Muhammad Rasheed's Blog, page 194

The Depressing State of the Coon

What is "cooning?"

"Cooning" is when a self-hating African-American plays the fool for a White audience in exchange for the limited social acceptance the latter are willing to give within their racial hierarchy. Black people who act this way are referred to as "coons" by other disgusted Blacks, who view the behavior as treacherous in nature.

Coons typically live by an extreme, depressing "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" personal philosophy, and believe that willingly accepting a life of demeaning race-based social inferiority is the only way to "make it" in a society dominated by the White Supremacist Ideology of the West. The alternative is to fight against a fundamentally unfair anti-Black system, which is very difficult. The likely risk of death, loss of property, and even the risk of losing the minimum quality of life allowed to submissive African-Americans, is too much for the coon to bear, and they prefer their humiliating lifestyle (and its corresponding contemptuous White approval) to the far more noble righteous fight for freedom and the full rights legally due to a native-born citizen of the United States of America.

It's common knowledge that the success of a people is tied to their ability to work together towards a common goal, despite the presence of individual differences. The African-American used this tool to great affect to make it through the most blatant anti-Black eras of American history, and ironically were able to become economically successful within the closed in bubble of forced segregation. The 21st century finds us in a new jim crow period, marked by the "Slavery 2.0" of mass incarceration, and it is interesting that the old tool of a unified Black community is conspicuously weaker than it was at any time in the past. The obscene amounts of wealth generated by the West's race-based exploitation systems guarantee that the break up of the Black community was no accident, nor could it have happened organically. What it creates is an increased sense of hopelessness in the Black individual with the realization that there is no longer any solid Black community that he/she can count on for socio-economic support, so when the individual wants to pursue career dreams, it seems quite reasonable that they will have no choice but to become the coon figure. This painful Western society truism creates quite a few "reluctant coons" -- Blacks who do not want to be in that situation at all, and tend to build up a great deal of anger at both White and Black people. This anger is directed at their own people for not coming together so that they would not have had to make such a despicable choice in life.

Other coon types will cope with the situation by developing elaborate justifications as to why it's actually okay to make such choices, and will avoid the rage fuel of feeling sorry for themselves by courageously confronting the truth of what they have really chosen for their lives. Cooning behavior is thus revealed as a cowardice, developed from a defeatist mindset, one that benefits no one but Whites in their role as exploiter. This explains why the police departments, in their role as legal enforcement arm for the White Supremacist power structure, savagely attack African-American consistently when they do gather for pro-Black causes to free themselves from their oppressed state.

Cooning can realistically be considered the subjugated state of a conquered people who are resigned to their exploited condition.

The Depressing State of the Coon

What is "cooning?"

"Cooning" is when a self-hating African-American plays the fool for a White audience in exchange for the limited social acceptance the latter are willing to give within their racial hierarchy. Black people who act this way are referred to as "coons" by other disgusted Blacks, who view the behavior as treacherous in nature.

Coons typically live by an extreme, depressing "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" personal philosophy, and believe that willingly accepting a life of demeaning race-based social inferiority is the only way to "make it" in a society dominated by the White Supremacist Ideology of the West. The alternative is to fight against a fundamentally unfair anti-Black system, which is very difficult. The likely risk of death, loss of property, and even the risk of losing the minimum quality of life allowed to submissive African-Americans, is too much for the coon to bear, and they prefer their humiliating lifestyle (and its corresponding contemptuous White approval) to the far more noble righteous fight for freedom and the full rights legally due to a native-born citizen of the United States of America.

It's common knowledge that the success of a people is tied to their ability to work together towards a common goal, despite the presence of individual differences. The African-American used this tool to great affect to make it through the most blatant anti-Black eras of American history, and ironically were able to become economically successful within the closed in bubble of forced segregation. The 21st century finds us in a new jim crow period, marked by the "Slavery 2.0" of mass incarceration, and it is interesting that the old tool of a unified Black community is conspicuously weaker than it was at any time in the past. The obscene amounts of wealth generated by the West's race-based exploitation systems guarantee that the break up of the Black community was no accident, nor could it have happened organically. What it creates is an increased sense of hopelessness in the Black individual with the realization that there is no longer any solid Black community that he/she can count on for socio-economic support, so when the individual wants to pursue career dreams, it seems quite reasonable that they will have no choice but to become the coon figure. This painful Western society truism creates quite a few "reluctant coons" -- Blacks who do not want to be in that situation at all, and tend to build up a great deal of anger at both White and Black people. This anger is directed at their own people for not coming together so that they would not have had to make such a despicable choice in life.

