what did Budda ORIGINALLY look like?

[beanpie]

quote"… But yet there is one circumstance of very great importance which is peculiar to Buddha, and forms a discriminating mark between him and Cristna, which is, that he is continually described as a Negro, not only with a black complexion, in which he agrees with Cristna, but with woolly hair and flat face. M. Creuzer observes, that the black Buddha, with frizzled or curled hair, attaches himself at the same time to the three systems into which the religion of India divides itself.

Mr. Moore, on his woolly head, says, "Some statues of Buddha certainly exhibit thick Ethiopian lips;* but all woolly hair : there is something mysterious, and unexplained, connected with the hair of this, and only of this, Indian deity. The fact of so many different tales having been invented to account for his crisped, woolly head, is alone sufficient to excite suspicion, that there is something to conceal—something to be ashamed of; more than meets the eye."**

* The lips are often tinged with red to shew that the blackness does not arise from the colour of the bronze or stone of which the image is made, but that black is the colour of the God.

** Moore's Pantheon, p.232.

The reason why Buddha is a Negro, at least in the very old icons..."quote


info from the book ANACALYPSIS by Mr. Godfrey Higgins written in 1833 Volume I [867 pages] Volume II [525 pages]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higgins' (1773-1833) greatest work in the archaeology of religion. "Early in his life Higgins became convinced that there was an ancient universal religion from which later creeds developed, and he devoted 20 years to a search for a secret tradition." Melton, Ency. Occult. & Parapsy. " Resigning his commission (in the army) about 1813, he devoted himself entirely to an unbiased investigation into the history of religious beliefs. He acquired a knowledge of Hebrew, and sometimes pursued his studies in foreign libraries. At the date of his death he had projected a journey to Egypt, 'and perhaps Samarcand,' in search of further clues to religious problems. The first volume, though not published till 1836, was printed off in June 1833; four sheets of the second volume were revised by the author, at whose son's expense the remainder was edited by George Smallfield...He had intended 'to exhibit in a future book the Christianity of Jesus Christ from his own mouth.' He claimed to be a Christian, regarding our Lord as a Nazarite, of the monastic order of Pythagorean Essenes, probably a Samaritan by birth, and leading the life of a hermit." DNB His son realized that "a taste for deep learning among us is fast declining...which is one reason I have only printed two hundred copies of this work." Preface. "It supplied material and inspiration for the early theosophical writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, who even echoed the title in her own book Isis Unveiled." Melton. quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Adora]

What do you mean by "black Buddah"? Do you have a picture of an example?

Siddhartha was Indian, I'm not sure from which region though. Does this help?

[beanpie]

http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/buddha.htm

http://www.black-international-cinema.com/
near bottom left hand side of page

http://www.ibiblio.org/nge/blacked/bl1.html
near middle of page

[premjan]

so what?

[Ameena]

Using the same token, one may argue that Buddha was Mongoloid. Almost all Buddha statues in China, Japan and Korea have clear features of a Mongoloid.

Buddha himself told people not to make statues or dagobas of him or on his name. However, sculpting Buddha images started long long (800 or 900 years) after his Parinibbana. So, no sculptor has ever seen him. Everybody made statues using his imagination of what Buddha looked like.

If the historians really want to know what Buddha looked like they should ask (I mean check Buddhist writings) his wife, princess Yashodara. There is this famous (at least among Theravada Buddhists) Narasiha Gatha recited by Yashodara, explaining the bodily splendour of Buddha to their son Rahula. According to Narasiha Gatha, Buddha was of very light skin which was very normal for a North Indian.

Note: I tried to find out a translation of Narasiha Gatha in the internet but failed. If anyone interested, I can send the Pali version with my own translation.

Regards

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Adora
Siddhartha was Indian, I'm not sure from which region though. Does this help?

The legend has his birth place as Lumbini, which is in modern day Nepal.

Like Ameena said, the statues are not actual representations of what the man looked like in his life. They tend to take on the racial features of whatever region they were manufactured in.

Which I think is actually the best way of doing it anyway :)

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Beanpie,

There's something you really do need to understand.

Of course the buddha was black!

History is "his-story" the lies told by evil honkies who want people to believe that whites have contributed something worthwhile to human culture.

Part of the lies these honkies tell is that some Asians and some Indians with dark skin and even Indians with lighter skin have contributed something worthwhile to the world.

They haven't! It's all a lie!

These evil honkies don't want us to know that everybody worthwhile in all of human history is not just black but is downright Afro black!

Not only was Moses black, but Jesus of Nazareth was black.

J.S. Bach was black and so was every bitch who ever composed competently for the harpsichord. They weren't wearing curly wigs, they were black guys with long hair!

Albert Einstein was black too. It's this vertiligo that fools everyone man. Look at Michael Jackson.

Do not be fooled by vertiligo and honky lies.

[premjan]

modern-day Nepalis are fair, with semi-aryan, and semi-mongolian features. look at manisha koirala (bollywood actress) for example.

interestingly, nepalis are generally devout hindu vaishnavas. buddhism was found wanting and deposed back in the 8th century in the indian subcontinent, for being rather "nihilist".

of course, buddha himself is held to be an incarnation of vishnu, in the mahayana rendition of vaishnavism.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by premjan
modern-day Nepalis are fair, with semi-aryan, and semi-mongolian features. look at manisha koirala (bollywood actress) for example.

interestinlgly, nepalis are generally devout hindu vaishnavas. buddhism was found wanting and deposed back in the 8th century in the indian subcontinent, for being rather "nihilist".

I can understand that people having a cursory glance at Buddhist philosophy might mistake it for being nihilistic when in fact it's anything but nihilistic.

There may well have been a waning of interest in it for various reasons.

Let's not forget that there was an Islamic invasion where Buddhist monasteries and universities including Nalanda were destroyed by the invading Muslims, libraries were burned and monks and students exterminated.

The Buddha Shakyamuni is held to be an incarnation of Vishnu by Hindus who see Buddhism as an offshoot of Hinduism.

Buddhists do not see it like that and there are some very fundamental differences between Buddhist and Hindu philosophy.

[premjan]

the Islamic invasion did not take place until after the 8th century. the philosophical "defeat" of buddhism took place during the lifetime of Shankara who was a theist monistic philosopher of Kerela, and who personally is said to have defeated many Buddhist philosophers in debate at that time. However, Shankara is hardly non-Buddhist himself (crypto-Buddhist to his opponents). he merely took the existing Buddhist ideas, inverted them by adding brahman instead of shunya and created a theist version of Buddhism which thereafter began to be known as Hinduism. In fact Shankara was of a more ascetic bent than the Buddha (or at least more puritan, and Indians have traditionally drifted towards asceticism).

I think Shankara could hardly have been a superficial examiner of Buddhism since he was a brilliant philosopher in his own right. It is just a matter of taste and timing. The pendulum having swung one way swung back a bit to the other.

As for the real differences between Buddhism and Hinduism, they are merely matters of degree and taste.

[premjan]

for a mickey-mouse reductionist comparison of the respective philosophies of Buddha and Shankara, take:

Buddha + Spinoza

and divide by 2.

This will give the approximate date and ideas of Shankara as an interpolation in-between these other two.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

According to a website I've just looked at Shankara was responsible for the alleged absorption of Buddhism into Hinduism by the recognition of the Buddha Shakyamuni as an avatar of God.

