Make your own free website on
By Faison Moamin
In the beginning...", there were no records of events. I will not concern my self with the biological, microscopic, chemical origins of life; for they have no relevance on the spiritual weight of the conception of origins. It is obvious (or it should be to the educated person), that we, as scientists and existentialists can look for, and find, the beginnings of mankind, by studying the evolutionary process in reverse. We come to several anthropological conclusions : 1)Man is an animal, regardless of what you consider yourself 2)Our current state of evolution ( or you could say mutation: it just depends on your point of view!) is a sum of melleniums of compounded physical and mental changes. 3) Another and the last on my list, civilization is traced to Africa, not Greece, as some half-informed scholars would lead you to believe, ( the oldest and first reamains of "humans" have been found deep in Africa.....)

Like I said before, the scientific view of origin has little spiritual weight, but let it be seen that this does not necessarily mean a contradiction to so called holy origins; it just helps us to look at the facts in different light. The Bible tells us in Genesis, that the first person was made from dirt. The Holy Quran also tells us that we were made from a clot of mud : the Qu'ran even gives more states it was black mud ( oh yeah..., If true knowledge of self is righteousness, because god created us in Gods image, then it would be logical to deduce that the closer to the original stock , the closer one might be to Allahs nature...both genetically and spiritually inclined ) . Like I said, in the beginning there, were no records. Who then is this inspired writer of the tales in Genesis.? I'll tell you..,...; it's not one person, but the sum of stories part truth/part fiction handed down from century to century. What tongue they were first spoken in, is by now, purely historical speculation; and so is, to what peoples we can attribute many of the Genesis stories to. But the validity of these stories is not so important as is how and why we believe them, and to what extent.

The year is 1995, and there has been for nearly twenty years, proof of what pre-cromaganum man looked like, and where this fool lived. But I cant go into a so called religious book store, without seeing two white-as-snow, long stringy haired woman, thin lipped thin nosed man, (which offends me both racially and academically) with the names Adam and Eve underneath! Why cannot most professed theologians accept the fact that God had to have made "cavemen", or should I say that: Gods will must have been in that first ugly man (or maybe woman) that would no longer live in the trees. I would also like to add that "cavemen" were of no particular race or creed, due mainly to the fact that they hadn't been on the scene long enough to differentiate at that time ( what an anthropologist might refer to as environmental/climatological adaption.....or as Elijah Muhammad might say " depressive resessive mutation.... ). This, to me ,only helps to clear up a point of many arguments concerning the "original race". If you see that these first animal-human people were of no particular "race", it is easy to see how mankind can have so many diverse ethnocentricities; and it is also clear that there was no black, no white, no yellow or red people, they were just tan, ugly, and pretty dumb, but the archeological fact still remains the same...they were from the African continent, and later spread outward...thusly they aptly coined term "Asiatic Black man" . Logic ( along with melanin content ) dictates that the first "peoples" to emerge out of those ancient humanoids could have been nothing but black...prety simple. That simple fact is why I say, there is no contradiction between the scientific and religious thought. The scientific viewpoint usually ends up filling in the gaps between what religious stories teach us and what science shows us. During the ancient times when these Genesis/Torah(nical) stories were being told, no one knew of evolution, carbon dating, or even the shape of the continent on which he/she lived. You know what I think...I think God/Allah let some person (probably persons) know about the beginnings of mankind; I believe Allah put these truths in some ancient mans brain, but how can we expect this ancient person to grasp such concepts of physical and genetical changes due to environment and time, and evolutionary forces. I cannot explain the the importance of Uranium isototope #235 in the events leading to nuclear fission, to a eight year old child; likewise how can God explain the origins of man to a person living in ancient pre-history (written history that is). Therefore you cannot downplay the unrealistic events depicted in Genesis, for it was depicted as best as the wisest man could contemplate at that time. We must see these original stories as not grounds for denial and dispute, but as testimonies to the power of God , for God put those thoughts in the mind of the first person telling the story of the first men and women. For it is self -showing truth, that nothing is thought, unless Allah allows it.