Other coon types will cope with the situation by developing elaborate justifications as to why it's actually okay to make such choices, and will avoid the rage fuel of feeling sorry for themselves by courageously confronting the truth of what they have really chosen for their lives. Cooning behavior is thus revealed as a cowardice, developed from a defeatist mindset, one that benefits no one but Whites in their role as exploiter. This explains why the police departments, in their role as legal enforcement arm for the White Supremacist power structure, savagely attack African-American consistently when they do gather for pro-Black causes to free themselves from their oppressed state.

Cooning can realistically be considered the subjugated state of a conquered people who are resigned to their exploited condition.

Hate Since Birth

[image error]

Alap Arslan - Is white superiority complex induced from childhood?

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, it is 100% learned from careful indoctrination, taking both conscious and unconscious forms.

Willis Carto was a highly-influential White Supremacist who spread his propaganda throughout the South since the 1950s. Along with his strong activism and socio-political tracts, he also brought food and much-needed material resources for the poor Whites and the lower income working classes. This aspect of the White Supremacist movement mimicked the Black Panther Party, and the parent/child versions of the Nation of Islam (under Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan), in that they also brought their own empowering message with a package of resources for the poor.

The result in both cases is that the "normal average, middle class people" ended up with a casual sympathetic ear to many aspects of their group's version of an extremist message that each side has heard in their communities for generations. This is how the average White person can vehemently denounce the charge of "racist" while still expressing multi-layered sympathy for a figure like Dylann Roof. The average White person, at all class levels, is absolutely being indoctrinated in some form of White Supremacist rhetoric, without even being aware necessarily that that is the nature of their family creed (being passed along as "common sense values").

Alap Arslan - So do you have any particular experiences to elaborate on it?. I’m sure on the surface there are all the sweet smiles and black cop and white cop movies, and of ‘hawww don’t say the ‘n-’ word!” kind of gestures…but have you caught any father mother talk by accident?…(when they though nobody was listening)

Muhammad Rasheed - Even better. Check out these articles detailing the far-right's indoctrination techniques:

1.) I Was Trained for the Culture Wars in Home School, Awaiting Someone Like Mike Pence as a Messiah

2.) Todd Blodgett infiltrated white supremacist groups for the FBI

Alap Arslan - Uh huh. You are missing the boat here.

I’m not discussing about ‘white supremist’ exclusive dudes. Just norml average, white midfle class prople. Those who are always nice on the uppermost layer with big fake smiles. Those who even sometimes hire one or two employees in the name of diversity…..but when they invite people to their homes for private dinners, its probably all white or asian or maybe latinos. OR when they talk with their dsughters they unknowingly quip with lines of “honey, you are white, and beautiful..you can be anything you want or do in this world” (as quoted by Tony Blairs sister in law who converted to Islam)….

These are very subtle teachings. Mostly overlooked but drill down to the core (unlike the stupid rants of supremists)

Because here, I’m not just discusssing white-black relations in only USA context (which has its own particular history) but ‘globally’.

Like for example, an Australian air hostess while delivering service to a white Afrikaan South African passenger on Emirates airlines, can be all smiles and chit chat a bit, compared to a stone faced expression if the passenger is a wellspoken Indian or Chinese, Turkish or middle eastern etc. Its like an automatic thing, which not even other communities show.

There was another incident, while I was sitting at a club with my Australian boss in Nigeria and he also had a white UK friend sitting with him and they spotted a Dutch or maybe Swedish guy passing by. They simply holler’d this stranger to come sit with them and to have a beer..and the stranger came and sat (and talked about his sexual exploits with the Nigerian ladies for half an hour!).

What I noticed as we sat there for almost every other day was, that they never extended invitation to any other dude of other race’s who used to walk by every other day but just started waving their arms to invite just the first white man they saw among a dozen other nationalities. Its minute, but its there.

Muhammad Rasheed - I can't see how a similar principle wouldn't be in effect among those groups in the Old World, since experiences color the mindset of the parents, who then pass along that thinking to the children. This is universal.

Hate Since Birth

[image error]

Alap Arslan - Is white superiority complex induced from childhood?

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, it is 100% learned from careful indoctrination, taking both conscious and unconscious forms.

Willis Carto was a highly-influential White Supremacist who spread his propaganda throughout the South since the 1950s. Along with his strong activism and socio-political tracts, he also brought food and much-needed material resources for the poor Whites and the lower income working classes. This aspect of the White Supremacist movement mimicked the Black Panther Party, and the parent/child versions of the Nation of Islam (under Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan), in that they also brought their own empowering message with a package of resources for the poor.

