Black Spirituality Religion : The Problem w/ Afrocentricity (and You)

Discussion in 'Black Spirituality / Religion - General Discussion' started by ifasehun, May 11, 2003.

  1. ifasehun

    ifasehun Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19
    Delete
     
  2. Destee

    Destee destee.com STAFF

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    34,773
    Likes Received:
    8,979
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Ratings:
    +9,677
    Ifasehun ... Welcome! Thank you for joining us and sharing this and other information. Unfortunately, it is against our Forum Rules to include property that belongs to another, without including their permission with their property. Please review our Forum Rules. Examples are provided regarding how to properly include such content.

    Please edit your posts, removing the property (words) that belongs to someone other than yourself, or by adding their permission for their property to be on destee.com. Leaving their link and a few sentences of the article is fine, but don't cut and paste their entire page / article here. It is your words, your thoughts, we are most interested in.

    Again, thanks for joining us.

    :heart:

    Destee

    ps ... really enjoyed reading this. i do hope you have a link so other Family Members can enjoy it too ... or better yet, that these are your own words and they get to remain!
     
  3. ifasehun

    ifasehun Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19
    Destee, I saw your note in the other forum. This is totally and completely my own words. lol I dont know what would make you think otherwise.

    If I get something from a news site or website (other than the ones I own) than I will always make note.

    Again, the piece above is my own. I wrote it for another message board and decided to share it here.

    I was just struck by all the Islam and Christianity talk in what I thought was an afrocentric/pan-african board and thought the balance was needed.

    Ifasehun O.
     
  4. Matchbook Lady

    Matchbook Lady Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Peace

    I read every word for the first three paragraphs, and skimmed through the rest....

    You kinda confused me with your post...you say:


    If I'm not mistaken, the Kemetic spirituality was already "gone" by the time the term "Arab" even emerged.....In fact, Egypt, Ethiopia and many other African countries already had Coptic Christians inhabiting them, before Islam made its appearance....

    To say that afrocentricity does not deal with Allah or Jesus (pbuh), I think, is an insult to the great African culture....regardless of whether the name of this "God" was AmenRa, Allah, or what-have-you, the point is that Kemetic Spirituality dealt with ONE Supreme Being.....The African man and woman are the parents of all the people on earth, and I do not believe that you can say they worshipped any other God than the God of the righteous Jews, Christians and Muslims....


    Peace
     
  5. ifasehun

    ifasehun Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19
    islam is not afrocentric. arabs were the first to enslave africans. (traditional africa)

    it is indeed a matter of record that the earliest forms of islam were in existence while the dynasties of Egypt (classical africa) were still intact. they were brutal and savage in their attempts JUST LIKE europeans to take culture, instead of exchanging it.

    if you would like a bibliography of well researched books which reference black and arabic historians alike that back up my assertion- pm me.
     
  6. ifasehun

    ifasehun Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19
    u know while i am on the topic, let me be more direct:


    afrocentric - derived from african spirituality and ethnicity.
    arabic - derived from arabic spirituality and ethnicity.

    arabs: first to enslave african.

    arabs: only region of the world that continues to enslave africans.

    arabs: arabic men rape both men and women, using us as both servants and bisexual slave toys.

    arabs: destroyed and drove away africans from n. africa in an attempt to lay claim to something that is not theirs.

    arabs: were considered untrustworthy and generally bad mannered by the original inhabitants of Kemet.

    arabs: consider the original religion and culture of their former hosts and victims to be heathenistic - that is after they took what knowledge they could from it.

    arabs: spread islam throughout africa by baiting greedy and unethical kings and when that didnt work - by sword.

    arabs: still discriminate against their black populace - making it one of the worst regions in the world for africans to live in, for nearly 3,000 years straight.
     
  7. Destee

    Destee destee.com STAFF

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    34,773
    Likes Received:
    8,979
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Ratings:
    +9,677
    Your own words??!! Oh My Ifasehun ... You're Exciting Me! :wink:

    Thank you so much for setting me straight on this. I wasn't trying to offend you by inquiring if they were your words or not. If i did, i do apologize. Very nicely written. Please give us more!

