Few people concern themselves with the race of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad Ibn Abdullah as they do with Jesus, a Hebrew who many regard as a God or a prophet. In fact, many African-centered people have no problem acquiescing that not only was Jesus Black, but the Hebrews of his day were also Black. Though many see Prophet Muhammad and the Arabs of his day as “Caucasians” who used their religion to enslave Africans and forcefully convert them to Islam.

Although this view is the predominant narrative, it is not in accord with the facts as presented by classical sources and academic research findings, which reveal that not only were the Prophet Muhammad and the Arabs Black, but there was also a deliberate attempt, as in the case of Jesus, to “Whiten” up the color of The Prophet of Islam and the Arabs of his day.

 

The Curious Case of Bilal

Many pedestrian readers of Islamic history see Bilal Ibn Rabah as an African slave who was mistreated by his Arab master Ummayah Ibn Khalaf. Bilal, they say, was the first Black convert to Islam. But Bilal was born in Arabia to an Ethiopian mother, Hamamah, and an Arab father, Rabah. Within Arabian society slave status was determined by the class of the mother, and since Hamamah was a slave, Bilal by default inherited that status even though his father was an Arab.

Indeed, every source describes Bilal as a Jet Black man who had “African” features. Baladhuri Ansab Al-asharef described Bilal as “Kana Adam shadid al-udma,” meaning, “He was black, excessively Black.” This is in line with all of the descriptions of Bilal in the classical Arabic sources.

How could a man who was the product of a union between a Black mother and a White Arab come out as “excessively Black?” Was Bilal’s father truly a White Arab, and was Bilal the first Black convert to Islam? Zayed Ibn Al-Haritha (d.629) accepted the call to Islam before Bilal and Tabari, Baladhuri Ansab Al-asharef, and Ibn Sad described Zayed Ibn Al-Haritha as “Shadid al-udma”—“Excessively Black.” Then there are those who argue that Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, was the first convert to Islam.

Well, what do the classical sources say of Prophet’s cousin Ali? 1) In his Tarikh al-Khulafa, Al-Suyuti describes Ali Ibn Abi Talib as “husky, bald…..pot-bellied, large bearded and jet Black.” 2) Abu Jafar Muhammad says of Ali: “He was a Black skinned man with big heavy eyes, pot-bellied, bald and kind of short.” 3) Al-Jahiz, Fakhr al-sudan ala al-bidan says: “Those of Abu Talib’s family, who are the most noble of men, are more or less Black (sud).”

Even further, Bilal’s slave-master, Ummaya Ibn Khalaf, was a member of the Qurayshi tribe (which is the tribe of the Prophet Muhammad) and the clan Banu Jumah, a sub-lineage of the Qurayshi tribe. The popular narrative paints the picture of Bilal, the dark-skinned African, being mistreated by a White-skinned Arab master, and that this was a typical feature of classical Arab society.

However, Al-Dhahabi (d. 1348) described the Banu Jumah clan as also being “Shadid al-udma,” meaning “excessively Black.” Contrary to popular misconception, Bilal was enslaved by a fellow Black Arab, and this complexion of his master was typical of Arabs of that day.

 

The Prophet According To Classical Sources

In his book The Remedy Concerning the Determination of the Just Merits of the Chosen, the famous Andalusian scholar al-Qadi Iyad (d. 1149) wrote that: “Whoever says that the Prophet is black should be killed. The Prophet was not black.” These words reveal as much as they hide. For one, his words reveal his belief that the Prophet of Islam was not Black and also that quite a number of people disagreed with him. Al Qadi issued a “Fatwa” against such people.

Why did some people believe that the Prophet was Black and why did Al-Qadi exhibit such strong emotions against such a belief? The classical pre-modern Islamic sources are littered with statements from scholars and from the companions of the Prophet himself, declaring the color of the Arabs and the Prophet.