It is difficult for me at least to see the difference between believing in a God be it one called Brahma or Jehovah or Allah, be it one with many aspects and personalities or only one and believing in No God but rather that the collective karma of all sentient beings transmigrating is the force that creates the universe is merely a matter of taste and degree.

Given my difficulty in seeing this difference as one merely of taste and degree, it is also difficult for me to see Shankara as anything other than one who either didn't understand Buddhist philosophy or ignored what he understood completely.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by premjan
for a mickey-mouse reductionist comparison of the respective philosophies of Buddha and Shankara, take:

Buddha + Spinoza

and divide by 2.

This will give the approximate date and ideas of Shankara as an interpolation in-between these other two.

I'm pretty hopeless at maths but don't you have to have an answer to the addition in order to apply the division by two and come up with an answer?

Buddha + Spinoza equals what?

Wittgenstein squared?

The square root of Einstein minus Christ squared over Nagarjuna squared?

:confused: :rolleyes: :confused:

bye bye!

[premjan]

consider that Spinoza and Shankara are monists, not really theists and you will understand the difference.

There are many schools of ancient Indian philosophy and one of the major ones is atheistic materialism (Charvaka). The teachings of Buddha are based to some extent on the teachings of Patanjali (the yoga sutras) with an emphasis on "Dhyana" or meditation and a lesser emphasis on all the others. Buddha was well-educated in ancient Indian philosophy and saw himself as restoring the original roots of Indian philosophy (removing some of the detritus of intervening centuries). Shankara was another such reformer like the Buddha.

Consider that quantum physicists even today argue about whether there is true vacuum or whether the vacuum is filled with zero point energy and you will understand why there is a controversy.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by premjan
consider that Spinoza and Shankara are monists, not really theists and you will understand the difference.

There are many schools of ancient Indian philosophy and one of the major ones is atheistic materialism (Charvaka). The teachings of Buddha are based to some extent on the teachings of Patanjali (the yoga sutras) with an emphasis on "Dhyana" or meditation and a lesser emphasis on all the others. Buddha was well-educated in ancient Indian philosophy and saw himself as restoring the original roots of Indian philosophy (removing some of the detritus of intervening centuries). Shankara was another such reformer like the Buddha.

Consider that quantum physicists even today argue about whether there is true vacuum or whether the vacuum is filled with zero point energy and you will understand why there is a controversy.

Hm. Okay, I'll have to work on that one for a little while.

In the meantime, I really am logging off and getting some sleep.

[beanpie]

Part of the lies these (PEOPLE) tell is that some Asians and some Indians with dark skin and even Indians with lighter skin have contributed something worthwhile to the world.

The original Indians WERE Black. Many of their descendants still live ther.

So were the original asians..

BLACKS IN ANCIENT CHINA - http://clyde.winters.tripod.com/junezine/id1.html

FROM THE ABOVE SITE
"Blacks in China


From West Asia to China the land was occupied predominately by Blacks. The Blacks were forced from East and Southeast Asia by the expansion of the Thai, Annamite, Bak and Hua Mongoloid. The Blacks ruled China until around 1000-700 BC.
Names for the Blacks in China
The Blacks of China were known in the historical literature by many names, including Negro, Austroloid, Oceanean, etc by the Europeans. The East Indians and Mongoloid groups had other names for these Blacks such as Dara. Yneh-chih. Yaksha, Suka ,and K'un-lun. Lushana and Seythians.
The original Black population that lived in China was the Negritos and Austroloid groups. After 5000 BC, Africoid people from Kush in Africa, began to enter China and Central Asia from Iran, while another group reached China by sea. This two-route migration of Blacks to China led to the development of southern and northern Chinese branches of Africoids.
The Northern Chino-Africans were called Kui-shuang (Kushana) or Yueh-chih, while the southern tribes were called Yi and li-man Yueh and Man. In addition to the Yueh tribes along the north east coastal region, they also lived in Turkestand, Mongolia, Transoxiana, the Ili region and Xinjiang province. ..."

[beanpie]

The word Semite is from semi which means half. Half what? Half BLACK! (mulatto!)




"Semite is from semi which means half. Half what? Half BLACK!
(mulatto!) Semite refers to the descendants of Shem, one of Noah's
sons. The word originates from the Latin prefix semi which means
half.
"half Black and half white... therefore Black (since Black is
genetically
dominant)" points out Dr. Cress Welsing. Historian Cheikh Anta Diop
also points out that the "Semitic" arises in the 4th millennia B.C.
from
crossbreeding between Black inhabitants of the holy land and white
northern invaders. While many Semites (such as Jews & gypsies) have
mixed so much with whites that they've forgotten or deny their
African
roots, racism (whtie supremacy) will never let them forget this no
matter
how light-skinned they become, as proved by Hitler, who mandated
their
destruction because they were classified by whites as "non-white"
peple
originating in Africa.

www.ibiblio.org/nge/blacked/bl4.html




Semite refers to the descendants of Shem, one of Noah's sons. The
word originates from the Latin prefix semi which means half. "half
Black and half white... therefore Black (since Black is genetically
dominant)" points out Dr. Cress Welsing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
The Original Biblical Jews Were a
Black African People

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
The original Jews in Africa 2000 years ago were a Black African
people as an ethnic group. (Massey: Egypt Light of the Word p501)
Many of them still are Black, in northenrn Africa such as the Falasha
Jews of Ethiopia. A New York Times editorial (3/2/84) described them
as "a lost tribe that has kept it identiy for more than 2,000 years
in a remote corner of Africa." Abraham, ancestor of the Hebrews, was
from Chaldea; the ancient Chaldeans were Black. In fact, Africa takes
it name from Ophren, a son of Abraham by his wife, Keturah (Whiston:
The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus p50) Like Jesus, Mary and
Joseph, the lineage of Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie also goes
back to Judah -through Solomon/Queen of Sheba and King David.
Roman historian Tacitus wrote that many of his time believed that the
Jews "were a race of Ethiopian origion." The Bible classifies the
Ethiopians & Jews together, "Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians
unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord." (Amos 9:7) Black Paul
is mistaken for an "Egyptian" and declares himself to be a "Jew."
(Acts 21:37-39, 22: 2,3) That the Jews got their language, religion &
culture from the Canaanites & Sumerians through Babylon, is well
documented by historians. The original ancient Hebrew alphabet was
identical to that of the Phoenicians. "Semitic languages" are really
dialectical variants of African languages.

The word Semite is from semi which means half. Half what? Half BLACK!
(mulatto!) Semite refers to the descendants of Shem, one of Noah's
sons. The word originates from the Latin prefix semi which means
half. "half Black and half white... therefore Black (since Black is
genetically dominant)" points out Dr. Cress Welsing. Historian Cheikh
Anta Diop also points out that the "Semitic" arises in the 4th
millennia B.C. from crossbreeding between Black inhabitants of the
holy land and white northern invaders. While many Semites (such as
Jews & gypsies) have mixed so much with whites that they've forgotten
or deny their African roots, racism (white supremacy) will never let
them forget this no matter how light-skinned they become, as proved
by Hitler, who mandated their destruction because they were
classified by whites as "non-white" peple originating in Africa. The
very word gypsy means "out of Egypt."

http://afgen.com/jews.html

[premjan]

the gypsy language indicates they are out of india, not egypt, since it is an indo-european language.