    :heart:

    Destee
     
  8. Monetary

    Monetary going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,299
    Likes Received:
    182
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Economist
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    Home Page:
    Ratings:
    +236
    ifasehun

    I agree with you on this issue. I know a Sista who says that she's Afrikan centered and not Afrocentic because she actually practices an Afrikan religion, speaks several Afrikan languages, and participates in Afrikan culture.

    That makes sense to me. However, I do believe that we need to take a closer look at our Afrikan religions or the Afrikan way of life. Most people including my friend usually participate in the Yoruba tradition, culture, religion...specifically Vudon. If there are other types or forms of Afrikan religions that exist, I do not know of them.

    Do you know of any other types or forms of Afrikan religions?
     
  9. ifasehun

    ifasehun Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19
    list of African Religions currently practiced in U.S.

    Religion - Origin - Approx Arrival In U.S. - Founding Priest/Chief

    Akan - Ghana/Togo - 60s - Dinizulu

    Orisa - Yoruba, Nigeria - Slavery & Later in 70s when Castro released POWs into America and other took flight voluntarily and finally in 90s when several AF-AMs went to Africa to bring back certain initiations and shrines. - many lineages/ many founders of these lineages (Oyotunji is only lineage in U.S. exclusive to AF-AMs - founder is Adefunmi Oseijiman)

    Other "types" of Orisa include: Santeria/Lucumi & Anago

    Vodun - 3 types: Dahomian (includes worship of Mami Wata), Haitian, New Orleans - all discinct from the others, all derived originally from Dahomian (Dahomey/Benin/Togo/Ghana regions) - many lineages/many founders - slavery/80s when AF-AMs went to Africa for initiations.

    Kemetian - Egypt/Kemet - 70s/80s - Ra Un Nefer Amen only kemetian system recognized as authentic by other african religions is Ausar Auset Society. NO OTHER type is recognized as valid by traditional standards.

    Palo - Congo/Central Africa - slavery - founders unknown - often practiced side by side by some Orisa-Lucumi and Vodun devotees. very powerful. must be received before Orisa/ Vodun initiations.

    Candomble (Orisa derivative exclusive to S. America)- Brazil - slavery - founder unknown, many lineages by now. Arrived in U.S. in 70s/80s with brazilian immigrants, here to stay

    Macumba - S. America/Brazil - founder unknown, many lineages by now. Arrived in U.S in 80s.

    a few others but names slip me. these are the most prominent.

    there are estimated to be over 10,000 traditional african religion devotees in the U.S.

    african religion devotees make up the 7th largest religious groupings in the world. and are about the 3-5th fastest growing group in the world.

    african religion is practiced in: G. Britian, U.S. S. AMerica, Mexico, Netherlands, Australia, Hawaii, Cuba, Trinidad/Tabago, Jamaica, India, Japan, Germany, Austria, and many othe places by blacks, asian and yes, even some whites. (thats a long story..for another day.)
     
  10. Aqil

    Aqil Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,029
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +114
    It is ridiculous to believe that Arabs enslaved Africans. The kafir (infidel) conceals the truth and speaks with forked tongue. To believe this is like believing in Christmas, i.e., fiction. The increasing incidence by those who reject faith of publicly accusing Arabs of enslaving Africans must be in response to the fact that conversions to Islam is highest amongst the African-American communities in America and African communities in Europe.

    In other words, the kafir's devious strategy of enslaving Africans, taking them away from Islam and Arabic - the religion and language of their enslaved ancestors; brainwashing them into cannibalism, e.g., bread and wine being the flesh and blood of Christ; and making them superstitious and backwards with mumbo-jumbo superstitious beliefs in Christmas, Easter, etc., has failed after 500 years of trying.