The result in both cases is that the "normal average, middle class people" ended up with a casual sympathetic ear to many aspects of their group's version of an extremist message that each side has heard in their communities for generations. This is how the average White person can vehemently denounce the charge of "racist" while still expressing multi-layered sympathy for a figure like Dylann Roof. The average White person, at all class levels, is absolutely being indoctrinated in some form of White Supremacist rhetoric, without even being aware necessarily that that is the nature of their family creed (being passed along as "common sense values").

Alap Arslan - So do you have any particular experiences to elaborate on it?. I’m sure on the surface there are all the sweet smiles and black cop and white cop movies, and of ‘hawww don’t say the ‘n-’ word!” kind of gestures…but have you caught any father mother talk by accident?…(when they though nobody was listening)

Muhammad Rasheed - Even better. Check out these articles detailing the far-right's indoctrination techniques:

1.) I Was Trained for the Culture Wars in Home School, Awaiting Someone Like Mike Pence as a Messiah

2.) Todd Blodgett infiltrated white supremacist groups for the FBI

Alap Arslan - Uh huh. You are missing the boat here.

I’m not discussing about ‘white supremist’ exclusive dudes. Just norml average, white midfle class prople. Those who are always nice on the uppermost layer with big fake smiles. Those who even sometimes hire one or two employees in the name of diversity…..but when they invite people to their homes for private dinners, its probably all white or asian or maybe latinos. OR when they talk with their dsughters they unknowingly quip with lines of “honey, you are white, and beautiful..you can be anything you want or do in this world” (as quoted by Tony Blairs sister in law who converted to Islam)….

These are very subtle teachings. Mostly overlooked but drill down to the core (unlike the stupid rants of supremists)

Because here, I’m not just discusssing white-black relations in only USA context (which has its own particular history) but ‘globally’.

Like for example, an Australian air hostess while delivering service to a white Afrikaan South African passenger on Emirates airlines, can be all smiles and chit chat a bit, compared to a stone faced expression if the passenger is a wellspoken Indian or Chinese, Turkish or middle eastern etc. Its like an automatic thing, which not even other communities show.

There was another incident, while I was sitting at a club with my Australian boss in Nigeria and he also had a white UK friend sitting with him and they spotted a Dutch or maybe Swedish guy passing by. They simply holler’d this stranger to come sit with them and to have a beer..and the stranger came and sat (and talked about his sexual exploits with the Nigerian ladies for half an hour!).

What I noticed as we sat there for almost every other day was, that they never extended invitation to any other dude of other race’s who used to walk by every other day but just started waving their arms to invite just the first white man they saw among a dozen other nationalities. Its minute, but its there.

Muhammad Rasheed - I can't see how a similar principle wouldn't be in effect among those groups in the Old World, since experiences color the mindset of the parents, who then pass along that thinking to the children. This is universal.

Muhammad Ali versus Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

Is it possible that Floyd Mayweather, Jr. was technically a better boxer than Muhammad Ali was?

Muhammad Rasheed - Floyd Mayweather, Jr. was absolutely a better technical boxer than Muhammad Ali. Ali hated the techniques of boxing since he was a teen, and refused to listen to his trainers. That's why his style looked the way it did, because he literally did what he wanted to do and ignored instructions to "do it by the book."

So why was he as good as he was though? Because of his natural talent/gifts (speed, accuracy, courage), and his willingness to get in the gym every day and practice, Practice, PRACTICE until he created a style that worked for him. Ali's long-time trainer Angelo Dundee used to remark that Ali "did everything wrong, but it turned out right." That means he never learned the correct technique (boxers are NOT trained to pull their head back away from punches the way he did all the time, for example), but Ali's brute determination, talent and fortitude made the wrong techniques that he did practice transform into a style that the world's greatest prize fighter used to cement his legacy for all time.

Dave Khela - Ali’s incredible athletic, gifted talent is what allowed him to do things no others could . that said, Floyd is on a level of say Benitez and Whitaker .. great defensive fighters but by no means better technically per say … plus floyd selected his opponents carefully, we dont know how he would have handled certain fighters, had he met them.

Muhammad Rasheed - In addition to Ali's gifted talent, it was his flagrant disregard for the orthodox technical side of the sport that enabled him to "do things no others could." By definition he was not technical, and all orthodox boxers are trained to exploit and counter the technical techniques that they were also trained in. Ali gave technical fighters trouble because his style was non-technical.

