MUHAMMAD hakuwa mtu mweusi.....PROVE ME WRONG......katika siirah ya mtume..inaonesha ya kuwa nchi zilizokuwa zinaendelea kusambaziwa somo juu ya uislamu walikua wakidai ya kuwa dini ya kiislamu ni ya waarabu tu na siyo ya ulimwengu mzima na ilishushushwa kwa MUHAMMAD MUARABU kwa ajili ya waarabu.....JE VIPI LEO HII MUHAMMAD AWE MTU MWEUSI?....acha kudanganya ummah
hearly
muarabu asilia ni mtu mweusi, vivyo hivyo binadamu na ndivyo alivyokuwa Muhammad, hao waarabu feki weupe unaowajua wewe, na Wayahudi feki ndio vivuruge wa dunia, ndio waliotuchukueni utumwani, hata wazungu asilia ni wat u weusi, ndugu utalala had lini???
The Arabs prided themselves on being black, is conscious contrast to the pale-skinned non-Arabs. Al-JaÈií
could still claim in the 9th century:
العرب تفخر بسواد اللون
al-arab tafkhar bi-sawad al-lawn
“The Arabs pride themselves in (their) black color”35
These noble Black Arabs even detested pale skin. Al-Mubarrad (d. 898), the leading figure in the Basran
grammatical tradition, is quoted as saying: “The Arabs used to take pride in their darkness and blackness
and they had a distaste for a light complexion and they used to say that a light complexion was the
complexion of the non-Arabs”. Part of the reason for this distaste is that the slaves at the time were largely
from pale-skinned peoples, such that aÈmar “red” came to mean “slave” back then, just as abid
“servant/slave” means black today in the now white Muslim world. As Dana Marniche observes:
Anyone familiar with the Arabic writings of the Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian historians up until the 14th century
knows that this is also their description of the early ‘pure’ Arab clans of the Arabian peninsula… [i.e. “blacker
than the blackest ink – no shred of white on them except their teeth.”]…The irony of history is that early
Arabic-speaking historians and linguists made a distinction between the Arabs in Arabia and the fair-skinned
peoples to the north; and contrary to what may be fact in our day, in the days of early Islam, those called
‘Arabs’ looked down condescendingly on fair-skinned populations and commonly used the phrase ‘fairskinned
as a slave’ when describing individuals in tribes in the peninsula that were pale in complexion…Of
course, today due mainly to slavery and conversion of peoples to the ‘Arab’ nationality, the opposite is
thought to be true by many in the West.
A red or pale-skinned Muhammad would thus have been a profound oddity in 7th century Arabia and
would have had little chance of success amongst the proud, black Meccans and Medinese. The Meccan
objectors to his message accused of some of everything, but never of being a non-Arab! There is absolutely no
reason to believe he was pale-skinned other than much later representations that coincide with a major
demographic change it the Muslim world, a change that brought with it a strong anti-black ideology.36
We thus have every reason to accept the truth of Anas b. Malik’s description of the prophet as dark
brown (asmar) and to conclude that, as his black cousins Alī and al-Fa∙l resembled their black fathers (his
black uncles), he resembled his black father, especially since his mother’s side was black as well