    If we use this stupid logic that Arabs were slavetraders and slavedealers, then the first Africans the Arabs would have enslaved would have been Falashas - the African Jews! But instead we find that the Falashas have been largely unmolested by anyone, unlike their Jewish co-religionists in Europe, which also undermines Western claims that Africa is tribalistic and barbaric and European intervention saved them from barbarism.

    Africans are physically the strongest of all the nations/tribes on the Earth. The Arabs are not. The oil-rich Arab countries are totally dependent on military personnel (mercenaries) from Europe, America and Pakistan for their defense from fellow Muslims in Iraq and Iran! The only people who had the strength to take on Africans and enslave Africans were Africans themselves - not the Arabs and not the Europeans.

    The Africans who did the enslaving were Christian Africans. During European slavery, "Scramble for Africa" and colonization, Christian Ethiopia was the only African state that was left virtually untouched by European colonization. In fact, its empire doubled in size during the "Scramble for Africa"!

    In the book, The Triumph of the West by J.M. Roberts, there is a map of the world showing those parts of the globe that came under Western domination by 1914. Ethiopia stands out like a sore thumb, and so does Liberia and Sierra Leone, which were Christian states created by Britain and America for the settlement of intellectually, morally- and spiritually-weak Africans who had been christianized!

    Africans are physically the strongest nation on Earth. The Arabs are not. The famous Islamic scholar Al-Jihaz (778-868 AD) wrote of the physical superiority of the Africans nations over all other nations. For example, he states:

    "We Blacks have conquered the country of the Arabs as far as Mecca and governed them. The desert swarm with the number of our men who married your women and who became chiefs and defended you against your enemies. You even have sayings in your language which vaunt the deeds of our kings - deeds which you often placed above your own; this you would not have done had you not considered them superior to your own. We defeated Dhu Nowas (Jewish ruler of Yemen) and killed all the Himyarite princes, but the Arabs and whites (from Europe) have never conquered our country. Our people, the Zenghs (an African race), revolted forty times in the Euphrates, driving the inhabitants from their homes. Blacks are physically stronger. A single one of them can lift stones of great weight, and carry burdens such as several whites could not lift nor carry between them. They are brave, strong...these good traits are the gifts of God."

    When Prophet Muhammad (saw) was born (in the "Year of the Elephant"), Abraha Al-Arsham, the self-styled emperor of Ethiopia and Yemen, tried to attack the Kaaba at Mecca with a force of 40,000 men, cavalry and armored elephants. The Arabs could not fight the Ethiopians, nor could they even defend their own territory. The Arabs fled on their camels to the top of the mountains. It was only through divine intervention that the Arabs were saved. Allah (swt) sent thousands of little birds from the sea each with a stone on which was engravened the name of an Ethiopian soldier to bombard the enemy.

    Millions of Arabs are unable to fight a handful of Zionists in Palestine today, even though the Arabs have a numerical (population) and financial (oil wealth/petro-dollars) advantage. So how can Arabs have enslaved a physically stronger nation when they cannot even fight and displace an occupier who is described in the Qur'an as people who turn their back on you (i.e., cowards) when it comes to fighting?

    The Iraqis "fought" and surrendered in the Gulf War, compared with how the Afghans and Vietnamese fought to the death or until victory was achieved against Russia and America respectively. Yet, his story books tell us that Arabs are the people who enslaved Africans!

    Soon after the death of Prophet Muhammad (saw), the Arabs broke out of the Arabian Peninsula and went into Egypt to free the indigenous Egyptian population from the tyranical rule of the Romans. In 643 AD, Abdullah, the new Arab governor-general (viceroy) of Egypt, decided to go into the heartland of Africa against Ethiopia with a larger and better-equipped army. However, the Arabs suffered a major and massive military defeat at the hands of the Ethiopians, where the whole Arab army was wiped out. An Arab historian of the period felt compelled to admit that it was the most devastating defeat ever suffered by an Arab army. Thereafter, the Arabs became more cautious, changed direction and proceeded with revealing the Last Message along the North African coast, crossing into Spain in 711 AD. However, Ethiopia remained the only Christian state in Africa until the arrival of the European colonialists. (Read The Destruction of Black Civilization by Chancellor Williams.)