Floyd, on the other hand, was superbly trained in the technical science of boxing, and even innovated his own techniques as a master of his craft. Floyd was a more technical boxer, and – like Ali – was gifted as an athlete and could break the rules at will because his intellectual and physical gifts allowed him to do so without penalty. Floyd's technical mastery gave him a tool kit of varying options to choose from when pitted against numerous styles of opponent. By contrast, Ali's repertoire was limited to the one-style-fits-all moves that he stubbornly stuck to throughout his early training, and when he would (rarely) encounter fighters who were capable of solving his unorthodox puzzle, he often would be incapable of adjusting his style to stay ahead of them, the way Floyd was able to do.

Dave Khela - we are probably too vary different age groups and i respect your opinion .. but to put floyd that high on the pedestal is unfair as he Never fought the “Lions” of his day while said “Lions” were still roaring .. we dont know how he would have adjusted, when a relentless fighter in his absolute prime wouldnt allow for a “points” victory by floyd .. i will say floyd is one of the best ‘defensive’ fighters, but defense wont always win...

Muhammad Rasheed - It looks like Floyd's outstanding boxing record disagrees with your comment Re: whether defense always wins or not.

I love Ali, too, Dave. I consider him an inspiration and an influence in my life as many others do, and I have done so for almost all of my nearly 50 yrs of life. My responses on this subject are based on an objective analysis of both fighters separate from my high admiration of the two of them as legends in their very different times.

You mentioned "fairness" here. If we were to be fair, and address the question as asked, then we would notice that what made Floyd successful were a combination of the same items that made Ali successful (courage, toughness, speed, great elusive defensive) PLUS items of his own (innovative defensive techniques that are now taught by coaches around the globe; the ability to switch to different technical styles in his well-trained arsenal). Objectively, this comparison of what they proved to be able to do in the ring demonstrates that Floyd was technically a better boxer of the two.

Outside of these items, what made Ali soar into "greatness" was his personal charisma, his political battles/influence, his commitment to a progressive "right side of history" position, his continuous ability to defy the odds and achieve what seemed to be the impossible. These are the areas that enabled the legend of Muhammad Ali to transcend the sport of boxing, and the reason why people bristle in outrage at the audacity of comparing him to a 'mere' boxer like Floyd. I understand this phenomenon completely, but in a discussion in which we ARE 'merely' talking about Ali's boxing skills, then his legend must be carefully folded, and set outside in the hall so it doesn't distract us.

To be fair.

Warriors of Al-Islam: Sharing Peace by Vanquishing the Oppressor

David R. Carpenter - Islam does not have any normative tradition of pacifism, so why is the Quran not a pacifist text?

If war and murder are not holy, why does the Qur'an permit state-sanctioned killing in limited contexts?

Muhammad Rasheed - The Qur'an isn't a pacifist text because the One God of Abraham sees no value in extreme pacifism.

In the Qur'an, Allah says that killing is indeed wrong, but it is MORE wrong to allow oppression and evil to run a muck. If the dedicated wrong doer refuses to listen to reason, then physical violence is a viable option in order to force an environment where people can live peacefully and free of oppression.



Roham Jackson - It depends what you mean or understand by “religion of peace”.

If the understanding is - to bring about a state of peace amongst mankind (which is my understanding), then it may be that engaging in non-pacifist activities are required at times. It wouldn't contradict the statement.

Not that the aforementioned exoresssion is an explicit doctrine or text within Islam.

Muhammad Rasheed - I considered the Qur'an verses I quoted to be that very "explicit doctrine." God clearly does NOT want the righteous to stand by and watch evil be inflicted upon innocents, and God is the Author of ethics/morality on earth, Determiner of the difference between good and evil for our guidance.
David R. Carpenter - why is the Quran not a pacifist text?

Muhammad Rasheed - Because the One God of Abraham sees no value in extreme pacifism, per the verses quoted above.

David R. Carpenter - Well, you would think that a religion that proclaims itself to be the “Religion of Peace” would in my opinion be a passive text. (live and let live) .

Muhammad Rasheed - No, I wouldn't think that. I would see the matter from the viewpoint of the Author of that religion. The idea of "live and let live" while being oppressed by a savage wealth & power hoarding conqueror, or watching others be subjugated and exploited by the same, is not being "peaceful." It's being cowardly, and actually aids the conqueror. There's nothing "peaceful" in standing impotently to the side and allowing evil to infest the land.