[beanpie]

the gypsy language indicates they are out of india, not egypt, since it is an indo-european language.

works just as well, for me.

[premjan]

just what is it that you are trying to say?

[andy_d]

Originally posted by beanpie
The original Indians WERE Black.

Who, exactly, were the "original" Indians?

India has been inhabited since distant prehistoric times. I would think trying to nail down the ethic group of the first settlers would be rather tricky. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of years ago.

[premjan]

some of the aboriginal indians are certainly black, or at least australoid. some of the others appear not to be black, but rather mongolian, or at least quite fair (e.g. the nagas).

of course, it is possible that all the really old aboriginals of the world are black and the other races are derived from very specific environmental pressures. in fact, given the out-of-africa hypothesis, I consider it to be very likely. I have heard that some african villages contain 90% of human gene diversity within them, with an average of only 30% for outside of africa.

[Heathen Dawn]

Good-oh, we’ve got here the mirror image (I mean, negative) of Consistent Thinker.

[beanpie]

I would think trying to nail down the ethic group of the first settlers would be rather tricky

Africoid figurine from the Indus Valley

Head of a Black man from Mohenjo-Daro



http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/india.html

[premjan]

to you.

the difference between australoid and africoid is certainly quite small. The figurines used even by modern indians are pretty "africoid". That could be a property of the representational style.

I think it is pretty likely that the indus valley people were not pure "aryans". The Aryana were basically Afghan mountain dwellers. However, it is not clear that modern indian culture owes solely to the aryana.

Also the Dravidians are not exactly Africoid either. not as much as the aboriginals whose pictures you keep posting. These are all distinct groups. The Dravidian culture is pretty old on its own too.

[beanpie]

:boohoo:

[premjan]

well, the Indus Valley people are not demonstrably the aboriginal inhabitants of India. That distinction goes to tribal groups which are known to be older and moreover still extant. The Dravidians are dark-skinned, with sharpish features, and have been culturally related through their bull-baiting and other practices to meditteranean groups like the spanish and minoans.

plus indian culture is syncretic today, with many influences. there is no evidence that the dalits are "africoid".

[Jogyo]

Who cares what color Shakymuni was. He was enlightened but the true definition of a Buddha is as follows:

A Buddha is any being who has become awakened to the ultimate truth of life, one who perceives the true entity of all phenomena, and who leads others to attain the same enlightenment. In India the word buddha was originally a common noun meaning "awakened one," but in Buddhism it is used to mean one who has become awakened to the ultimate truth of life. In Hinayana the word means one who has entered the state of nirvana, in which both body and mind are extinguished. Provisional Mahayana generally teaches that one becomes a Buddha after eradicating illusions through aeons of austere and meritorious practices, gradually acquiring the thirty-two features of a Buddha. The perfect teaching of the Lotus Sutra views the Buddha as one endowed with the three virtues of sovereign, teacher and parent, who is enlightened to the truth of all phenomena and who teaches it to the people in order to save them from suffering. In Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism, the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law is the original Buddha eternally endowed with the three properties and the three virtues, who appears in the form of a common mortal and expounds the Mystic Law.

[premjan]

are "africoid" or "australoid" or "aboriginal" peoples more easily capable of spiritual enlightenment than the more highly differentiated races? The tradition of shamanism among, e.g. Australian aborigines with their "dreamtime", or african tribal witch doctors, is pretty long. If the buddha is black, then that would support the hypothesis. if jesus were black again another data point in favor. it would appear that the caucasian race has not then produced spiritual gurus of the same stature. krishna is known to have been rather dark (africoid?), and he is today the premier spiritual guru figure of india. maybe some of the problems islam faces is because muhammad wasn't an african but a semite.

on the other hand, of course, one has to put the ruthless carnage of rwanda burundi in the balance. maybe that's spiritual violence though. is it?

[beanpie]

http://www.ibiblio.org/nge/blacked/bl1.html

[premjan]

I buy that some black people (not all, mind you) are more spiritual than the rest of humanity. Being of an ancient human lineage will probably give you that. Even as the Khoisan are not so advanced materially, yet appear to be peaceful within.

As for whether all these spiritual people really were black, perhaps some of them were. It's a long time ago and we won't really know will we? I don't mind them having been so. Certainly there is probably an inverse relationship between darkness and sharpness of features and life wisdom. Or at least that the white peoples of the earth is the least spiritually advanced and most warlike people of all. One or two black Africans are equally bad, as can be seen with the Hutu and the Tutsi (perhaps that was a result of colonialization, it is possible). Certainly the white races are the most cruel-looking of all the peoples of the earth. That is certainly true, and I wouldn't mind standing by it.

Perhaps in the broad, flat noses of ancient human lineages originally from Africa, we see the tolerance and acceptance absent from their more warling descendant lineages. This is probably how evolution proceeds.

Even if Jesus wasn't truly black, he may have been a little blacker than average. That may be why the whole concept of spirituality and religion appealed to him. It is certainly possible that this is the case.

OK you sold me on it.

[Adora]

I think to have a truly correct investigation of the issue you would need an extensive knowledge of migration patterns of the Asian and Oriental a sub-continent.

[beanpie]

If the "out of Africa" theory is correct, is it not logical that Blacks are able to posses features such as straight hair and pointed noses?

Think on it.

[premjan]

if the out of africa theory is correct, there are no real "blacks". or, alternately, there are only white "blacks", brown "blacks" and yellow "blacks", and some black "blacks" as well.

[Gawdawful]

The Power that causes galaxies to spiral, and planets & atoms to spin; that causes the double helix spiral of the DNA molecules -this same spiraling power causes spiraling hair... otherwise known as NAPPY, kinky, curly, frizzy, wavy, WOOLLY hair!I don't know about any of you, but this, from that last link, convinces me that Buddha was black. Why did my galaxy stop spinning and give me straight hair?


Another question: If black skin is a dominant gene, why are the offspring of mixed race couples almost always lighter skinned than the darkest of their parents?


Warren in Oklahoma, who actually thinks the sooner we're all some shade of light brown, the better off we'll all be.

[premjan]

well, the Khoisan are brown. perhaps ancestral humanity was a shade of brown and the rest of the races are offshoots of it. definitely if we all came from africa, then those who are most recently from africa have a higher probability (not definite) of being genetically closer to the common ancestor.

[rasputin1072]

The Buddha Shakyamuni is held to be an incarnation of Vishnu by Hindus who see Buddhism as an offshoot of Hinduism.

Buddhists do not see it like that and there are some very fundamental differences between Buddhist and Hindu philosophy.
...
I disagree with you in a sense. You know, as it is obvious, Buddha was Hindu before he begn his search to understand human suffering. When he discovered what he was truly looking for he said he wanted to change some points from the Hindu religion. He had no intentions of creating a new religion, just as he had no intention of being worshipped s a deity. However it did happen. People following the Buddha created Buddhism, not Buddha. If you also look at Buddhism you will see that there are Bhuddists who worship the Buddha as a deity. They also worship other people who have reached enlightenment and become the Buddha.

[premjan]

Buddhism is not an offshoot of ancestral Hinduism. However, Buddhism derives quite directly from ideas about Yoga and reincarnation. It's relation to Hindu ideas is quite transparent. The distinctions are historical not essential.