Since I am on the discussion of things in Genesis (of the Christian Bible), there is a story that I think needs some long overdue clarification. The story concerning the 'curse Of Canaan' (Genesis 10:14 chap 9) has had a particularly horrific history of being misinterpreted due to a blatant lack of education. I'm sure you must be thinking, 'what horrific history', well..I'll tell you. During the slavery era, many of the supporters of "that peculiar institution", based their so-called God given right to hold slaves without any moral objections; on this curse. Lets examine this story first.

As the Bible would have it ( the issue was later clarified in the Quran), Noah had three sons; Shem ,Ham and Japheth. it is from these sons that the new groups of mankind allegedly came from after the great deluge...let us stop for a moment and ponder this.

The Bible...which has long been a staple of many historical research ( although much of it is contradictory and kinda shady in its current transliteration ) teaches that the "races" stem from the offspring of Noahs sons: ...question.......can a white person produce a black child without any previous non-white ansectory.....answer...NOPE. Both genetic law and common sense dictate that the dominant racial trait is that of (for lack of a better word ) Negroid..not Caucasoid. My wife and I can possibly have a child either lighter or darker than we are,,,but a white person with no recent black forefronts, can NOT produce a darker baby..geneticaly impossible! If the "father" of blacks ( Ham ) is both shem and Japhets brother, then logic would deduce Noah himself was of some even more ancient African/black racial stock..just think about it.

Anyway, as the biblical story would have it; one day Noah got drunk ( and he was supposed to be a very highly respected prophet! ) and passed out naked inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan. saw this and went outside to tell his two brothers. Upon hearing this, Shem and Japheth got a piece of cloth and walked backwards with it on their shoulders, and covered Noah with it; all the while making sure they didn't look at him naked. When Noah finally woke up andmust be realized is just "who" are these offspring. One thousand years after the curse , the first negro nation to fall under the curse was Gibeon (Amorites and Hivites, Duet, 7:11; Josh 9:2-3,7,15-16, 21-27;10:1-12). If you don believe me read the verses for yourselves, thats why I bothered to include them. Anyway....,later the Israelites left Egypt as slaves to seek to find a homeland, which was to lead to their massacre of the Canaanites. Even later, the land was invaded by the Greeks and Romans ( Gen. 10: 1-5). As is clearly shown, Noahs curse was indeed fulfilled. The curse on Canaan ended around 450 AD, following Romes withdrawal from Palestine. No longer were the Canaanite peoples under a Japhite or Hebraic rule. Through intermingling of the races (Gen. 34:21 the Canaanites began to be undecernable from the Israelite settlers. Oh yeah, Israelite doesnt necessarily mean Jewish..and vicee-versa. The term Jew is only applied to the descendants of the tribe of Judah..there were eleven others according to both Biblical/Quranic sources.

The main thing that is over looked is one simple fact; Ham had four sons, not just Canaan. The curse only says it is cursing the decedents of Canaan. Read it in whatever version of the Bible you chose ( I used the King James, New International, and Standard ), just Canaans peoples were affected, not Cush's ,Mizraim's or Phut's. Cush's decsendents were the Ethiopians, Mizraim's-the Egyptians, and Phut-the Libyans.

Centuries later, here comes the Europeans and North Americans invading west and Northern Africa, trying to say they were just fulfilling the biblical curse, or even more inane , that the color of Blacks itself was the "curse". Come on now, the slaves on the coasts of ports like Ghana, and Ethiopia arnt decedents of Canaan, but rather Cush and Mizriam. African blacks, and black Canaanites are totally separate peoples, it just takes a little research to see this. Anyway, the curse on Canaans offspring had been over and done with twelve centuries before they (slave holders/traders) even stepped on the scene. As you can see they simply didn't know what they were talking about.; neither do the present day Mormons (in the book of Mormon, a main premise is the lower status of blacks due to the "curse"). You would think that time would dwindle ignorance but sadly, that does not seem to be the case.