For instance, Al-Hasan b. Ahmad (d.1045), the great linguist and genealogist, was well known to be a pure Arab who took great pride in his Black complexion. In fact he was so proud of his color that he would often apply tar to his skin to justify his Arab heritage. He would also apply the same to his young son and have him sit outside in the sun to darken his complexion further. Some accounts suggest this is what eventually killed his son.

Further evidence comes from the great grandson of the Prophet himself, Muhammad b. Abd Allah (d. 762). He was related to the Prophet through his daughter Fatima and cousin Ali. Al-Tabari the famous 10th century historian and exegete wrote about Muhammad b. Adb Allah: “Muhammad (Al-Nafs al-Zakiyya) was black, exceedingly black, jet black (ādam shadīdal-udma adlam) and huge. He was nicknamed ‘Tar Face’ (al-qārī ) because of his dark complexion (udmatihi), such that Abu Ja’far used to call him ‘Charcoal Face’ (al-muhammam).”

Still other statements corroborate the notion that the Arabs and the Prophet were Black. Al-Mubarrad (d. 898), the leading figure in the Basran grammatical tradition, wrote: “The Arabs used to take pride in their (dark) brown and black complexion (al-sumra wa al-sawad), and they had a distaste for a white and fair complexion, and they used to say such was the complexion of the non-Arabs.” Finally, a poem from Abu Al-Hassan Ali Ibn al-Abbas (known as Ibn al-rumi d. 896) stated: “You (Abbasids) insulted (the family of the Prophet) because of their blackness while there are still deep black, pure-blooded Arabs. However, you are white-skinned – the Romans (Byzantines) have embellished your faces with their color.”

Are we to believe that Prophet Muhammad, a pure Arab, looked different from how all these sources described the Arabs?

 

How Did Black Arabs Become White Arabs of the 21st Century?

Al-Suyuti records the following Hadith: [The Messenger of God] said, “I dreamed that I drove before me some black sheep then I drove after them some white sheep, so that the black could not be seen among them.” And Abu Bakr said, “O apostle of God, as for the black sheep, they signified the Arabs who shall embrace the faith and increase in numbers, and the white sheep are the non-Arabs (ajam) who shall be converted until the Arabs shall not be seen among them by reason of their numbers.” The apostle of God replied, “Likewise did the angel interpret it this morning.”

For various reasons, the above Hadith is significant. It refers to the Arabs as Black sheep and the non-Arabs as White sheep and states that the latter would outnumber the former eventually. The Hadith aptly describes the process that led to the current ethnography of Arabia. To understand the forces that produced the prevailing ethnography of Arabia, one has to look to history for clues and direction.

Prophet Muhammad died in 632 A.D and was succeeded by the Caliph Abu Bakr, which gave birth to the Islamic political system of the Caliphate. Much of the work of Abu Bakr centered on strengthening the Muslim community and preventing the united tribes from falling back into “paganism.” After the death of Abu Bakr in 634 A.D, the Islamic community selected Umar to serve as the 2nd Caliph. Umar directed the armies of Islam towards Byzantine Syria and, in 636 A.D, the Arabs defeated the Byzantines in Syria, which fell under the hands of the Muslims. In the same year, the Muslim army conquered the Persians in the battle of Qadisiyyah. The Persian King fled the capital, which the Arabs besieged and conquered. It wasn’t long before the entire Persian Sassanid Empire was conquered, the Persian King was robbed and killed and the royal family fled to China. Killed in 644 A.D, Caliph Umar was succeeded by Caliph Uthman, a member of the Umayyad clan of the wider Qurayshi tribe. Upon the death of Uthman, Ali ascended the “throne” as Caliph. This divided the Islamic community giving birth to the present Sunni-Shii’te divide.

With the murder of Ali in 661 A.D, Muawiya, a member of the Umayyad clan, subdued Iraq and then formally established himself as caliph. He would go on to establish the Umayyad dynasty, the first dynastic Islamic administration. Under the Umayyad dynasty only pure Arabs could hold high positions, and this led to great dissatisfaction among the non-Arab converts (Mawali) to Islam especially the Persians, Byzantines and Turks. In 750 A.D the Umayyad dynasty fell to the Abbasids, who established the Abbasid dynasty. The Abbasid revolution, which is better termed the Persian revolution, saw an increase in the influence of Persian converts to Islam. This presence of Persians under the Abbasid dynasty would later change the ethnography and theology of Islam. These Persians took on the language, culture, religion and dress of the original Black Arabs. They became “Arabized” Persians. And this is how the Black Arabs under a Black Prophet Muhammad transformed into “White” Arabs.