[beanpie]

Who cares what color Shakymuni was.
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY JOGYO

It should not matter, but , certain pople have attempted to disort history. For years, it was taught, that Backs contributed absolutely nothing, to te world. Slowly, it is being discovered, the opposite, is true.

[beanpie]

originally posted by Warrenly
Another question: If black skin is a dominant gene, why are the offspring of mixed race couples almost always lighter skinned than the darkest of their parents?

It is not Black SKIN, that is most dominant. It is BLACKNESS. (watever that is )

Just look at the physical gifts, of most Black atheletes. They can be very light, with straight hair but, they still posses "it".

This is by no means "racist". That is not my intention by, presenting the facts.

Shall answer the first question, at the apprpriate time.

[premjan]

Warren in Oklahoma, who actually thinks the sooner we're all some shade of light brown, the better off we'll all be. [/B]

Why light brown. Why not dark brown or black?

[beanpie]

originally posted by permjan
there are only white "blacks", brown "blacks" and yellow "blacks", and some black "blacks" as well.


very well put.

:notworthy

[Jogyo]

Looks like this thread is not about The Buddha but about what blacks have contributed to mankind?

[Adora]

If that's the whole point of the thread, then I think who cares about religion. Dude. Jazz. Greatest Musical Genre EVER.

[Gawdawful]

Originally posted by beanpie
It is not Black SKIN, that is most dominant. It is BLACKNESS. (watever that is )

Just look at the physical gifts, of most Black atheletes. They can be very light, with straight hair but, they still posses "it".

This is by no means "racist". That is not my intention by, presenting the facts. OK, Jimmy.


Warrenokie

[Gawdawful]

Originally posted by premjan
Why light brown. Why not dark brown or black? OK, maybe I should just have said "brown", but I figure that by the time you average out all the light skinned populations with the dark skinned populations of the world, you'd end up with a light brown. I don't really care what skin tone, they're all beautiful.


Warrenokie

P.S. Sorry for the sidetrack. No more off-topic posts from me. I don't know what color Buddha was, there are plenty of very very dark skinned folks in India right now, let alone a whole bunch of centuries ago, so Buddha may indeed have been black. What does it matter?

[xsquid]

For that matter, what did JESUS originally look like? He almost certainly wasn't as handsome and European-looking as his boosters portray him. I understand that for the first couple of centuries in Christianity it was considered sacrilegious to attempt to portray him. Something about worshiping idols, or some such.

What if he really was short, with a prominent nose? All those portrayals would have to be tossed...but that'll never happen. Like the legendary Japanese warrior Yoshitsune (who really WAS rather ugly), the legend outweighs the truth. As the Son of God, he naturally HAD to have been physically perfect.

Sure.

What's your point, beanpie?

[premjan]

Jesus or Buddha being white tends to promote racism and hide the fact that the white race does have an astonishing propensity for violence, a rather nonspiritual aspect.

[shivalinga]

this thread has alot of funny stuff, "black people
are better athletes,I'm not presenting racist theory",
"White people look cruel and are the least of men "

this thread is really a riot, common sense tells us that skin
pigmentation has as much an influence on character
as does eye color, those evil white people
just can't help themselves ,hah hah hah.

all people are shades of black,another gem,all this is based
on absurdities and propaganda, race has zero influence
on the mind which is the determining factor in how a person behaves, wealth or the lack of it,oppression or the lack of it,
education or the lack of it are the determining factors for
"spirituality" , kindness,charity, tolerance etc, as
also for violence,and other "non spiritual" qualities
in the human psyche.

Your hilarious racial theories are based on what ?
clearly not on the real world,in the real world black or white
or red all over humans act according to time,place and circumstance in an either "spiritual" or benevolant way
or in the opposite.

According to some theories i see here `one could come to the conclusion that the whiter a person is the more prone
to "cruel" and evil tendencies, and the darker a person is
the opposite would be true.

so lets examine,the whitest people are the scandanavians,
the darkest are in Rwanda,Congo,and the west coast
of africa,ivory coast,liberia,gold coast etc.

does your theory hold up under actual reality in the real world ?

or does the theory of social condition creating character
of "spiritual" or "cruel" ?

And as to genetics and skin color and pre history if the fact is that
originally all humans were black, then you would have to
show some evidence for that other then theories with
no evidence other then psuedo scientific research based entirely
on bad scholarship,limited canvassing of all materials,
and biased interpretations for some kind of gain either
political,economic, or religious.

[beanpie]

all people are shades of black,another gem,all this is based on absurdities and propaganda



well, won't you please be so kind to inform us, how did the diferent races of people, come about?

[shivalinga]

well lets see, hmmm, there was a puddle of mud,
then presto magnifico a black man walked out of it,
then when he migrated to cooler climes(the mud puddle
was in a warm place,even at night,even in winter),
his skin color decided that white would be better because
black skin absorbs heat and would keep him warmer,
wait that doesn't make sense,oh so what sense has no place
in this conception, then when the skin decided to turn white
and the hair yellow and the eyes blue,the brain became
twisted and evil ,all the while the people who didn't leave
mudpuddle-topia developed into great and wonderfull
elf like sages and bliss soaked purveyors of beauty,truth,
and nobility, later when they encountered the evil
white skinned descendents who had "evolved" backwards
it seems, they were overcome by the evil nature of
the wicked white demons.

happy now ?

[beanpie]

so, in other words, you don't have a clue.

[beanpie]

does your theory hold up under actual reality in the real world ?

this is a theory YOU have interpreted, thus creating.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all people are shades of black,another gem,all this is based on absurdities and propaganda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





well, won't you please be so kind to inform us, how did the diferent races of people, come about?

[premjan]

I believe it is a fact that human genetic diversity is higher in Africa. As to the reason: some people say it is because there was a lot of migration into Africa. This sounds pretty daft to me. Why would people migrate into a nest of disease, heat and lack of climatic comfort? It is more reasonable to assume, that the basic rate of evolution is higher in Africa, hence the genetic diversity is higher there. Just as the Amazon jungles seem to have a paucity of large herbivores in comparison with Africa, even though both are of the same size and so on.

Plus it makes sense to consider that the human being was originally more loaded with survival adaptations (such as excess melanin) that were later shed when it was found to be a burden.

Probably the success of ancient Indian civilization was due to its racial intermixing, thereby producing a smooth brown blend of the white, black and yellow races.

[premjan]

well, races of humans (like, probably races of bears) is produced by key evolutionary episodes where the original or ancestral group is subject to a new set of evolutionary pressures. Like I speculated, the white race might have developed long noses, fairer skin et cetera, in response to altitude, cold and different nutritional circumstances. In a high-attrition environment, these factors can cause a steady survival gradient with each generation (at least the existing darwinian theory implies this). The yellow race might have developed in response to heat and dust. The brown race is an intermarriage of the white and black race which could coexist in certain areas of high food availability. The black race retained its melanin in areas where the disease load was such as to make it an advantage (melanin is known to have a disease-fighting property in organisms as primitive as even insects).

In any cases, there is a good case for considering Africans and also aboriginals throughout the world as being a genetically less-differentiated population than the well-defined races, which are probably genetically less diverse. There's that adage about the african village contains 90% of human gene diversity while the dutch city only 30%. There may be truth to it to some extent (for some villages and so on). In any case, if it were even true statistically, it indicates the evolutionary gradient always leads out of africa, only rarely back in.

