Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Mohammad the Racist?

Volume 1, Book 11, Number 662:Narrated Anas:The Prophet said, “Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief.”

Volume 1, Book 11, Number 664:Narrated Anas bin Malik:The Prophet said to Abu-Dhar, “Listen and obey (your chief) even if he is an Ethiopian with a head like a raisin.”

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 256:Narrated Anas bin Malik:Allah’s Apostle said, “You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.”

Besides the obvious repetitiveness of the Hadiths (where the instance is mentioned three times, like so many of the other hadiths), these passages show something into Mohammad's mindset.

Mohammad did not like black people.

The fact is Mohammad's principle of slavery was so important to him, that he made sure that a person must remain a slave, EVEN if it meant being owned by a black person. This connotes that blacks were inferior than others, and that the slave trade should be enforced, even if it meant being slave to a person most undesirable, like an Ethiopian black.

To top it off, Mohammad made sure to say that you should remain slaves to blacks whose heads looked like raisins.

The ridiculing of black people just never stopped for Mohammad.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

And if it was the case...How come the Prophet (s.a.w) chosed a Black man, Bilal Ibn Rabah (a.s), to be the first muezzin of Islam ? How come he (saw) gave that honnor to a Black man ?

Fear God

hhashmo said...

Bilal was a slave. Bilal knew his place.

Tabari II:11 "Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the BLACK Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African's color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks."

Tabari II:21 "Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham's descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem's, the latter would enslave them."

AS long as Bilal was a slave, Mohammad liked him...

You should fear God too.

Anonymous said...

Ha ha, what a clear cut ignorant you are, hhashmo. First you said Muhammad, upon whom be peace, didn't like blacks but int he comments you said he liked bilal. Are you insane?

How about this:
Let's say you say you have a wife who is white. HOW would you react if I say I don't like whites but I like your wife?

hhashmo said...

Anonymous #3 -

Let me rephrase so you may understand - he liked Bilal as a slave.

In fact, he liked black people as slaves. He just did not like black people, unless they were slaves.

Sorry, I do not have a wife, me and my dad share yours.

Tim said...

Bilal was a freed slave, ransomed by Abu Bakr.

Qur'an 2:177 "It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in suffering and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing."

Anonymous said...

In fact he taught his followers:

"There is truly no excellence for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab; nor for a white man over a black man, nor for a black man over a white man; except through piety."

hhashmo said...

Comment 6 - please provide a source -

You are right - truly there is no excellence between different races, just different roles (i.e. a black men were created to be slaves of the Arabs).

Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks. Tabari II 11

Black people are also men of no descent:

It is your folly to fight the Apostle, for Allah’s army is bound to disgrace you. We brought them to the pit. Hell was their meeting place. We collected them there, black slaves, men of no descent.

Ishaq 450

Oh right, there is no excellence of Arabs over none Arabs, just that Arabs are the most noble in lineage:

Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah’s Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us.

Tabari IX 69

pamuk7 said...

Appealing to weak sources. You would never know that because your BLINDLY COPYING & PASTING from hater sites.

Tabari IN HIS OWN book said:

"Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein & traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past & of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters & the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction & mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us & we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us." (Tarikh al-Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk, Volume1, Pg 13).

As for Ishaq, Imam Malik & Yahya Saeed al-Ansar called Ishaq a liar & Imam Ahmad said Ishaq didn't care who he collected Hadith from. Just because something is earlier doesn't make it authentic. It's early just means its early. You can have early forgeries. It should be early & authentic, which much of Ishaq & Tabri isn't according to the sciences of Hadith.

You wouldn't be able to find scholars which say these things you quoted from Tabari & Ishaq are authentic because:

a) Most probably aren't.
b) Our best stuff is in Arabic, a language you probably don't understand.

If you want to read a biography of Muhammad which is actually authentic, read Ibn Hisham's 1. Most likely, you've never even read the full Quran, leave aside a biography of Muhammad.

When it comes to analysing authenticity of Ishaq & Tabari's narrations, its no childsplay, & you wouldn't know that, because your blindly copying & pasting.

pamuk7 said...

Appealing to weak sources. You would never know that because your BLINDLY COPYING & PASTING from hater sites.

Tabari IN HIS OWN book said:

"Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein & traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past & of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters & the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction & mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us & we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us." (Tarikh al-Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk, Volume1, Pg 13).

As for Ishaq, Imam Malik & Yahya Saeed al-Ansar called Ishaq a liar & Imam Ahmad said Ishaq didn't care who he collected Hadith from. Just because something is earlier doesn't make it authentic. It's early just means its early. You can have early forgeries. It should be early & authentic, which much of Ishaq & Tabri isn't according to the sciences of Hadith.