Within this context, the words of Al-Qadi—“Whoever says The Prophet was Black should be killed”—gain meaning. At stake in the silent race war between the Arabs and the Persian converts was the leadership of the Islamic Ummah.

Moreover, in with this background, the words of Al-Rumi find greater appreciation: “You (Abbasids) insulted (the family of the Prophet) because of their blackness while there are still deep black, pure-blooded Arabs. However, you are white-skinned – the Romans (Byzantines) have embellished your faces with their color.”

The misunderstanding of facts has led many Pan-Africanists to dismiss the Prophet and his community as White foreigners who came to enslave Africans. Though this rendering of history, as demonstrated here, is palpably false.

As the record shows, the Prophet of Islam and his early community were, indeed, Black.

28 COMMENTS

  1. This is a forceful commentary by Atiga Atingdui on the facts and fallacies about the original Arabs and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The article carefully traces the current notions of Islam, the Arabs and the Prophet in such cogent terms to a painful ideology of Whiteness (cum White Supremacist Unthinking) which also underscores and begets a similar discussion about the white-washing of the Christ and the original Hebrew in Christian Doctrine. In this piece, Atiga uses primary sources to make the strong point that the Arabs, up to and including the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were Black, and in fact, that they appreciated their Blackness in all its piety, candour, bravery, humility and beauty. Even more, these ancients took steps, such as further darkening the skin (ex. dyeing the skin and hair, tanning etc.), in order to greatly enhance their African origins. This is a must read for every African around the world. More, this should be current reading in all Mosques in Africa and in the African Diaspora.

  2. Powerful piece. Never before have I contemplated that the original Arabs were in fact Black. That the prophet Muhammad was Black. This is fascinating especially in the face of constructed religious wars across the continent and the middle east. I am actually encouraged by this revelation that Africa and African might yet come to terms quite frankly with the knowledge that we gave the world religion. This is awesome!

  3. Afrocentricism and revisionism are truly bizarre currents. Back in the 1920s JB Danquah wrote a fine tome in which he claimed the asantes were a remnant of the Babylonians. He too appealed to all sorts of linguistic contortions.

    • Are you implying that this is a linguistic contortion? Where is your evidence? Which part of the essay is?

    • With all due respect you need to be more alert. Let me help you. First, what we know about muhammed was written more than a century after his death. Just dwell on that and think about its implications. Second, the author cites a text that had you been alert would ring alarm bells; for example, the ”classic text” he cites (Suyuti’s Tarikh al-khulafa) was published circa.1881. He also cites al-Qadi Iyad (d. 1149) who inter alia writes “Whoever says that the Prophet is black should be killed. The Prophet was not black.” . But this quote does not amount to a support for Atiga’s claim, it only tells us that al-Qadi Iyad believed that the prophet was not black. Finally, apart from the missing genetic arguments, the terms black and african contentless.

  4. Powerful piece. Never before have I contemplated that the original Arabs were in fact Black. That the prophet Muhammad was Black. This is fascinating especially in the face of constructed religious wars across the continent and the middle east. I am actually encouraged by this revelation that Africa and African might yet come to terms quite frankly with the knowledge that we gave the world religion. This is awesome!

  5. Ayelam Valentine Agaliba it is because I know too well that the charge of revisionism would be used that I actually cited CLASSICAL sources. Do you suggest that those sources were revisionist sources? Listen, let’s not go too far with this, simply provide LITERARY documentation to dislodge my points and we can have a discussion. Anything beyond that is simply emotionalism on your part.