Adherents to the Religion of Peace destroy the oppressor, and allow all to be at Peace. They do not crawl in a ball somewhere and plug their ears to keep out the screams of the suffering.

David R. Carpenter - Muhammad wrote: "The idea of 'live and let live' while being oppressed by a savage wealth & power hoarding conqueror, or watching others be subjugated and exploited by the same, is not being 'peaceful.' It's being cowardly, and actually aids the conqueror."

But isn’t this what Muhammad did during the battles of Badr, The Battle of Trench?

Muhammad Rasheed - How would that be? The Muslims were the ones under attack, and actively engaged in the battles against the pagans for their lives and faith.

David R. Carpenter - AHHH, I believe you should really study the history of Islam rather than rely just on the faith.

The truth sounds like hate to those who hate to know the truth.

Muslims believe that Muhammad was morally perfect, and that an examination of his life will prove that he was a prophet. The evidence, however, shows that Muhammad was far from morally perfect, and that there’s no good reason to believe that he was sent by god(Allah). There is a world of difference, then, between the Muhammad of history and the Muhammad of faith.

The true history of Muhammad is a huge problem for Islam.

Tragically, examining the evidence is something that most Muslims seem unwilling to do. In fact, Muslims have been so persistent in ignoring the facts about their prophet that the Muhammad now proclaimed by Islam bears little resemblance to the man who preached in Arabia more than thirteen centuries ago.

The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world’s best-kept secrets. For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries, for anyone who raised such objections would (following the example set by Muhammad himself) immediately be killed

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Dave, I'm less interested in your slanderous rant, and instead look forward to you explaining why you believe the Badr/Trench battles represented the Muslims behaving cowardly. Or do you somehow think it was the powerful pagans that were the ones standing to the side watching a small band of Muslims do all the oppressing?

David R. Carpenter - I never stated that the Muslims were” less cowardly” you made that assertion. If you do the research you will find that the Muslims were the aggressors .

And I am not interested in your apologist rant. So this discussion ends. Thank you for commenting Good day.

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, I did provide two options based on my interpretation of your vague original comment. If the "behaving cowardly" option didn't fit, how about address the other?

Since you cut and ran, I'm forced to interpret your line "you should really study the history of Islam" to actually mean: "You should hang out on atheist anti-Islam websites and be indoctrinated into foolishness." This much is now clear. lol Dave, "If you should attempt to prove me wrong, you better make damn sure your facts and evidence are straight and true." Thank you.

David R. Carpenter - But you can’t and didn’t prove me wrong.

Let me try and explain, most of what we know of Muhammad are taken from Islamic sources. There is virtually no other accounts that exist from other sources that explain the exploits and life of Muhammad. So what we do have is a biased Islamic account.

I personally view history like a coin, most people see it from front and back. One side tells it from one side while the other side of the coin tells it from the opposing view, but what we have in the case of Muhammad is only one side of the coin if you will.

I personally like to view history from a side of the coin very few people even consider, that is the “edge of the coin” To me that is where the truth is.

But in the case of the history of Muhammad, we only have one side…The Islamic side which in my opinion is a “two headed coin”.

Muhammad Rasheed - I suppose I can never prove you wrong if you continue your tradition of question ducking and fleeing from battle, hm? I was using your own bio quote against you. :)

Since Muhammad is the prophet of Islam, I reckon all literature sources that reference him would be Islamic by default. This is not inherently bad I would think, even from a cock-eyed atheist position, but I can't pretend to know the atheist mind. lol Do you believe your interpretation of Al-Islam is somehow not biased, Dave? Atheists are biased against the possibility of spirit, and therefore, lack objectivity. Islam is a spiritual system, you know?

Anyway, you admit that everything we know about the prophet is contained within the appropriately named "Islamic literature," but you take the stance that all of that info about Muhammad must be 100% wrong, and only by turning it on its head and painting Muhammad as a monster will we have arrived at the truth. This nonsense is the impression that you've left on me thus far (after question ducking and cutting & running first mind).

If this isn't your position, and the one you really have actually makes sense in this universe, then please do a better job of holding up your end of the argument. En garde.

David R. Carpenter - Muhammad wrote: "but you take the stance that all of that info about Muhammad must be 100% wrong, and only by turning it on its head and painting Muhammad as a monster will we have arrived at the truth."

I am not implying anything of the kind. If you read my profile correctly, it also states that I am a seeker of truth. We in all honesty do NOT KNOW the truth as it relates to Muhammad only what is BELIEVED to be the truth .based on Islamic sources.