    By the time slavery had started in the 1400s, the Arabs had become significantly weakened as a military force by the Western Crusades (1095-1250s) and the Eastern Crusades, namely the Christian-backed Mongol invasion that culminated in the sacking of Baghdad in 1258. Their military response to these successive invasions can best be described as pathetic. The Arabs were saved only by the intervention of non-Arab Muslims, e.g., Saladin Ayyub from Kurdistan, the Mamelukes (Muslim kinsmen to the non-Muslim Mongols and Tartars), and then the Ottomans who took over the Caliphate. The Arabs were in no position to enslave other people after suffering such bruising attacks from Central Asia.

    When Islamic rule was at the height of its splendor in India, there was a considerable influx of African Muslims from east Africa, coming as traders and mercenaries, and settling in the Deccan (east of Bombay) and Bengal region. In time they emerged from the mass to form the backbone of armies, and became prime ministers, great military and naval commanders, hereditary admirals, and, in several instances, sultans. Under their own commanders they eventually became the source of central power.

    Their presence brought them into conflict with the Afghan, Turkish and Mughal rulers of North, Central and East India. The Afghans, who have a fiercesome reputation for fighting, being the only Muslim country to have successfully fought off colonialism by beating Britain - an imperial power - three times, and then a perceived superpower, Russia, the first time Russia steps outside the Warsaw Pact. However, even Afghan chiefs were unable to beat the African Muslims in south India and Bengal, even when they outnumbered them four to one.

    Relatively speaking, European and American armies are physically weak and cowards, and are totally dependent on heavy protection (armor-plating, helmets, bullet-proof equipment, etc.) because they fear death, and their hypocritical chattering classes fear body bags. Their soldiers have to get drunk just to pluck up enough courage to chat with loose women in a bar.

    They don't like fighting man-to-man in a field and away from built-up areas, and so resort to attacking civilian infrastructure such as roads, bridges, power stations, women, children (collateral damage), because these "targets" can't and don't hit back. Their technology is "stand-off," where they can fire projectiles without even seeing the enemies' eyes. Whenever there is TV/video footage of American/British policemen beating up an African-American or African-Caribbean, the African is always outnumbered by his attackers, because his attackers are too scared to take him on man-to-man, or one-on-one.

    Some of the cities in which Africans have a large presence in America and Europe are known as "no-go areas," because the indigenous population fear them. So if the white man fears walking through his own land, how could he have traveled to the dark continent to enslave Africans, having only just discovered the world is not flat and that monsters do not inhabit the sea?

    Britain could not fight the Chinese, so they introduced opium as a way of weakening them. In order to rule and maintain its empire, Britain created the two-million strong British Indian Army - the largest all-volunteer army ever created in the history of mankind - consisting of the so-called martial races of South Asia. This army was deployed against the Muslims of Africa, the Ottomans, even fellow Asians (the Chinese in the Opium Wars). In World War I, Britain had to resort to conscription because not enough men came foward to fight, whilst in its colonies, the natives of India volunteered. Now they are recruiting women to fight on the front-line.

    Sitting Bull, the Leader of the Teton Sioux (ca. 1831 to 1890) said: "We have now to deal with another race - small and feeble when our fathers first met them, but now great and overbearing..." The Americans could not fight the Native American Indians man-to-man, and so fought them indirectly by wiping out the buffalo that the Indians were totally dependent on for food, clothing, milk, transport, trade, etc. Another tactic was the use of germ warfare, i.e., deliberately infecting the Native Americans with European diseases.