    You talk about a missing genetic argument? Have you really studied the Y Halpogroup of the African and the Middle East? There is no missing genetic argument unless you mean it was missing in the article. The genetics support the notion that the Arabs were Black

  6. Furthermore Ayelam Valentine Agaliba I hope you know the difference between something being PUBLISHED in English in 1881 from something being WRITTEN in classical times? Are we to assume that the Bible is barely 500 years old simply because King James published his version in the 17th century??

  7. No Ayelam Valentine Agaliba, you need to engage this discussion. You don’t get to make comments and then pass the button to fiction. You said I wasn’t alert. So, please I want to see your evidence. You must respond and tell us what the errors are! Or am I to conclude that that was just empty rhetoric from you?

  8. Ayelam Valentine Agaliba you haven’t been able to show me any error on my part yet? What you have successfully done is dabble in opinion- your opinion. I have listed primary sources, I have used actual historical events and words of the Prophet in an Hadith to prove my case. You have simply used electricity, a computer and fingers to type your opinion. That is it. You have offered no counter-arguments and no sources.

    You mistakenly believe that a book PUBLISHED in the English language in 1881 is tantamount to it being written in the 19th century although the actual writer lived centuries before this.

    I have asked you to supply your sources and to list your evidence so that we can discuss the issue further. You have failed to do that. You now seek an early exit from the discussion as it has now dawned on you that evidence is the name of the game.

    What I presented in the article is just Islam 101, I can easily move it up a notch or two with more sources and literary evidence. I am just waiting for you to make your first move.

  9. You are a very odd fellow. To balast your proposition that your prophet was an ”black” (whatever that means) you cite an apologetic tome written a thousand years after the fact and supplement this with what you call hadith. Pressumably these texts you cite are infallible. But if they are, where is the argument establishing their validity? You have none. All your sources are literary. In response to my point that your presentation lacks a genetic argumemt, you rather oddly make the claim (rather trite in my opinion) that arabs and africans are genetically related. But so what? All humans are related genetically if you go back far enough. And you seem to be confused. You have not established your proposition above as i tried to indicate. Also, I am not inclined to indulge your religious fantasies although no doubt they are sincerely held.

  10. Ayelam Valentine Agaliba you really have no credibility left. You write:

    “To balast your proposition that your prophet was an ”black” (whatever that means”)

    Well if you don’t know what it means then on what basis are you challenging it??? How can you deny or affirm the validity of issues of which you are ignorant?

    You further write:

    “you cite an apologetic tome written a thousand years after the fact ”

    That would be 1630 thereabout. I have not cited ONE source that dates to the 17th century, not one source. You still don;t know the difference between a published work in a language from the original work. I am afraid, if with all the examples I have given to highlight the difference, you still haven’t seen the light I can’t really help you in that department.

    You write:

    “Pressumably these texts you cite are infallible”

    Well we will never know if you fail to provide texts of your own or reasons to doubt the sources I provide. This has been my challenge to you all along.

    You further state:

    ” But so what? All humans are related genetically if you go back far enough. ”

    This is where you drop the ball altogether. In one breath you accuse my article of being inadequate because it lacks genetic evidence. Then when I cite genetic evidence you turn around and say “we are all related if you go back far enough”???? You are really a class act .

    I think we can safely assume that you have no basis to assail my sources. I will take it that the coffee you are drinking this morning is what gave you the exuberance to try rather than the power of your intellect.

  11. I loved this article for its straight to truth ethos. Your primary sources are excellent.

    The indigenous peoples of Arabia, including the Arabs, are African peoples. The Encyclopedia Britannica (9th Edition) correctly points this out:

    “(Regarding) [t]he origin of the Arab race…the first certain fact on which to base our investigations is the ancient and undoubted division of the Arab race into two branches, the ‘Arab’ or pure; and the ‘Mostareb’ or adscititions…A second fact is, that everything in pro-Islamitic literature and record…concurs in representing the first settlement of the ‘pure’ Arabs as made on the extreme south-western point of the peninsula, near Aden, and then spreading northward and eastward…A third is the name Himyar, or ‘dusky’…a circumstance pointing, like the former, to African origin. A fourth is the Himyaritic language language…(The preserved words) are African in character, often in identity. Indeed, the dialect commonly used along the south-eastern coast hardly differs from that used by the (Somali) Africans on the opposite shore…Fifthly, it is remarkable that where the grammar of the Arabic, now spoken by the ‘pure’ Arabs, differs from that of the north, it approaches to or coincides with the Abyssinian…Sixthly, the pre-Islamitic institutions of Yemen and its allied provinces-its monarchies, courts, armies, and serfs-bear a marked resemblance to the historical Africao-Egyptian type, even to modern Abyssinian. Seventhly, the physical conformation of the pure-blooded Arab inhabitants of Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and the adjoining districts-the shape and size of head, the slenderness of the lower limbs, the comparative scantiness of hair, and other particulars-point in an African rather than an Asiatic direction. Eighthly, the general habits of the people,-given to sedentary rather than nomade occupations, fond of village life, of society, of dance and music; good cultivators of the soil, tolerable traders, moderate artisans, but averse to pastoral pursuits-have much more in common with those of the inhabitants of the African than with those of the western Asiatic continent. Lastly, the extreme facility of marriage which exists in all classes of the southern Arabs with the African races; the fecundity of such unions; and the slightness or even absence of any caste feeling between the dusky ‘pure’ Arab and the still darker native of modern Africa…may be regarded as pointing in the direction of a community of origin.”

    Zayd b. Aslam also related once that the Prophet saw a vision and told his companions about it. He said: “I saw a group of black sheep and a group of white sheep then mixed with them [until the white sheep became so numerous that the black sheep could no longer be seen in the herd of sheep.] I (or Abu Bakr with angelic approval) interpreted it to mean that [the black sheep are the Arabs. They will accept Islam and become many. As for the white sheep, they are the non-Arabs (i.e. Persians, Turks, Byzantines, ect.)] They will enter Islam and then share with you your wealth and your genealogy [and become so numerous that the Arabs will not be noticed amongst them.]”

  12. Of course there are Black Arabs (and black middle easterners who are not Arabs), they existed before the Turk even came into existence. However, implying that Islam is the truth because it’s founder(s) was supposedly black is just as foolish as implying that Christianity, or Judaism are the truth because Jesus or Moses was also black. This is Moorish Science Temple level logic and keeps us entrapped in the philosophical cage of Abramism, of which these three main beliefs are a result

    The existence of these individuals and the veracity of their beliefs can be easily refuted with chronology, logic, and a little deep questioning on the part of the common sensical among us.

    I assume GA will also be letting Jerusalem/Rome oriented writers present their religious cases too right?

    • I have no idea what this has to do with the argument that the original Arabs and the Prophet were Black? This is not an argument of way back in history. You have to see how this helps Africa eradicate any negative feelings about Islam, or Christianity, or any Abrahamic religion. This is important to bring the the religions together in our minds to prevent the conflicts we are seeing around the world.

      • The purpose of this article (Much like the previous article written on Islam) can be summed up in a simple sentence: ‘Mohammad/ Islam was black so he/it must be alright!’. Please, this was the same rhetoric that came about in the 60’s and 70’s in the diaspora when churches over here started taking the idea of a ‘black’ Jesus seriously as a way to boost retention for their congregations. Tell me, why are we trying to eradicate negative feelings about Abramism again? Surely you don’t believe that the conflicts in Africa that exist today are based on arguments over which religious figure was supposedly Black and which wasn’t right? Part of the problem is that Africans have NO negative feelings whatsoever towards Abramism in any of it’s forms, however you and i both know we can quite quickly find plenty of animosity directed at our own ancestral religions.

        Please tell me how us bringing Abramism together in our minds is meant to stop Buddhists from massacring Muslims in SE Asia? Or stop shepherds in Pakistan from cutting off their daughters noses because they want to learn to read? Or end Somali Clan Warfare? Or give back the lips of the women who lost them to the LRA? If anything articles like this only would only serve to boost and legitimize the actions and morale of the Boko Harams and Al Shabaabs of our countries. Please tell me how is Mohamed supposedly being Black meant to help people who are not Black ‘See the light’?