Muslims believe that Muhammad was morally perfect, and that an examination of his life will prove that he was a prophet. The evidence, however, shows that Muhammad was far from morally perfect, and that there’s no good reason to believe that he was sent by god(Allah). There is a world of difference, then, between the Muhammad of history and the Muhammad of faith.

The true history of Muhammad is a huge problem for Islam.

Tragically, examining the evidence is something that most Muslims seem unwilling to do. In fact, Muslims have been so persistent in ignoring the facts about their prophet that the Muhammad now proclaimed by Islam bears little resemblance to the man who preached in Arabia more than thirteen centuries ago.

The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world’s best-kept secrets. For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries, for anyone who raised such objections would (following the example set by Muhammad himself) immediately be killed

Again, my opinion.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're repeating your rant from earlier, despite me explaining that I have no interest in your unsupported anti-Islam soapbox. And yes, you may consider my use of "unsupported" to be a challenge. Do it, if you're able. Throw down your rod.

I'll understand if you're NOT able, of course. Hot air isn't exactly scarce from the atheist crowd.

David R. Carpenter - But you also cannot do it from the theist crowd either.

You want the last word you may have it, I have no interest in your unsupported anti-Islam soapbox. But you cannot dispute the facts I disclosed.

Thanks for the discussion, it was very informative.

Good-day.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sure you can do it from the theist crowd; that's the side with the open mind capable of contemplating the immaterial spirit concept without rolling their eyes. Need I remind you that's the side that built civilization as we know it?

What facts did you disclose? That everything we know about Muhammad has the "Made in Islam" label on it? Okay, I'll give you that one. And? What else do you have? How about go back and answer my questions from earlier so we can have a real duel of ideas? Hurry! My rapier blade aches to warm itself in your hollowly pretentious atheist belly.

If you keep giving me comedy material how am I NOT going to give the illusion of looking for the last word? lol

The Obligatory Sacrifice in Blood

Ishan Almazi - The animal sacrifice during Eid ul-Adha doesn't make sense because all it is is a symbolic re-enactment of something that is thought to have happened in the past.

So as a consequence millions of animals need to die each year. Don't get me wrong, my family loves the meat and cook it in a special style to commemorate the occasion, however it isn't something that should be tied to religion.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ishan wrote: "...because all it is is a symbolic re-enactment..."

How do you know this is what it means, and this is what the purpose is about? Where is this info written?

Ishan Almazi - I am within an Islamic community, Muhammad.

Muhammad Rasheed - That translates into "This is just something we have always thought. Or at least it's what I've always assumed about it personally. I can't link my opinion about what the ritual means to God."

Where is it written that the blood sacrifice during the Hajj is supposed to represent a reenactment ritual of a past event? Who told you this?

Ishan Almazi - It relates to the test Ibrahim was said to have gone though. The Imams that go to the local Islamic meeting groups have said so.

I’d rather you didn’t ‘translate’ what I’ve written into what is convenient for you to respond to, thank you Muhammad.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol I'd rather that you not write embarrassing items that can only translate into "Because it's what we found our forefathers doing before us!" while responding as a representative of my religion, but here we are.

Cain & Abel were commanded by the One God to provide sacrifices, and since one of them was actually a shepherd, his offering was in BLOOD. So tell me, where is it written that the blood sacrifice during the Hajj is supposed to represent a reenactment of the much, much more recent Abraham/Ishmael event? What are you and your imams basing this opinion on? Tell me if you know.

Ishan Almazi - I receive my understanding from them and given your attitude so far, I don’t think anything I’ll say will please you.

Sadly I don’t have the insight to ask the Imam at a whim, but given your responses thus far I don’t feel like entertaining you.

Muhammad Rasheed - This so-called "understanding" has you now standing as an atheist, Ishan. That gives me a peek into the quality of these imams' "insights." Naturally I'm not impressed.

Pleasing me isn't what I'm asking for; I just needed a simple question answered, and since you do have 133 Quora answers in your account thus far, it didn't seem like that difficult a request. lol

My answers are based on your responses. If you don't like the impression you're leaving on me when you type, then level up. Or at least just say "I don't know." Saying, "I am within an Islamic community" when you have no idea what the answer to my question is, is something I would type if I wanted to be a douchebag based on not wanting to admit I don't know something. Not a good look.

Ishan Almazi - I’m not sure where the Imams got their information, Muhammad. Have a pleasant day.

Muhammad Rasheed - Considering believers were performing the blood sacrifice as far back as the time of Cain & Abel, these imams probably didn’t get their “Eid ul-Adha/symbolic re-enactment of Ibrahim” info from the Qur’an, amirite?