You wouldn't be able to find scholars which say these things you quoted from Tabari & Ishaq are authentic because:

a) Most probably aren't.
b) Our best stuff is in Arabic, a language you probably don't understand.

If you want to read a biography of Muhammad which is actually authentic, read Ibn Hisham's 1. Most likely, you've never even read the full Quran, leave aside a biography of Muhammad.

When it comes to analysing authenticity of Ishaq & Tabari's narrations, its no childsplay, & you wouldn't know that, because your blindly copying & pasting.

pamuk7 said...

Appealing to weak sources. You would never know that because your BLINDLY COPYING & PASTING from hater sites.

Tabari IN HIS OWN book said:

"Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein & traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past & of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters & the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction & mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us & we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us." (Tarikh al-Tabari: Tarikh al-Umam wal-Muluk, Volume1, Pg 13).

As for Ishaq, Imam Malik & Yahya Saeed al-Ansar called Ishaq a liar & Imam Ahmad said Ishaq didn't care who he collected Hadith from. Just because something is earlier doesn't make it authentic. It's early just means its early. You can have early forgeries. It should be early & authentic, which much of Ishaq & Tabri isn't according to the sciences of Hadith.

You wouldn't be able to find scholars which say these things you quoted from Tabari & Ishaq are authentic because:

a) Most probably aren't.
b) Our best stuff is in Arabic, a language you probably don't understand.

If you want to read a biography of Muhammad which is actually authentic, read Ibn Hisham's 1. Most likely, you've never even read the full Quran, leave aside a biography of Muhammad.

When it comes to analysing authenticity of Ishaq & Tabari's narrations, its no childsplay, & you wouldn't know that, because your blindly copying & pasting.

pamuk7 said...

As for the authentic Hadith:

Bukhari, Book 11, Number 662: "Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "LISTEN & OBEY (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief."

Why do critics ignore what the Hadith says? It says LISTEN & OBEY him. Remember, Muhammad's own people were mostly Arabs, yet he is telling them to OBEY your chief, regardless if is head is like a raisin. The "raisin" quote isn't a racist remark. Some people have tightly small curls in their hair that look like raisins NOT JUST BLACK PEOPLE. It's not equivalent to the word "nigger" that Christians had placed upon black people.

The other Hadith which bracket's say (black) this word is NOT in the Arabic text.

Sources:
http://al-islam.com/portal.aspx?pageid=241&Words=%d8%ad%d8%a8%d8%b4%d9%8a&Type=allwords&Level=exact&ID=151031&Return=http%3a%2f%2fal-islam.com%2fPortals%2fal-islam_com%2fportal.aspx%3fpageid%3d240%26Words%3d%d8%ad%d8%a8%d8%b4%d9%8a%26Level%3dexact%26Type%3dallwords%26SectionID%3d2%26Page%3d1
http://al-islam.com/portal.aspx?pageid=241&Words=%d8%ad%d8%a8%d8%b4%d9%8a&Type=allwords&Level=exact&ID=405887&Return=http%3a%2f%2fal-islam.com%2fPortals%2fal-islam_com%2fportal.aspx%3fpageid%3d240%26Words%3d%d8%ad%d8%a8%d8%b4%d9%8a%26Level%3dexact%26Type%3dallwords%26SectionID%3d2%26Page%3d9
http://al-islam.com/portal.aspx?pageid=241&Words=%d8%ad%d8%a8%d8%b4%d9%8a&Type=allwords&Level=exact&ID=405909&Return=http%3a%2f%2fal-islam.com%2fPortals%2fal-islam_com%2fportal.aspx%3fpageid%3d240%26Words%3d%d8%ad%d8%a8%d8%b4%d9%8a%26Level%3dexact%26Type%3dallwords%26SectionID%3d2%26Page%3d9

The translator put "black" in brackets, but it is not in the Arabic text.

There's the Arabic:

قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ اسْمَعُوا وَأَطِيعُوا وَإِنْ اسْتُعْمِلَ عَلَيْكُمْ عَبْدٌ حَبَشِيٌّ كَأَنَّ رَأْسَهُ زَبِيبَة

&

اسمعوا وأطيعوا وإن استعمل عليكم عبد حبشي كأن رأسه زبيبة

Muhammad was not a racist. Before thinking of writing a blog, refer to what Arabic text & consensus of scholars say, otherwise your making yourself look like a desperate bigot.

Anonymous said...

hi,

i know no one ever considers the shia muslim view, but i am a shia muslim and i would like to observe that we don't accept the hadith of anas ibn malik as authentic so this hadith is not acceptable in the shia view. bye.