        This is only as important as it demonstrates the ability of the early Turkish/’Middle eastern’/Arab/Jewish shepherd clans to assimilate and pervert certain aspects of our most ancient traditions and cultures to suit their own perverse desires. The earliest peoples of Tyre (A civilization that achieved something), Mesopotamia (A civilization that achieved something), and Babylon (A civilization that achieved something) were also Black, and had religions that both older and more comparable to our traditions than Abramism. Why don’t you want to eradicate negative feelings about them also?

  13. Im a muslim and I grew up in Ghana in Muslim societies where these things are either not thought of or people dont want to hear them… One of my scholars at Darkuman in Accra at Friday evening session where the life of prophet is often analyzed, made it clear that his parents were from south of the peninsula (Today’s Yemen) where the population before white arab expansion was clearly blacks of Amhari, Sudanese and somali type.

  14. why are we talking about colours? there is only one human race and colours are determined by the climate we live in. it’s proven that it takes 20 000 years for a human to change colour. continental drift would explain why people evolve as they do

  15. For instance, Al-Hasan b. Ahmad (d.1045), the great linguist and genealogist, was well known to be a pure Arab who took great pride in his Black complexion. In fact he was so proud of his color that he would often apply tar to his skin to justify his Arab heritage. He would also apply the same to his young son and have him sit outside in the sun to darken his complexion further. Some accounts suggest this is what eventually killed his son.

    this is not true at all becuase al Hassan b Ahmad was not an Arab, provide reference please. He was Persian.

    Al-Dhahabi (d. 1348) described the Banu Jumah clan as also being “Shadid al-udma,” meaning “excessively Black.” –

    Where did Al Dhahabi say so, give reference please

    i am not disputing your claim but your supporting evidences

  16. Great article, brother. This is African history that has been buried and suppressed for a long time. Even the Europeans acknowledged that the original people of Arabia were Black.

    *“The original inhabitants of Arabia…were not the familiar Arabs of our time but a very much darker people. A proto-negroid belt of mankind stretched across the ancient world from Africa to Malaya. This belt…(gave) rise to the Hamitic peoples of Africa, to the Dravidian peoples of India, and to an intermediate dark people inhabiting the Arabian peninsula. In the course of time two big migrations of fair-skinned peoples came from the north…to break through and transform the dark belt of man beyond India (and) to drive a wedge between India and Africa…The more virile invaders overcame the dark-skinned peoples, absorbing most of them, driving others southwards…The cultural condition of the newcomers is unknown. It is unlikely that they were more than wild hordes of adventurous hunters”* Bertram Thomas, historian and former Finance Minister of Muscat and Oman, reported in his work ‘The Arabs’:

    The only *Pure Arabs* are Banu Qahtani, the origin of Himyarites.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qahtanite

    *“Mr. Baldwin draws a marked distinction between the modern Mahomedan Semitic population of Arabia and their great Cushite, Hamite, or Ethiopian predecessors. The former, he says, ‘are comparatively modern in Arabia,’ they have ‘appropriated the reputation of the old race,’ and have unduly occupied the chief attention of modern scholars”* — Charles Hardwick (1872)

    *“The inhabitants of this part of Arabia nearly all belong to the race of Himyar. Their complexion is almost as black as the Abyssinians,”*– Baron von Maltzan, ‘Geography of Southern Arabia’ (1872)

    *“[the Hamida are] small chocolate colored beings, stunted and thin… with mops of bushy hair… straggling beards , vicious eyes, frowning brows … armed with scabbards slung over the shoulder and Janbiyyah daggers…” a people “of the great Hejazi tribe that has kept his blood pure for the last 13 centuries”* — Sir Richard Burton (1879)

    *“The people of Dhufar are of the Qahtan tribe, the sons of Joktan mentioned in Genesis: they are of Hamitic or African rather than Arab types”* –Arnold Wilson, The Geographical Journal (1927)

