Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Real Terrorism - Secularists Killed 87,500,000 during 20th Century Hamza Tzortzis (18 min)

Rate this topic


Eddie Mecca

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Shaykh Ahmed Deedat Summary on Qurʼānic Race Theory / Why did God Cause Black Africans to Suffer? / Curse of Ham (8 min) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@Eddie Mecca

It should be noted that Sheik Deedat was/is a bit of an outlier among contemporary Sunnis in South Africa. His attempts to proselytise non-Muslims during the 1980s met with opposition on the part of established Sunni ulema in South Africa. Up to that time, despite the presence of Islam in South Africa for more than three hundred years, the number of black converts to Islam remained rather small vs. that of non-black converts. During the ’80s some blacks embraced Islam—not primarily for its spiritual teachings, but as an expression of opposition to white dominance under apartheid.

Prior to this time, Muslim communities in South Africa were segregated along racial and ethnic lines, with the Indian/Pakistani communities holding socio-economic preponderance over the Malay (“coloured”). Both the Indian/Pakistani and Malay Muslims, unlike blacks, enjoyed religious autonomy and access to many of the same opportunities that white Afrikaners and Britons took for granted. These communities tended to adhere to traditionalist rather than modernist approaches, catering to their own communities rather than seeking to win converts from other backgrounds.

While it is true that Imam Khomeini opposed Iranian ties with South Africa, his opposition seems to have been motivated primarily by South Africa’s support for the un-Islamic Zionist State of Israel, with apartheid playing a secondary role, if at all. The stridently anti-apartheid Muslim minority in South Africa tended to embrace unorthodox spiritual practices as well, at least in part/to a degree. Imam Harun, for instance, he invited women to take part in activities and encouraged children to sit at the front of the prayer-meetings, while also reaching out to blacks and non-Muslims.

On the other hand, some Muslims since the ‘60s had been inspired by the ideals of the Salafi movement and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), particularly those of al-Banna, Maududi, and Qutb, and had been among the active minority in opposing apartheid and supporting the spread of Islam as a universal system rather than a culturally or racially modulated identity. These Muslims also drew on the influence of Ali Shariati. Incidentally, Imam Harun happened to be part of this matrix, which acted in opposition to the relatively quietist, established Sunni ulema in South Africa.

Overall, the legacy of anti-apartheid Islamic activism has been rather mixed. To be fair, I am reasonably confident that Imam Khomeini and his followers opposed racism and particularism as impediments to the universalism of Islam; after all, racial and ethnic barriers serve as obstacles to the dissemination and implementation of an Islamic worldview and system. In Iran, for instance, the use of a black chador by observant Shia women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds helps inculcate a universal Islamic mentality, if not morality, that acts against racial and ethnic parochialism.

An excerpt from one of the links:

Quote

For Cassiem, the Islamic revolution provided a more persuasive model for Islam’s opposition to oppression. For Cassiem, the regime of the Shah was a variation of the apartheid regime, and the methods employed in Iran were applicable in South Africa. Cassiem and Qiblah popularized the sayings and image of the leader of the revolution, Ruhuallah Khomeini, in the streets of Cape Town. In fact, one can go further and state that Cassiem styled himself as the Imam of the South African Islamic revolution (Gevisser, 1996).  Cassiem also became very critical of the ʿulamāʾ in Cape Town, and what he regarded as their complacency with the apartheid regime. The ʿulamāʾ in turn were alarmed at the influence of Shi’ism through Qiblah and Cassiem.

So there was/is certainly an element of Muslim opposition to the system of apartheid, but also tension with the secularist/leftist element that also opposed apartheid. Nevertheless, I have heard of former ANC members who held fondness for Imam Khomeini and his followers’ principled opposition to South Africa and Zionism, though their appreciation may have had less to do with Islam than with gratefulness for Iran’s strident opposition to Israeli influence, which happened to coincide, however temporarily, with the needs of the secularist/leftist anti-apartheid elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Shaykh Ahmed Deedat on the Curse of Ham (7 min) 

 

@Eddie Mecca

At 1:40 the Sheik states that the whites of South Africa “believed that we are the children of Ham, all the black peoples of the earth!” Yet the Sheik is not black, but rather Semitic. Perhaps he is referring to the fact that Europeans tend to lump in blacks with Semites, even though the two are very different from each other. In that sense the blacks and Semites would be in similar positions vis-à-vis Europeans. Even so, being in a similar position would not make Semites racially (biologically) synonymous with black Africans.

