise, a spiritual blindness sets in re: the nature of all the Messengers of Allah, as alluded to in the surah of Hud(for example), and re: the inner Truth to all the religions that have been sent to all people at various times.
To ignore the Inner Essence is to do a grave disservice to Islam and to its noble Messenger.
Skin color does not bequeath spirituality, nobility, or knowledge; its only a product of our environment if you know something of science and humanity's evolution. To quote a distinguished being---"O Children of Men ! Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself above another...".
(You can Google this or "The Hidden Words of ...")
Reading the preceding comments re: color and "who's black and who's white, etc, ad nauseum, brings on nausea and a profound sadness. So-called scholars need to become true scholars by focusing on the metaphorical, spiritual, and various subtle inner meanings in the Bible and the Qur'an when the terms "black" and "white" are used, and not be content with the superficial, mundane, interpretations of such terms. Racism has no place in Islam; any statements that may seem to support a view favoring one group over another is only in terms of that group's recognition of the One True God(Allah), compared to the other's attachment to idolatry or refusal to accept the Prophet sent by Allah for that time.

----Aaron

Infinite said...

The hang up should mean that it is not such a big deal that the Messengers of Allah were Black it isn't a big deal so why try to paint them white the sadness is that aryanization and white supremacy has infiltrated Islam

Anonymous said...

I am not fluent in Arabic. However, I know there is Northern Arabic and Southern Arabic. Of which Southern Arabic is older. So I think, maybe here comes the confusion from.


Second, geneticly and anthropology South Arabian populations relate closely to Nilo-Saharans and Horn Africans and is very ancient. The influx of Northern Arabs into the South is of recent times.


Gebor

Anonymous said...

To go further one needs to understand that black here does not mean colored or brown as an Arab might be but black as AFRICAN BLACK


this comes from Kuffara and pagan? are still Hindu?

Post a Comment

Click and Order Today

 
IslamDunkTV © 2010 Design by New WP Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premiumbloggertemplates.com
Powered by Blogger