[premjan]

well, there's that pineal calcification data which seems to show that only whites suffer from that problem more severely. It might make them more combative as a result. The pineal gland is usually associated with the "third eye" of spirituality and is said to enhance human ability to introspect. Without the ability to introspect, we might indeed be a creature of our own whims and fancies, tending often to cruelty. It is at least a good hypothesis.

[beanpie]

Like I speculated...

might have...

can cause...

implies this...

might have ...

which could ...

There may be truth to ...


Now, do you posses any factual proof, to show your statements are true?

[shivalinga]

so many assumptions that make no sense upon closer
scrutiny, for example; how is light skin an advantage
in cold climates ?

dark colors absorb heat and light,light colors reflect the same,
everyone knows white clothing is cooler then black clothing
in the sunlight.

so in the theory that evolution based upon migration
to a cooler climate results in lighter skin is not supportable
by the evolution theory of genetic mutation based on
environment.

Which is absurd anyways as environment assesment based
mutation is not something
that an unconscious ,unthinking, non planning gene can accomplish ,i genes are incapable
of rational decision making or environment assesment,
mutation based on environmental assesment is
as possible as your car changing from a humvee
into a ferrari because the speed limit on a section of
highway increased.

If you want to use evolution as the basis for black empowerment
then think again, the full name of Darwins seminal work is

"the origin of species
The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life".

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178).

Before 1859 (before Darwin's Origin), many scientists had questioned whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no scientific basis for that notion. Things changed once Darwin presented his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that African-Americans could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let alone being able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin, the African was inferior because he represented the missing-link" between ape and Teuton. (John C. Burham, Science, vol. 175 (February 4, 1972) p.506).

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, Title Page)

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London, writes: "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ' I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school.'" (Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981)

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator…" (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer, Anthropology, Sydney Un Quadrant, Oct., 1982, p.44)

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. … The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs." (Pierre-Paul Grasse, Past-President, French Academy of Science, "Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.8)

Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician and Physicist, Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University, Former Math Instructor at MIT, writing in "Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Darwin" (Tan Books and Publishers, 1988, pp.1,2) writes: "Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. … The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. …We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, 1980)



The following citations are from I.L. Cohen's "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probability," New Research Publications, Inc., 1984. Cohen is a Mathematician, Researcher, a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences, and an Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.)

"In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction." (pp.6,7)

"…In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process." (p.8)

"…After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. … If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back." (pp. 214-215)

"… every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong." (p.209)

"… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science." (p. 210)

[beanpie]

Your post is much too long, for me to read for you are "talkin' loud and sayin' nothin' ".

Instead, I was hoping to be "enlightened".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all people are shades of black,another gem,all this is based on absurdities and propaganda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


well, won't you please be so kind to inform us, how did the diferent races of people, come about?

[premjan]

white skin may have more to do with the lower disease burden of cold climates, hence the excess energy required to retain melanin production is saved.

and there is no alternative to evolution. what are you proposing? seeding of the planet by hyperintelligent green men from mars? how did those men develop into their intelligent state?

evolution is the only plausible answer we have.

else you are full of "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

[xsquid]

Originally posted by beanpie
Your post is much too long, for me to read for you are "talkin' loud and sayin' nothin' ".

Instead, I was hoping to be "enlightened".

So, it was some other beanpie that plastered all those...words...a couple of pages ago? And if you don't read someone else's reply, how do you hope to become "enlightened"?

It seems to me you didn't come here to "learn" anything; you came just to spew some alternate theories and sit back and say "Now, wise guys, answer that!" We've seen it all before, and it'll win you no arguments (or friends) here.

I ask again: what's the point of your post?

[premjan]

this issue is very politicized and close to individual identity. I doubt that we will ever see a rational debate on it. we might as well be emotional with this one.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by Adora
If that's the whole point of the thread, then I think who cares about religion. Dude. Jazz. Greatest Musical Genre EVER.

Actually, Renaissance and Baroque are the greatest musical genres ever created.

And the interesting thing about it is that allwestern composers between 1400 and 1750 were black. They were African blacks living in Europe because whites weren't capable of writing music for the harpsichord or for choirs or anything.

Only black people can do anything worthwhile. These guys had "it" whatever "it" is. In fact the "it" that they had is blackness!

Don't ever be fooled by vertiligo!

If the Buddha had pale skin or was light beige rather than blue-black it was because he had vertiligo. Nobody lacking blackness could possibly be that good a philosopher or competent a spiritual giant!

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by premjan
Jesus or Buddha being white tends to promote racism and hide the fact that the white race does have an astonishing propensity for violence, a rather nonspiritual aspect.

This is correct. Whites do have an astonishing propensity for violence which no other race shares. You can tell because of their thin lips and beady, mean little eyes. Also their behaviour! Very loutish, very boorish and very violent. Cruel, very cruel!

Jesus and the Buddha being black would have a definite tendency to promote racial harmony and tolerance and to expose the fact that anyone with a bit of blackness has an astonishing propensity for gentleness and is deeply spiritual. Look at the current rap singers and the benevolent leaders of African nations as an example.

And whites are also deceitful. Only whites are deceitful! We blacks are honest, even if we have severe and systemic vertiligo.

Whites actually try to pretend that great scientists such as Einstein, Rutherford, Niels Bohr and Schrodinger were white.

Jeez dang! They'll be tellin' us that Beethoven and Chopin were white next!

[Waning Moon Conrad]

edited

[Gawdawful]

Originally posted by Waning Moon Conrad
edited Why? You were on a roll there.


Warrenokie

[Ameena]

Originally posted by Waning Moon Conrad
Beanpie,

There's something you really do need to understand.

Of course the buddha was black!

Not only was Moses black, but Jesus of Nazareth was black.

Oh! Yes, the God himself is black. (Prove me wrong if you can!). They say that the very first snowfall was black too.
;)

[beanpie]

premjan, I may owe you an apology...

Like I speculated, the white race might have developed long noses, fairer skin et cetera, in response to altitude, cold ...

According to my research, humans have the abilit to evolve, to better meet the needs of climatic conditions.

The tightly urled hair, of Blacks located in humid areas acts as a "condenser", like those found in a air conditioner. This would explain why Black, in more "arrid" regions, have hair akin to the eyebrows. Ths hair better protects against radio-active rays.


homeostasis

SYLLABICATION: ho·me·o·sta·sis
PRONUNCIATION: hm--stss
NOUN: The ability or tendency of an organism or cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological processes.



"...5 We, the tribe of Shabazz, says Allah (God), were the first to discover the best part of our planet to live on. The rich Nile Valley of Egypt and the present seat of the Holy City, Mecca, Arabia.

6 The origin of our kinky hair, says Allah, came from one of our dissatisfied scientists, 50,000 years ago, who wanted to make all of us tough and hard in order to endure the life of the jungles of East Asia (Africa) and to overcome the beasts there. But he failed to get the others to agree with him.

7 He took his family and moved into the jungle to prove to us that we could live there and conquer the wild beasts, and we have. ..."