7 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Shaykh Ahmed Deedat Summary on Qurʼānic Race Theory / Why did God Cause Black Africans to Suffer? / Curse of Ham (8 min) 

Beginning at 4:13 the Sheik quotes Qur’ān 49:13 and at 4:30 presents the interpretation thereof as signifying recognition, whether along racial, ethnic/linguistic, or tribal lines. If this is the case, then the verse doesn’t say anything about marriage. Also, if groups maintain their distinct languages and tribes, then these factors would become an impediment to adopting a universal Islamic language, pattern of dress, custom, etc., given that Islam only recognises the behaviour of the Prophetic lineage. If the verse only refers to recognition, then the succeeding phrase about nobility in the sight of Allah would imply discrimination among races and tribes, based on the concept that race and tribe would signify the moral state of one’s heritage/lineage. Here is the verse in full:

Quote

49_13.png

Sahih International

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.

The question is whether the phrase “to recognise/know one another” would have multiple layers/depths of meaning and could also include “knowing” one another sexually via lawful intercourse. If (and this is a big if) it does not, then the phrase referring to “the most noble of you” would seemingly be related to one’s “recognising” that race, tribe, etc. signify one’s spiritual heritage, and would therefore promote discrimination between “righteous” and “unrighteous” races, tribes, and so on. To fully understand this situation, one would need a good lexicon or dictionary to accompany tafsir. Do you know of any good classical commentaries, lexicons, and/or dictionaries that address this verse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Regarding the above, Maududi’s tafsir is somewhat ambiguous:

Quote

(1) The origin of all of you is one and the same. ... All your races that are found in the world today are, in fact, the branches of one initial race that started with one mother and one father. ... You have been made from one and the same substance. It is not so that some men have been made from some pure and superior substance and some other men from some impure and inferior substance. ...

(2) In spite of being one in origin, it was natural that you should be divided into nations and tribes. ... With the spread of the race it was inevitable that countless families should arise, and then tribes and nations should emerge from the families. ... The Creator had divided the human communities into nations and tribes for that was a natural way of cooperation and distinction between them. In this way alone could a fraternity, a brotherhood, a tribe and a nation combine to give birth to a common way of life and to cooperate with each other in the affairs of the world.

If there is no distinction of status among them, then what would be the point of division into nations and tribes? Under apartheid the ruling elites actually would have interpreted 49:13 thusly: the whites should act paternalistically toward the nonwhites, and the nonwhites should support their betters. This attitude is perhaps similar to that which prevailed among Southern slaveowners prior to the Civil War, though black slaveowners were more common and prosperous than people suppose. Interracial marriage is still stigmatised among Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, though this attitude is more prevalent among traditionalists than revivalists (modernists) such as, say, the Salafi. It is also true that some new religious movements such as the Nation of Islam (NOI) have condemned interracial marriage, including none other than a personage such as Muhammad Ali.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 1/12/2022 at 5:46 AM, Northwest said:

One could also argue that various modern technologies, to not mention political systems, are imported from the West and adopted by the “global South.” Even Iran borrows industrial, pharmaceutical, and sundry other scientific “advances” from the West and selectively applies them to specific, local contexts, within the framework of the Iranian Islamic model. Another example: the concept of an “Islamic republic” is oxymoronic and is a concession to the influence of Westernisation that existed prior to the Revolution of 1979. In this respect even Iran still reflects the legacy of colonisation as well as cross-cultural influences. Iran’s banking, judicial, and civilian political (parliamentary) systems still retain significant vestiges of Western origin. The very fact that you are using terms such as “people of colour” and “Eurocentric” also betrays Western influence, for these concepts, as well as that of “Orientalist” imperialism, were adopted from quasi-“Marxist” (Trotskyist) bourgeois formulations in the West and therefore are not Islamic.