    The debacle in Vietnam and Somalia is further evidence of their weakness and cowardice. In fact, when men like Martin Luther King came on the scene it was at a time when the war in Vietnam was stepping up, and men were needed to fight in Vietnam. They wanted African-Americans to fight their war in Vietnam (to which Dr. King vehemently disagreed) because they themselves are cowards. People like Clinton fled to Europe to avoid the call-up, or, as he says, because of his conscience towards the war, though his conscious does not extend to bombing defenseless Muslims in Iraq. Thus the head of the American Armed Forces is a coward. Black men like Martin Luther King wanted equality for African-Americans, and once achieved, they could then go and fight in Vietnam as equal citizens of America! African-American Muslims - like Muhammed Ali - saw through this trick.

    As to the Gulf War - the Arabs are not a formidable fighting force today and hence their reliance on mercenaries. Indeed they are so desperate they even rely on cowardly kafir mercernaries for their protection! Some of these kafir armies are having to recruit women to fight on the front-line because their own men don't want to fight.

    It took hundreds of years for mechanized European armies to colonize the whole of Africa. For example, in the Ashanti Wars of the early 19th century, the British tried to occupy the hinterland of the Gold Coast (now called Ghana). There were eleven major wars in this conflict. The Ashanti won all of them except the last. In these wars, Ashanti generals - and we should call them generals because they were more than equal to the British generals who failed to conquer them - stopped the inland encroachment of the British. In 1896 the British exiled the Ashanti King Prempeh, but still were unable to take over completely the hinterland of the Gold Coast. The British still did not give up their desire to establish their authority in the interior of the country, and avenge the many defeats they had suffered at the hands of Ashanti. It took the British nearly a century of fighting with the Ashanti before they gained total control of the region.

    So if mechanized British troops had so much difficulty colonizing a coastal region, how did Arabs manage to enslave millions of Africans and sell them into slavery?

    When Britain colonized Egypt they began fighting with Muhammad Ahmad (The Mahdi of Sudan), an African Muslim. The British organized three mechanized armies against Ahmad, namely the Anglo-Egytian Army, the British Indian Army and the Ottoman Army. Ahmad and his followers were only armed with swords and spears. In one ecounter, Ahmad and the African Muslims massacred all 10,000 Arabs of the Anglo-Egyptian Army.

    One of Britain's best generals, a coward by the name of Charles Gordon, was killed. Britain then had to send another one of its elite generals (a sodomite called Kitchner) to destroy the Sudanese Muslims. It took a mechanized army to destroy Muhammad Ahmad and his followers. Winston Churchill was a reporter at the time and his dispatches describe the sheer bravery of the African Muslims, who fought to the death against the might of combined modern armies from Egypt, Britain and India without fear or cowardice. (Read Scramble for Africa)

    When America, a perceived superpower, went into the east African country of Somalia for so-called peace-keeping duties, their military was forced out by young Somalis. American soldiers armed to the teeth - with all their sophisticated weaponry - could not take on African boys. So whoever enslaved Africans had to be physically strong. Otherwise, as boxer Mike Tyson has shown, an angry African can easily bite your ear off! When Britain fought against the "Mad Mullah" in Somalia, they were joined by 10,000 Christians from Ethiopia.

    No one but Africans could have enslaved Africans, and it was Christians Africans who were taking Muslim Africans captives and selling them to the Europeans at the coast.

    There was a crusade/jihad taking place between African Muslims and African Christians. It is unbelievable and illogical to believe that Muslims would sell prisoners of war to their enemies, particulary as the enemies are Christians from Europe who had recently ended the 700-year-old Moorish civilization in Spain, and are now conquering Muslim North and West Africa.

    Moreover, in a jihad prisoners of war and their property are considered as lawful war booty and the property of the Amir and the Islamic state that the Amir distributes to enhance the power of the state, and reward those who have given their resources and lives in jihad. This is the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (saw). Did he ever sell the war booty to his enemies, thereby weakening his power and strengthening the enemies' power? Of course not. Prisoners of war are valuable because there is reward for converting them to Islam, as marital partners, as servants, as ransom, etc. In each case the quantity and strength of Muslims increases.

    Don't believe the hype...
     
Loading...