Have a pleasant day also, Ishan. Peace.

Ishan Almazi - That I am not sure of however I would assume so, Muhammad. Peace be to you also.


See Also :  Obama's Critics Disagree with Obama's Decisions

MISSING: Biblical Dinosaurs

Dino Bernal Goden - From a theologian's standpoint, if God is all-knowing, why don't any of the holy texts (Bible, Torah, Quran) mention the existence of dinosaurs?

Muhammad Rasheed - Because the holy scriptures are not dinosaur text books of any description. The entire point of God's message is to instruct humankind in what to do, and what to avoid, in order to win paradise in the afterlife instead of hell. Since God delegated the minute details of how to perform prayer, fasting, pilgrimage rituals, etc. to His prophets, I can't imagine why He would bother to shove the far less useful trivia about dinosaurs in there. For what?

Why stop there? Why not ask how come God didn't devote a chapter to describing how soft puppy fur is, too?

Dino Bernal Goden - That rationale doesn’t invite scientific discovery or discourse.

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, that makes sense because the topic isn't one of "scientific discovery," but of the immaterial spirit and the purpose of religion.

"Hey, how come your cook book doesn't mention the 'manna' of the ancient children of Israel? [hears answer] That rational doesn't invite the sharing of recipes for manna nor baking tips."

Dino Bernal Goden - Your sense of analogy is lost on me.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're insisting on pulling material "scientific discovery" out of a book of immaterial spirits and morality. The analogy showcases a fictional character who also insisted on pulling a 'manna' recipe sharing party out of a modern cookbook. "Manna" is the magic food stuff that God fed the children of Israel on while they were on their way to the Promised Land. Manna would no more have a rational place within a modern cookbook than dinosaurs would need to be mentioned in sacred scripture.

Neither scenario would make a lick of sense.

The Diabolical 'Color Blind' Conspiracy

Philip Van Rijk - How would you 'solve' racism?

Muhammad Rasheed - With a strict 'zero tolerance' stance by law enforcement. Racial slurs directed spitefully against another race would get mandatory fines, and racist actions would get mandatory fines + jail time. Treat it seriously and people will take it seriously.

Philip Van Rijk - But how would you be able to tell when actual racism occurs. Recently i read on quora that a dark skinned girl and white skinned girl were talking about aging. The white skinned girl told the dark skinned girl that she would age better (less wrinkles) because her skin contained more melanin. The dark skinned girl told her that she made a racist comment.

But it is a fact that the darker the skin the more melanin there is. So the question: How would you be able to pin point when it is racism and when it isn’t?

Muhammad Rasheed - The story you described sounds like it never happened. On the off chance it did happen, it sounds like a conversation that took place between 6 year olds. Obviously commenting to a darker-skinned person that they could take the sunlight better than a lighter-skinned person isn't racism in action. Racism is performing race-based actions with the intent to harm and/or disenfranchise another racial group or individual. Like physically attacking someone because they were of a certain race, or deliberately not stopping your taxi cab for a signaling person because you believe the stereotypes about their race, or giving harsher prison sentences to one racial group over a another for the same type of drug offense, or throwing away ballots of a particular race's partisan voting group because you are in the minority and want your race's preferred candidate to unfairly win instead.

This isn't a hard topic, it just may seem like it is if you've trained yourself to believe that the concept of 'racism' is a fiction, and that all charges of it are as nonsensical and arbitrary as the fake Quora story you referenced.

Philip Van Rijk - That is not true. Everyone can see racism is still a happening thing. But my question was how do we solve it. And i certainly didn’t mean to let it sound like i thought racism is fictional or something. This doesn’t mean i don’t appreciate your answer because my question has been answered by you. Thanks and have a nice day.

Muhammad Rasheed - Philip, the line "But how would you be able to tell when actual racism occurs?" is what someone says when they don't believe there is a difference between real racism and fake racism. Your Quora story is what someone would cite if they didn't believe that racism was a real thing, and actually thought that any rational person wouldn't be able to tell either.

I am unconvinced that "everyone can see racism is still a happening thing" because there's clearly a large demographic of people who reinforce among themselves their belief that the charge of 'racism' is just a thing that "victim-minded" Black people made up to get free stuff or whatever. Many of these 'racism deniers' are part of a growing "color blind" political movement and are actively trying to strike race-based terms and concepts from the legal lexicon, to eventually make it impossible for victims of racist crimes to receive compensation from the courts. The filling social media up with questions that do nothing but imply that racism isn't real, only adds to the propaganda arm of this heinous movement, one that pretends to be racially fair, but in reality is designed to further strip Black Americans of power and disenfranchise them MORE.