There have been several attempts twist the truth and facts to suit the theological views of Europeans in every time period, because unfortunately , every time period has recently been ruled by peoples of European decent, with Eurocentric thinkings. Many foolish people will say that the color of biblical characters (including Jesus) matters little, but if you stop to think about the heavy psychological implications of showing one particular race as having all of Gods favorite people in it you would be ignorant to deny the collective power it gives to that particular power. King James as well as many of the prefects of Rome and leaders of the early churches knew this and chose to redirect truth with strokes of ink and pen, ( the Vatican even decided to move the holy city from Jerusalem to Europe!! man,, give me a break!) Fortunately , in this century of discovery and free access to unbiased information ( internet included...), it is only the unwise or uncaring that chose not see and learn for themselves. It is easy to see those in positions of educational enlightenment who would rather see falsehoods continue...they always seem to be accusing newer scholars of being the dreaded "revisionists".Let the reader check my facts, for that is what they are. I'm not even going to get into the whole misrepresentation of Egyptians/kemites (descendents of Ham!) as portrayed as white folks, cause thats another paper. ..

Where was I, yes.. still dealing with the Old Testament. Like I said earlier, the studying of the Bible in a historical light reveals remarkable understandings and further enhances the reverence for God, not lessens it. I'm not going to discuss each of the stories in the old testament, it will suffice to say, that almost all can be backed up by other non-religious historical texts. I feel the most significant thing in the whole Old testament was the revelation of Gods laws to Moses/Musa. These are the basis of a truly righteous life. Fortunately the last revelation from God/Allah was given to the prophet Muhammed in the Qu'ran. It is the Qu'ran that clears up many of the inconsistencies between the scriptures of the Talmud of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Jesus ( as re-recorded in the Bible that is).

Each commandment must be followed to live a holy life. No if ands or Buts. The Holy Qu'ran re-reveals these 'these truths to be self -evident'. The Qu'ran tells that these laws were given in the Torah to the Jews, and later in the Bible to the Christians; but they both seemed to stray from is stipulations. If you look at history, it seems that the Christians have always liked to view themselves as the upholders of truth and righteousness, but in reality they have often been the wickedness of all the peoples on the earth! You know what really angers me?; it's that if any of the historical hypocrites had even bothered to try to adhere to all the commandments, many of there so-called "in the name of god" actions would never have been committed. Like what, you might ask, well.. how about murder for starters:

King Leopold in a mere twenty years killed 18 million blacks, yet as a defender of the Lords word, he was considered an epitome. By order of several kings during the Middle ages, the fanatical..oh sorry, i meant "holy"..crusades were a way that almost anybody who was willing could go kill some Arab (in there own country, not bothering nobody) and get a little fame, fortune and some prestige. The worst thing about the whole business (like the Spanish inquisition) was that the alleged representative of God-on-earth (the Pope) gave his blessing for all of it. What kinda shit is that.??!! Like i said, if they would have only lived by what was written none of it would have happened. But if you notice, just like today Christians (most especially Catholics) claim to be the historical holders of some profound spiritually. I don't think so.

Since I am using the word Christian frequently, I like to say something regarding it. If someone were to ask me what is my denomination I would have to say Muslim, Usually this is followed by the asinine question 'do you believe in the same God?'. Of course I believe in God/Allah, what many fail to realize, until it is to late, is that gods word speaks not just to particular religion or denomination, but it is to all. We only have sects, cults, factions, denominations, because of differences in "interpretation" f the Scriptures (Torah, Bible, Koran) We would not have any differences if you would study, research, and just read what it says, instead of just going by what is the norm where ever you are. The point I am trying to get to concerning Christians is this...: the first commandment of Moses from god says not to have any god but god. To diefy any living thing that walked this earth is totaly inconsistant with all scripture...and I dont give a damn about the decions of the Necean council, or its contradictory Pauline teachings. There are none worthy of association with God/ matter how great a prophet. No if ands or buts.

During the translation of the original all-Greek texts of the New testament into the Latin (Vulgate) many a hand stirred the pot of truth ( i just made up that saying, too....see how easy it is to "make things up'). The Catholics who had this ancient Bible , did not allow the common worshiper to read it or even see it. During this time of unethical hoarding of knowledge, a council of the pope and church officials came up with the idea of the "Holy Trinity" ( go check out the Trinitarian council and the Necaen council of 325 A.D.....its some crazy stuff! ) . Yet again, I gotta say..."what kinda shit is that??! This blatantly goes against the first commandment of the Bible. In John 5:7 and speaks of the Trinitarian concept...but this particular passage is not found in any original Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century ( remember the King James version of the bible was re-compiled in 1611) , hmmmm strange indeed. The word Trinity isn't even in the Bible!, Jesus never said it , mostly it is an agreed upon untruth fostered by Pauline teachings ( who never even meet Jesus of Nazarene ! ) accepted by Constitine , and interjected by means of mis-translation. I agree it makes for interesting meatphysical and philosophical ponderings but it is not truely Biblical and it definitely wasn't Jesus's gospel. Pure-D fiction.