Technology, science and other advances can be incorporated and absorbed...a great amount of flexibility exists and there's no Islamic prohibition regarding the importation of advantageous processes...there's no need to reinvent the wheel...early Muslim rulers adapted existing Byzantine and Sasanian tax collecting methods for example...Iran can adopt a foreign banking model minus interest on loans and deposits for instance...incorporating foreign philosophies and political theories is more of a slippery slope however...regarding usage of terms like "people of color", "Eurocentric", "Third World" etc...influences brought on by Westernization and globalization include terminological and rhetorical ones...we have no other recourse other than to use the language of the colonizer...subordinate groups and populations are forced to borrow aforementioned terms, expressions, phrases etc...the borrowing of such terminology becomes unavoidable and necessary for intercultural communication.

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Northwest said:

the Sheik states that the whites of South Africa “believed that we are the children of Ham, all the black peoples of the earth!” Yet the Sheik is not black, but rather Semitic. Perhaps he is referring to the fact that Europeans tend to lump in blacks with Semites, even though the two are very different from each other. In that sense the blacks and Semites would be in similar positions vis-à-vis Europeans. Even so, being in a similar position would not make Semites racially (biologically) synonymous with black Africans.

Ahmed Husein Deedat originally hails from Bombay, India (modern-day Mumbai) and migrated to SA in 1927...he's not a Semite but surprisingly enough an Aryan...he self-identifies as such in numerous lectures...Indians were kidnapped as bonded laborers and imported to the Cape...Indians, Arabs, Chinese and other POC were broad-brushed and classified as "black" by apartheid law prior to 1994.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Northwest said:

the Nation of Islam (NOI) have condemned interracial marriage, including none other than a personage such as Muhammad Ali.

Muhammad Ali revised his views regarding race separation once Elijah Muhammad passed away in 1975 and he aligned himself with Imam Warith Deen Mohammed's movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Northwest said:

and could also include “knowing” one another sexually via lawful intercourse.

I don't speak or read Arabic but I have often wondered about this myself...is the verse referring to the term "know" in the general sense and is it simultaneously a possible euphemism for miscegenation? To "know" or "knowing" as an indirect tasteful expression for sexual union occurs in other Semitic languages (Syriac, Ethiopian and biblical Hebrew).

10 hours ago, Northwest said:

If there is no distinction of status among them, then what would be the point of division into nations and tribes?

Why the obsession with social dominance and/or racial hierarchy? Why not variety for the mere sake of variety? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, Northwest said:

his opposition seems to have been motivated primarily by South Africa’s support for the un-Islamic Zionist State of Israel, with apartheid playing a secondary role

Believe me, Imam Khomeini (Allah bestow mercy on him) was a diehard idealist and wasn't motivated by pragmatic or political factors...Mandela himself met with Ali Khamenei and addressed him as “my leader"...since its inception IRI has committed itself as a defender of the world’s oppressed masses and champion of Third-Worldism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Northwest said:

Under apartheid the ruling elites actually would have interpreted

Who cares what white supremist nutjobs (like the former Afrikaner ruling elites) say or think or how they would have hypothetically interpreted 49:13

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

whites should act paternalistically

Biological racism gained traction historically (e.g. Victorian Era America, Nazi Germany etc.) but the modern scientific consensus vehemently rejects this view as pseudoscientific...if one day science is able to determine that a superior race in fact exists...e.g. Asians have larger cranial capacities and hence deemed "superior" by scientific concurrence…then Asians have a moral obligation to treat the "lesser" races fairly...disproportional intellectual ascendancy for one race shouldn't translate into genocide, enslavement, exploitation etc. for all other members of the human family...one day soon we'll possess the capability to genetically resurrect Neanderthals...we have an ethical obligation to treat them kindly (I'm not in favor of this idea by the way).  