"12 Everywhere the white race has gone on our planet, they have either found the original man or a sign that he had been there previously. "



"Historian J. A. Rogers points out in his book that beyond the cotton fields of the South and long before the white man himself was a part of our planet, we were the original people ruling the earth, and according to the Holy Qur’an, we had governments superior to any we are experiencing today. Trace over the earth. Check back 5,000, 10,000, or 20,000 years ago. Look at history. Who were those people? They were our people. "


from the book, Message to the Blackman by, Elijah Muhammad, Messenger of Allah

[premjan]

however, I believe all the aboriginals of all the regions of the earth were not dark of skin. For example the aboriginal inhabitants of Japan (Ainu) were Caucasian (and were later discriminated against by the Japanese race).

[shivalinga]

i wuz wondering when the honorable elijah muhammed
would make his presence known.

i figgered beanpie for a nation of islam guy a while
back.

where i'm from they hang around parking lots
(well used to) and go car to car and sell beanpies,
to raise funds,they are famous for that in the
black community.

As you may not know a man named Wallace Fard
is or was,depending on what offshoot
you follow, considered to be god incarnate,
he revealed this to elijah muhammed.

he was an indian(now pakistan)
man from New Zealand who
moved to the U.S.
he spent some time
in alcatraz ,before meeting
muhammed, the nation of islam
splintered into many groups
some rejecting muhammed's
and Fards Neo Islam
and accept the traditional form.

clearly Beanpie accepst the
the elijah/Fard teachings,
which were and are based on
demonizing caucasions as children
of the devil and Blacks as gods
people.

the philosophy is quite amazing
and includes a lot of quite different
teachings then most people
would think(aliens,etc).

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by warrenly
Why? You were on a roll there.


Warrenokie

At three-ish in the morning in the nurses' office in a psycho-geriatric ward I was indeed on a roll but tiredness overcame me and things got a little garbled.

[premjan]

I thought Wali Farad was Druze from Lebanon, not from India or Pakistan and not exactly a Muslim.

[premjan]

there is circumstantial evidence that whites were not the fittest of races for all climates. For example Tocharian Caucasian mummies, but no substantial Caucasian population in the far east indicates that Mongolians predominated for some reason.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

MODERATOR Sir, Please close this thread.

It is a discussion about racial theories and race science and such snake-oil science that it does not warrant a place on a religion and philosophy thread.

I am now starting to believe that Racism, Race and Race Science is much much more destructive than Monotheistic, Exclusive salvation Religions!!

We had enough of White Supremacists and now we got Black Supremacists running around with " whos Da Man! Whos the ancient, powerful, great' kinda messages.!!

And to drag Buddha into this mess is plain stupidy.
It is done with one singular purpose: to make some connection and justification for posting racial pseudo-science on this forum.

Please stop this thread already!

[premjan]

this is the closest thing to the human heart, his or her own genetic heritage, either race or family, or other genetic endowments. This is one sentiment that even staunch Buddhism can in no way erase.

[beanpie]

"he was an indian(now pakistan)
man from New Zealand who
moved to the U.S.
he spent some time
in alcatraz ,before meeting
muhammed, the nation of islam
splintered into many groups
some rejecting muhammed's
and Fards Neo Islam
and accept the traditional form."

You have obviusly done NO studyng, whatsoever.

THE FOLLOWING IS RATHER LONG BUT, THS GENTLEMAN HAS WRONGY ATTACKED MY RELIGION.




An Old Lie! Resurfaced

for an actual pic of Mr. FARD vs Mr. FORD, click...
http://www.muhammadspeaks.com/Bewarephonyclaims.html

EDITOR'S NOTE

Chelsea House Publisher's, a division of Main Line Book Co. published a book, titled Elijah Muhammad (shown to the right)

On page 51 of this book there is a picture of a man that this book CLAIMS is "Wallace Fard, the founder of the Nation of Islam, as photographed on May 26, 1933, by the Detroit Police Department..."

THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE LIE that was originally put forth in 1963 by a white-owned newspaper in California, the Herald Examiner.

Adrian G. Allen, the picture editor; and Patricia Burns, the picture researcher, for this book, either did not take the time to do real research or are imps of the devils who desire to keep this lie in circulation.

The following article is reprinted from the August 16, 1963 edition of Muhammad Speaks newspaper, headlined:

"NATION OF ISLAM OFFERS HEARST $100,000 TO PROVE CHARGE"

The article was titled, "Beware of Phony Claims", By Elijah Muhammad.

The two photographs, shown here, shown here, accompanied this headline and article and the caption beneath the two photographs are reprinted, verbatim, from the August 16, 1963 edition of Muhammad Speaks. "The Phony" picture (to the left) is the same photograph that was shown in the above-mentioned book.



The Phony


The Savior


At left is the dug-up convict, Wallace Dodd, alleged by the sensation-seeking and anti-Negro white Hearst newspaper to be founder of the Nation of Islam in North America. At right, however is the real and rightful Master Farad, of Mecca, who gave all to the black people in America before returning to Mecca. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad has not only offered to confront the phony imposter invented by the Hearst press, but has exposed the deceit and has offered to pay $100,000 if they can prove their fraudulent claims. (See Mr. Muhammad's Column)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEWARE OF PHONY CLAIMS
By Messenger Elijah Muhammad
I, Elijah Muhammad, Messenger of Allah, told the Los Angeles "Herald-Examiner" -- on Monday, July 29, 1963, that my followers and I will pay the Los Angeles "Herald-Examiner" Newspaper $100,000.00 (one hundred, thousand dollars) to prove the headline charge ("BLACK MUSLIM FOUNDER EXPOSED AS A WHITE") made against us; that we are following one Wallace Dodd with many aliases including the name Fard; that he is the man that I am representing to my people as being Master Fard Muhammad (Allah in Person) who appeared among us in Detroit, Michigan in 1931 and is the same person (Wallace Dodd).

The Los Angeles "Herald-Examiner" also printed his prison history is San Quentin Federal Penitentiary on a charge of peddling dope, and that he admitted he was teaching us.

If he (Dodd) was teaching for money in those panic days in Detroit, he did not get it from us. Mr. Dodd, undoubtedly, must have been teaching the white people if he received any money at all, because we did not have any.

WE DID NOT pay Mr. Fard any money to teach us and there are many who will verify this statement who are yet alive. We could hardly pay the rent of a hall in those days.

Sometimes they (the Believers) would give Him (Master Fard Muhammad) gifts such as top-coats, overcoats, ties, shirts, or a few packages of handkerchiefs -- but money was so scarce in those days that we just did not have any. Just about every one who believes was on the "Relief" in Detroit including myself.

I would like the Los Angeles "Herald-Examiner" to prove that this man (Dodd) was my teacher by bringing him to this country at our expense.

Mr. Wallace Fard Muhammad, Whom Praises are due forever, The Finder and Life-Giver to we, the LOST FOUND MEMBERS OF THAT GREAT ASIATIC BLACK NATION from the TRIBE OF SHABAZZ, speaks 16 different languages. Can Mr. Wallace Dodd speak 16 different languages?

MR. WALLACE Fard Muhammad also writes 10 of the languages He speaks fluently. His native language is Arabic (does Mr. Dodd speak Arabic?) of which we have in His handwriting and it is the best writing or penmanship in the Arab World.

Let Mr. Dodd prove that he was among us; prove that he gave us our names. Let Mr. Dodd prove who was his secretary and where were the identification cards printed, of which he have with us today and did he write the Arabic on them himself?