    *“The original inhabitants of Arabia…were not the familiar Arabs of our time but a very much darker people. A proto-negroid belt of mankind stretched across the ancient world from Africa to Malaya. This belt…(gave) rise to the Hamitic peoples of Africa, to the Dravidian peoples of India, and to an intermediate dark people inhabiting the Arabian peninsula. In the course of time two big migrations of fair-skinned peoples came from the north…to break through and transform the dark belt of man beyond India (and) to drive a wedge between India and Africa…The more virile invaders overcame the dark-skinned peoples, absorbing most of them, driving others southwards…The cultural condition of the newcomers is unknown. It is unlikely that they were more than wild hordes of adventurous hunters”* Bertram Thomas, historian and former Finance Minister of Muscat and Oman, reported in his work ‘The Arabs’:

    *“Mahra is the Arab name for the Bedouin tribes who are different in appearance to other Arabs, having almost beardless faces, fuzzy hair and dark pigmentation – such as the Qarra, Mahra and Harasis… Also on “…the Qarra, Mahra and Harasis with parts of other tribes. The language is derived from the language of the Sabaeans, Minaeans and Himyarites. The Mahra with other Southern Arabian peoples seem aligned to the Hamitic race of north-east Africa… The Mahra are believed to be descended from the Habasha, who colonized Ethiopia in the first millennium BC”* — David Phillips, Peoples on the Move (2001)

  17. Makes sense, though surprising. Ok, as for me, I need an EXPLANATION then UNDERSTANDING, as opposed to DECLARATION then BELEIVING.

    So my question is how did we come to look different? It is absurd to suppose that it happened overnight as it is to suppose that there was ever some boundary farther than which, people suddenly grew white, yellow, blue or whatever.

  18. So if there was no BARRIER seperating pple, pple won’t work up one day in a region and then begine to selectively breed themselves based on their collor. For populations to significantly differ to the extend of DISCRIMINATING each other (i.e to the extend of the difference being noticable), they must have spent considerable time in mutual isolation. This isolation, in turn could not happen without a significant BARRIER.

    The only barrier known in ancient times, capable of such, is oceans are few himalayan ranges and caucacian ranges. The sahara desert was yet to get survere enough. There was no such barrier between Somalia and Yemen (hence africa and arabia) any more than there is between Morroco and space. And just as it imply that there is then no much color difference between northern africa and europe. There isn’t rational explanation why there should be a color difference between east africa and arabia.

  19. But what if we suppose that the ‘whitening’ of Arabia was recent, much like the ‘whitening’ of Australia? Then a perfectly sensible explanation unfold! Ufter all, the modern time relationship between Somalia and Yemen via the Strait in Gulf Of Eden isn’t that analogous to that of Morroco and Spain via Gilblatra strait. Thanks to the sever desertification of sahara.

    Once upon a time, sahara was inhabitable and quite fertile. Only a nincompoop can beleive that africa was at then divided between the north and the sub saharan.

    However, Sahara alongside arabia did desertified, forcing people to flee. Some went to the sub sahara, some to europe and then some to oases and alongside rivers. Hencefort these groups begun to interact lesser and lesser.

    Something remarkable happened to those who went alongside rivers and oases. They had to stay closer to each other. So they formed the great civilizations of sumeria, egypt etc. Finaly, due to the prosperity along rivers, it attracted back those who had migrated.

  20. By this time, no sub saharan could move to arabia via suez canal region cause sahara was nolonger habitable. Farthermore, even in sudan, ethiopia and somalia is very unfriendly climate. Those who were in central parts of africa had a far tougher time getting to arabia as compared to say those who leaved at the north of caucacus (white pple developed in very far north). So obviously with time more and more ‘whites’ could easily come along turkey to arabia and even to north africa.

    Ergo I accept the ‘black arabia’ hypothesis not cause I have evidence of it, nor cause I am ‘afrocentrist’ but cause of its sheer explanatory power.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here