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Why the obsession with social dominance and/or racial hierarchy? Why not variety for the mere sake of variety? 

@Eddie Mecca

I do not wish to sound as if I were nitpicking, but there is a personal dimension to these questions that I prefer not to disclose online.

I know that you are not a white supremacist (Imam Khomeini certainly wasn’t a racist either), but in the States white supremacists often say that they are not racist, but in fact prefer racial pluralism/diversity and integrity, hence their rejection of so-called “miscegenation.” A preference for “variety for the sake of variety” would seemingly presuppose some kind of ban or restriction on interracial marriage, thereby preserving the supposed “integrity“ of the various separate “races” or branches of mankind. I am actually not condemning racists or anti-racists, but I am merely pressing for some clarity and honesty.

Are you tacitly admitting that racial hierarchies do exist but that people, and certainly Muslims, should act as though they are irrelevant and still treat people impartially?

Let’s say, hypothetically and for the sake of the argument, that a study in the future determines that different races have different aptitudes in different areas. In other words, their “intelligences” may differ, with some being more “emotionally” or “intellectually” intelligent in certain areas than others. You brought up Asians as a possible example. I certainly concur that even if quantifiable racial differences in terms of IQ, anatomy, traits, tendencies, and so on do exist, people should still be treated impartially and not exterminated simply on account of their differences. If differences do exist, though, I don’t think they should be covered up.

Maybe your argument is that we should “transcend” race, so to speak, and focus on character. I agree. Still, what about differing capacities/aptitudes among races?

Again, even if these differences exist, under no circumstance is genocide justifiable, because the various races would still depend on one another (i.e., the more “intellectually gifted” would depend on the “emotionally gifted” for labour, just as the Southern plantation owners depended on their slaves and thus could not exterminate the latter, thereby providing an impetus for them to at least try to treat the slaves fairly, just as the Prophet Muhammad treated the pious Abyssinian slave Bilal fairly). In this sense racial differences would still exist, but the notion of mankind as a family with mutual responsibilities/duties and rights would prevent genocide, encouraging cooperation instead, but still retain hierarchy, perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 1/24/2022 at 6:22 PM, Northwest said:

Do you know of any good classical commentaries, lexicons, and/or dictionaries that address this verse?

Salam a good & classical example is story of "Jowaiber and Zalfa" which prophet Muhammad (pbu) has  helped an ugly & black skin but pious  companion married with a beautiful white arab girl from a noble family which prophet Muhammad (pbu) has broke taboo of forbidding  interracial marriage  of ignorance era which according  to his tradition & tradition  of infallible Imams(عليه السلام) first & most important factor in marriage is being a pious person even if man or woman be ugly or poor but on the other hand marrying  with beautiful women from a bad family which is infamous  for bad deeds is not recommended .

Quote

"How beautiful it were if you could marry and establish a family, ending this forlorn and isolated life? You could fulfill your natural urges and also she could help you in your temporal and spiritual needs and goals."

"O Messenger of Allah, I have neither wealth nor beauty; nor I have a noble descent or lineage. Who will marry me? And which woman likes to be wife of a poor, short, black and ugly man like me?............

https://www.al-islam.org/anecdotes-pious-men-murtadha-mutahhari/jowaiber-and-zalfa

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 1/25/2022 at 5:18 AM, Northwest said:

Let’s say, hypothetically and for the sake of the argument, that a study in the future determines that different races have different aptitudes in different areas. In other words, their “intelligences” may differ, with some being more “emotionally” or “intellectually” intelligent in certain areas than others. You brought up Asians as a possible example. I certainly concur that even if quantifiable racial differences in terms of IQ, anatomy, traits, tendencies, and so on do exist, people should still be treated impartially and not exterminated simply on account of their differences. If differences do exist, though, I don’t think they should be covered up.