If Mr. Dodd was the Mr. Wallace Fard Muhammad, why did not the F.B.I. arrest him for this teaching of truth? Let this paper prove these things before it headlines us as liars and worshippers of white devils.

I would like to ask the Herald Examiner to give us a minute closeup of this fake (Mr. Dodd) who they would like to make the public believe is our Saviour. Even the description of this man's height and weight does not correspond to Master Fard Muhammad's (to Whom Praises are due forever) measurements. I know His height, His weight, the size of clothes, and shoes.

WHEN MASTER Fard Muhammad left us, it was 1934. Again, let Mr. Dodd prove that he and I were together and that the Lessons that I am teaching to my followers are from him and where were they given to me and did he ever examine me on what he gave me, and where?

There are many questions that I could ask this Mr. Dodd about, that would prove to the world that this man is a fake that the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner has published. We believe this by the reasoning of such unfounded truth.

Let the Herald-Examiner Newspaper put us in contact with this Mr. Wallace Dodd. We will show the world that the entire statement is false: that this Mr. Wallace Dodd is not Master Fard Muhammad; To Whom Praises are due forever.

I HAVE warned you against allowing the devils to trick you into believing their false propaganda which they are spreading all over the world. And especially among the so-called Negroes who have been the perfect model-slaves for 400 years and yet do not have freedom, justice, and equality from the slave masters.

And now these smart, scientific tricksters are trying to prevent them from enjoying a permanent salvation that Allah, (God) under the name of Master Fard Muhammad to Whom all Praises are due, has offered us.

We who believe in him are a living proof of this offer that we are now being blessed with, even though we are afflicted with persecution and death.

You have those whom the Prophets prophesied of in Washington and in Rome (the Catholics) to deceive the whole world and especially the so-called Negroes. Look in your poison book, the Bible: Revelation 12:9 -- 13:4, 8:14--14:11, 20:10 -- and 21:8

[premjan]

Islam is a cop-out. It survives because of the abuses of other religions. But it is dry and sterile, feeding on jealousy. It is founded on the jealousy of Hagar for Sarah, Ishmael for Isaac, the dispossessed for the privileged. As such, it fits right in with the ilk of Communism. It is a hollow superiority. Anyone who is dispossessed can become Muslim, yet noone in their right mind who was no longer dispossessed could remain Muslim. The challenge is the economic and social emancipation of man and the existence of Islam is merely a reminder that this emancipation is necessary and has never become complete. To feed Islam is to feed the beast within man. Man is a creature of love, not of death, life not peace. Ideologies like Islam and Communism are similar in this, they can bring stasis, never growth.

[beanpie]

Have you ever read the Koran? Or, are you basing your statements on the actions, of some who claim to be Muslims.

Let us get right down to it, shall we? EXACTLY, what parts of the Koran, are you not in agreement with?

Are you in dis-agreement w/ something you have yet to read?

[premjan]

I live in the Middle East so I live around the subject matter. I will have to think about exactly which parts of the Koran I exactly have a problem with, and get back to you on that.

[contracycle]

While you're at it, you could do some basic (as in foundational) reading on communism and come back to me. Otherwise, slinging such slander about does not wash.

[shivalinga]

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/862

i read this book a few years ago,its considered to be the
definitive study on the history of the NOI, they show
that Fard used many aliases and have many more pictures
of him then just the two at that website,either way i dont care,
i find thier philosophy amazing, it wasn't until Malcom X went
to the middle east that the nation of islam became a world player,the islamic countries saw a ready and willing propaganda
agency they could control through money,which they have done,
and still are doing.

Louis Farrakhan regularly is on trips all throughout the muslim
world supported by the various regimes,he is like an international
superstar among islamic supremacists ,financed and guided
by them.

[beanpie]

"have many more pictures
of him then just the two at that website"

Then, those were not pics of Mr. FArd. There is only one pic of him, and that is him, on the right.




If you will notice, Mr. FOrd's BKA MR. DODD'S hair has curl to it. Mr. FArd's hair is bone straight.

...the two at that website


Also, the pic on the left, is from the late '50's. The right, the early '30's. He should have aged, if it were the same man.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by beanpie
Have you ever read the Koran? Or, are you basing your statements on the actions, of some who claim to be Muslims.
Let us get right down to it, shall we? EXACTLY, what parts of the Koran, are you not in agreement with?
Are you in dis-agreement w/ something you have yet to read?

I have read Al Quran.

Exactly what parts of the Koran I am no in agreement with?

The whole of it. There is actually not a single sentence I am in agreement with. Right from the mystery-stupidy of the Alif thing to the very end of frightening poor people with visions of a demonic Hell.

Now, I have read it all, the Quran, Hadith, Jurisprudence of two Major schools, various works of Indian Sufi teachers... Plus I can read Arabic and Urdu. Therefore you should have no object to my disagreeing with Quran right?

Any way you cut it, Just as the White Supremacists and the Black Supremacists divide the world into TWO -

We and the 'Other' and teach basically intolerance for the other,

The Islamic religion also does the same.

It creates a brotherhood of fanatics ready to sacrifice themselves for the cause and then creates a cause - to conquer the world and get rid of the Kuffaar.

For the brotherhood, it promises Sexual toys-extra virgin girls and boys of pearl, rivers of wine and gold-gems-pearl-etc made Heaven. Plain business bribery in other words. On the other hand it threatens the life out of the Kuffar into submission with nastly picutes of a molten lava heaven and skins peeling to be replaced and all that stuff only Sadists can conjure up. Mafia-ism to put it in another way.

Kindly don't bring in all those 'reading in context, historical reference' things. If you want, we can open a thread in the appropriate forum to discuss it.

Meanwhile just let this thread die off, for it has no relevance whatsoever to the topic of this particular forum. Thank you.

[beanpie]

Therefore you should have no object to my disagreeing with Quran right?

Sir, I have absolutely no "problem", w/anyone, who disagrees w/the Koran. That is their choice. I do not have the power to make anyone agree.

As you may recall, I asked the gentleman, "EXACTLY, what parts of the Koran, are you not in agreement with? "

Sir, I also have absoutely no problem debating you. Since you believe the etire Koran, is incorrect, what do you suggest we discuss?

[beanpie]

I have read Al Quran.

We and the 'Other' and teach basically intolerance for the other,


Then surely, you recall this, right?

The Cow
[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

[beanpie]

Since you are in disagreement w/all that is in the Koran, I can only suppose, you are in disageemnt, w/the following...

... and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil).

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by beanpie
Then surely, you recall this, right?

The Cow
[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

He He, and you conveniently forget all other verses don't you? Why don't you append ALL verses that speak about Christians and Jews? So that we can really judge the real intentions of Quran/Mo about the 'others'?

And What about ME? A Pagan, Kaffir? Would you be kind enough to remember for all of us what the Quran says about us- The Kuffar?

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by beanpie
Since you are in disagreement w/all that is in the Koran, I can only suppose, you are in disageemnt, w/the following...

... and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil).

Yeah I disagree with That.

Firstly, Why take Captives in the first place?

Indic religions teach to do Charity, good works without ANY EXPECTATIONS whatsoever in return.

The Bhagavad Gita extolls Mankind to act selflessly. TO do good things without any thought of its effects or rewards. Not for the Love of God or for the Love of Orphans or Love of Charity.. but for the sake of Duty.