This interesting , but not factual based conception ( keep in mind that the common worshiper of the time couldn't check it out for themselves) led to the eventual diafication of Jesus as more than a prophet or a man of God, although most Christians seek to place him in some unreal equal union with Allah. Show me where any Bible says literally that Jesus is God and I'll say your a good magician because it is in none. There fore I cannot call my self a Christian because I refuse to place Jesus as Gods equivalent, the Bible don't say so , the Torah and Koran definitely don't say so, so I sure as hell aint going to say so. I don't call myself a Muhammadan, because he was just a prophet, i don't call myself a Mosesian because he was just a prophet, I cannot call my a Rastafarian or Buddhist because they were simply prophets of wisdom, nor can I call myself a Christian because he ( Jesus..and his last name wasnt Christ) was the holiest and best but yeah...he was just a prophet too.

I think what I am trying to get across, is that the title you chose to place on the sum of your religious beliefs, should be annualized for what it truly is, not what it has come to represent. Do not lend your soul so easily to secular causes, lend it only to the coinciding truths of all of Gods words. I must reiterate one of my main ideas: if you simply fall into the rut of spiritual practices that were presented to you as a child, how can this represent a truly learned perspective.

One thing that I've noticed in many Christians (more so in the Black population) is a total emersion of the psuedo-religious teachings of the local church. I say psuedo-religious only to point out that what is generally preached are social behavior patterns ( such as how to treat each other, what type of women to avoid, even the assumed benefits of giving money to your particular church) these things truthful or fabricated moralities, they are nevertheless not spiritual teachings. It seems that the uncaring or unnoticing worshipper fails to see the distinction between what is physiological molding and what is spiritual nurturing. I always like to remember a particularly good quote by a general of the Persian army in during the his debates with the Roman archbishops ( debating the validity of the Bible versus the Koran )...he said " one learned man is harder on the Devil than a thousand ignorant worshippers."

To do right or attempt to lead a spiritual life is not an easy task, especially in a society so conducive to an immoral one. The rewards of such self -imposed discipline are not always easily noticed, but I tell you; they soon will be!. You would be a fool to ignore the everyday happenings and events that have taken place in the last 100 years. I will not gops ( debating the validity of the Bible versus the Koran )...he said " one learned man is harder on the Devil than a thousand ignorant worshippers."

To do right or attempt to lead a spiritual life is not an easy task, especially in a society so conducive to an immoral one. The rewards of such self -imposed discipline are not always easily noticed, but I tell you; they soon will be!. You would be a fool to ignore the everyday happenings and events that have taken place in the last 100 years. I will not go into the specifics here, but there have been too many instances that could be called prophetic fulfillments to be easily ignored. I warn all to recognize evil for what it is and to avoid it. I can completely understand the statement that, the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God, cause if you would just sit back and think about all the crazy stuff in the world (especially North America) you would not procrastinate in trying to get on the side of righteousness. And from my point of view (historically/Islamicly/Rastafarically/ Biblically/and deductively) the outlook is decidedly grim for Caucasians.

It has been my experience that those individuals who start to perceive the difference ( some even return to their childhood denominations, but with a new perspective and understanding ) have to break away from their "normal " practices to see what is truth. As one can easily notice.. the souls maturity and growth follows similar to the maturity of growth for the child leaving home. Unfortunately they usually do not happen at the same time.

I can fairly say that from my interaction with all ages and walks of life that most do not see the so called light until their early forties, why I do not know ( there have never been men prophetic men who were young). I have been blessed with insight , and It is my only hope that God/Allah continu to guide my understanding of all matters..and it also my wish that I can help, no matter how minutely,, any other person to contemplate God in all things.

I guess in summary , I couldn't put it more simply than some lyrics from a Peter Tosh song..."all ya gotta do is live clean and good and let ya works be seen...cause Im a man of the past, living in the present..praying fo the future."

All praises are due to Allah......the mistakes are only mine.