@Northwest, I enjoy reading your contributions to SC by the way...you seem extremely well-read and your thoughts are generally balanced...are you some type of academician or intellectual? A university political science or sociology professor perhaps? I agree with most of your sentiments here...the Creator may have endowed the various peoples of the earth with an assortment of 'gifts'...the 'gifts' shouldn't be covered up but 1.) celebrated and 2.) studied intensely

On 1/25/2022 at 5:18 AM, Northwest said:

Maybe your argument is that we should “transcend” race, so to speak, and focus on character. I agree. Still, what about differing capacities/aptitudes among races?

Let's leave religion out the discussion for a moment...modern science tells us that the concept of race is an antiquated social construct...all human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup...do you agree with the modern scientific notion (that race is a manmade construct) or do you adhere to some type of self-made, racial, hierarchical theory? Feel free to speak openly...I consider myself a bit of rebel and adhere to many political, religious and social beliefs considered "unconventional"...I believe in unpopular opinions when sufficient proof is provided...feel free to speak your mind.

Edited by Eddie Mecca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 1/27/2022 at 2:31 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

@Northwest, I enjoy reading your contributions to SC by the way...you seem extremely well-read and your thoughts are generally balanced...are you some type of academician or intellectual? A university political science or sociology professor perhaps? I agree with most of your sentiments here...the Creator may have endowed the various peoples of the earth with an assortment of 'gifts'...the 'gifts' shouldn't be covered up but 1.) celebrated and 2.) studied intensely

@Eddie Mecca

I took some time to contemplate your post and ponder over a response.

No, I am not an academic specialist, but a supremely curious layman.

On 1/27/2022 at 2:31 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Let's leave religion out the discussion for a moment...modern science tells us that the concept of race is an antiquated social construct...all human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup...do you agree with the modern scientific notion (that race is a manmade construct) or do you adhere to some type of self-made, racial, hierarchical theory? Feel free to speak openly...I consider myself a bit of rebel and adhere to many political, religious and social beliefs considered "unconventional"...I believe in unpopular opinions when sufficient proof is provided...feel free to speak your mind.

Honestly, I think the matter is quite complex and I am not of “one mind” on this matter. But I am always a bit of a contrarian, regardless of the prevailing worldview. If the prevailing dogma were strictly racist, I would oppose it. If it were postmodernist (“multicultural”), as it is currently, I would oppose it as well. I think it is dangerous for a single worldview, be it “secular“ or “religious,” to hold a virtual monopoly and suppress alternative views, especially if the latter can be supported by evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 2/2/2022 at 6:09 AM, Northwest said:

I am not an academic specialist, but a supremely curious layman.

Same here

On 2/2/2022 at 6:09 AM, Northwest said:

Honestly, I think the matter is quite complex and I am not of “one mind” on this matter. But I am always a bit of a contrarian, regardless of the prevailing worldview. If the prevailing dogma were strictly racist, I would oppose it. If it were postmodernist (“multicultural”), as it is currently, I would oppose it as well. I think it is dangerous for a single worldview, be it “secular“ or “religious,” to hold a virtual monopoly and suppress alternative views, especially if the latter can be supported by evidence.

I enjoy playing devil's advocate on occasion...to me Shi'ism is about standing for the underdog and going against the grain when needed...I don't believe in anarchy for the sake of anarchy...there should be a genuine reason for the insubordination or unruliness...I oppose viewpoints or worldviews that are cruel or out of sync with reality or obstruct the higher dimensions of human nature (or higher dimensions of human potential)...the closer the worldview aligns to reality the more attracted people will naturally be to it...mistaken notions (e.g. Flat Earth theory, Nazism etc.) should be suppressed ideally...Islam is extremely flexible and encourages free discussion...absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist in the Islamic domain...absolute freedom of expression doesn't exist in the Western world either (e.g. hijab ban in France, suppression of BDS Movement etc.)…the only difference is Islam honestly defines the boundaries whereas US, Europe, Australia etc. feel obligated to sell a type of romanticism they don't believe in themselves...this is due to ideological inconsistency and self contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...