While the Quran says - Fear Allah and do this..or don't do this.

It frightens Man into doing things... or bribes him with Heaven.

Just post the whole chapter where the above sura appears and we can see.... that the Quran is actually a script that FORCES by bribery or fear, mankind into doing things the Islamic way.

Thats the difference.

Here is a challenge for you - why don't you count how many times Allah says 'fear Allah' in the Quran and how many times he talks about 'Love Allah' in the Quran and let us know?

[beanpie]

"Exactly what parts of the Koran I am no in agreement with?

The whole of it. There is actually not a single sentence I am in agreement with."

Is this true or, is it not?


click below, to read whenever the word "Christian" , is mebtined in the Qu'ran.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=christians&size=First+100

[beanpie]

Here is a challenge for you - why don't you count how many times Allah says 'fear Allah' in the Quran and how many times he talks about 'Love Allah' in the Quran and let us know?

fear Allah - 4x http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=fear+Allah&size=First+100

love Allah - 2x http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=love+Allah&size=First+100

[beanpie]

Allah loves - 16 x http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=+Allah+loves&size=First+100

Allah hates - 0

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by beanpie
fear Allah - 4x http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=fear+Allah&size=First+100

love Allah - 2x http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=love+Allah&size=First+100

There you are..

Allah behaves more like the Mafia Don than like a Father.
And if notice carefully, Allah only loves those who hate the Infidels.

Wow, talk about Unqualified Love!

Again, I disagree with each and ever logical sentence in the Quran.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by beanpie
Allah loves - 16 x

Allah hates - 0

Allah Hates - 0?????????? and Allah loves only 16 things? wow!

040.035

PICKTHAL: Those who wrangle concerning the revelations of Allah without any warrant that hath come unto them, it is greatly hateful in the sight of Allah and in the sight of those who believe. Thus doth Allah print on every arrogant, disdainful heart.
SHAKIR: Those who dispute concerning the communications of Allah without any authority that He has given them; greatly hated is it by Allah and by-those who believe. Thus does Allah set a seal over the heart of every proud, haughty one.

Allah does not hate? He sure made apes out of those who just broke the Sabbath.. Perhaps Jesus too broke the Sabbath when he preformed miracles on Saturday?
To this day, the Mullahs decry the Jews as sons of Apes and Swines!

002.065

PICKTHAL: And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated!
SHAKIR: And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.

Just becoz the word 'Allah Hates' is not there in your search engine does not mean Allah does not Hate.. His hatred and jelousness oozes out from the Book as you read it.

And we haven't yet checked out the Hadith yet.

[beanpie]

greatly hated is IT by Allah and by-those who believe. by Allah and by-those who believe.

Again, I disagree with each and ever logical sentence in the Quran.

YOU HAVE CHANGED YOUR STATEMENT BUT, NO MATTER. HOW DOES ONE DETERMINE THAT A VERSE IS "LOGICAL"?

[beanpie]

I DO NOT QUOTE FROM THE "HADITH". IT DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE FROM GOD. IT IS FROM THOSE WHO CLAIM THE SAW THE ACTIONS OR, HEARD THE PROPHET SAY SOMETHING.

[beanpie]

AND I BELIIVE GOD DOES HATE.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by beanpie
"Exactly what parts of the Koran I am no in agreement with?

The whole of it. There is actually not a single sentence I am in agreement with."

Is this true or, is it not?


click below, to read whenever the word "Christian" , is mebtined in the Qu'ran.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=christians&size=First+100

There is not a single sentence I am in agreement with.

Again, I disagree with each and ever logical sentence in the Quran.

Do you have a problem understanding plain english?

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by beanpie
AND I BELIIVE GOD DOES HATE.

Originally posted by beanpie
Allah loves - 16 x

Allah hates - 0

There you were making an attempt to potray as if Allah loves but does not hate.

[beanpie]

NOW, WHO IS HIDING THE TRUTH?

040.034
YUSUFALI: "And to you there came Joseph in times gone by, with Clear Signs, but ye ceased not to doubt of the (Mission) for which he had come: At length, when he died, ye said: 'No messenger will Allah send after him.' thus doth Allah leave to stray such as transgress and live in doubt,-
PICKTHAL: And verily Joseph brought you of old clear proofs, yet ye ceased not to be in doubt concerning what he brought you till, when he died, ye said: Allah will not send any messenger after him. Thus Allah deceiveth him who is a prodigal, a doubter.
SHAKIR: And certainly Yusuf came to you before with clear arguments, but you ever remained in doubt as to what he brought; until when he died, you said: Allah will never raise a messenger after him. Thus does Allah cause him to err who is extravagant, a doubter

040.035
YUSUFALI: "(Such) as dispute about the Signs of Allah, without any authority that hath reached them, grievous and odious (is such conduct) in the sight of Allah and of the Believers. Thus doth Allah, seal up every heart - of arrogant and obstinate Transgressors."
PICKTHAL: Those who wrangle concerning the revelations of Allah without any warrant that hath come unto them, it is greatly hateful in the sight of Allah and in the sight of those who believe. Thus doth Allah print on every arrogant, disdainful heart.
SHAKIR: Those who dispute concerning the communications of Allah without any authority that He has given them; greatly hated is it by Allah and by-those who believe. Thus does Allah set a seal over the heart of every proud, haughty one.



"(Such) as dispute about the Signs of Allah, without any authority that hath reached them, grievous and odious (is such conduct) in the sight of Allah and of the Believers

[beanpie]

There you were making an attempt to potray as if Allah loves but does not hate.

I DID NO SUCH THNG. I SIMPLY RESPONDED TO YOUR QUESTION, WHICH ATTEMPTED TO PAINT ALLAH AS A "VERY" HATEFUL GOD.

[Dr. Jagan Mohan]

Originally posted by beanpie
I DID NO SUCH THNG. I SIMPLY RESPONDED TO YOUR QUESTION, WHICH ATTEMPTED TO PAINT ALLAH AS A "VERY" HATEFUL GOD.

And you acceded that he does Hate.

Originally posted by beanpie AND I BELIIVE GOD DOES HATE.

[premjan]

all the semitic gods are gods of obedience. they demand obedience and they deliver justice. indian gods are a lot more diverse in their personalities.

[beanpie]

This "debate" is useless.

I present "evidence", to back me up. Because of your opinion,you shall not accpet it, as truth.

You present so-called "proof", for your position. Because of my
"belief", I shall NEVER accept your view.

Since "indisutable" evidence, can not be pesented. (at least not in the mind of the opposition) What is the use, of a "discussion"?

Unless, of course, you derive joy, from reading your own essys.

[Grizzly]

Originally posted by Dr. Jagan Mohan
MODERATOR Sir, Please close this thread.

It is a discussion about racial theories and race science and such snake-oil science that it does not warrant a place on a religion and philosophy thread.

I am now starting to believe that Racism, Race and Race Science is much much more destructive than Monotheistic, Exclusive salvation Religions!!

We had enough of White Supremacists and now we got Black Supremacists running around with " whos Da Man! Whos the ancient, powerful, great' kinda messages.!!

And to drag Buddha into this mess is plain stupidy.
It is done with one singular purpose: to make some connection and justification for posting racial pseudo-science on this forum.

Please stop this thread already!

Agreed. This thread has derailed badly. Thread closed.