Thanks for your question, Philip. May you also have a nice day.

Notes While Observing - Strategies of the Discrimination Olympics

1.) "I was shocked. Is this happening? Wait a minute, is this a time in American history when an American can make a decision for themselves, and even though other Americans don’t understand it they’ll support it, and let this person live a happy life? Is this what’s happening? If it is then good for America. That’s Dave Chappelle, the American.  Although Dave Chappelle the Black American, he was a little jealous.  I was like 'How the fuck are transgender people beating Black people in the discrimination Olympics?'" ~Dave Chappelle, The Age of Spin: Dave Chappelle Live at the Hollywood Palladium (2017)




2.) "It turns out the first mover advantage is mostly a myth. Look at a classic study of over 50 product categories, comparing the first movers who created the market with the improvers who introduced something different and better.  What you see is that the first movers had a failure rate of 47 percent, compared with only 8 percent for the improvers. Look at Facebook, waiting to build a social network until after Myspace and Friendster. Look at Google, waiting for years after Altavista and Yahoo. It's much easier to improve on somebody else's idea than it is to create something new from scratch."  ~Adam Grant, The Surprising Habits of Original Thinkers (TED Talks)


3.) #RaceFirst - I had an encounter with a member of the LGBTQ community, who snapped at me for taking on a "race first" attitude in my activism.

4.) "It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses." ~Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado (objecting to the continued existence of the Congressional Black Caucus)






5.) The 1E3 Civil Rights Act 1995 bill, created by the GOP through their friends at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), "applies the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit the so-called 'reverse discrimination' of race-conscious policies.  California passed Proposition 209 banning affirmative action and "preferential treatment" in 1997, the similar Initiative 200 passed in Washington State in 1998, and Nebraska voters approved a similar affirmative action ban in 2008.  A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions subsequent to this ALEC model legislation also narrowed the constitutionally-acceptable scope of affirmative action programs and race-conscious policies (Grutter v Bolinger-2003, Parents v Seattle/Meredith v Jefferson-2006, Ricci v DeStefano-2009)". ~The Center for Media and Democracy, 1E3 Civil Rights Act Exposed

6.) Congressional Black Caucus Shows Trump Its Policy Vision for Black America - "We Have A Lot To Lose"











_____________________________________________

Muhammad Rasheed - It is well known that other special interest groups used the basic civil rights activism model of the African-American to receive their own gains, as Dave Chappelle joked in point #1 above.  But how is it that that the Black community as a whole aren't well far ahead of these other groups because of our head start?  There are two reasons behind this:

1)  The "improvers" theory of Adam Grant's The Surprising Habits of Original Thinkers explains that the later group's used their study of what we did right/wrong during our pioneering efforts, to make themselves more successful.  The LGBTQ community are currently a lot more politically astute than we are.  Complaints from Blacks that President Obama did a lot more for that community than he did for his own are woefully misplaced, as Ta-Nehisi Coates unveiled in his in-depth, multi-part interview with him.  The LGBTQ community had their dedicated lobby produce a well-planned, well thought out agenda, and when presented before the president, he worked with them to get what they wanted accomplished.  No equivalent African-American group presented such a plan to the POTUS during his entire 8 years (though I personally wish there was).  More successful groups like the Jewish community, the Hispanic/Latino community and the LGBTQ, were very aggressive compared to us (despite the pop cultural stereotype) and threatened to shutdown careers, companies, and even whole industries with their political and economic force.  The Black community has not done this since the Montgomery Bus Boycott in the mid-1950s.  We know better, we KNOW pressuring people by withdrawing our spending force from their revenue streams gets results because everybody talks about it prior to every Black Friday without any follow through.  We can blame some of this on a void of leadership (as Van Jones mentioned in Ava DuVernay's 13th), but we can't ride that excuse forever.

Speaking of which, it seems that the Congressional Black Caucus has finally decided to present a planned agenda to a sitting president as item #6 above shows, though I'm forced to question their timing on this, which leads me to the second reason.

2) Deliberate sabotage.  The GOP – through their Social Policy Network (SPN) and ALEC – are actively trying to scrub the concept of "race" from the national lexicon, while continuing to perform racist actions (voter suppression, Black male targeted mass incarceration).   The obvious point is that they are trying to return Blacks to slavery to enhance their wealth coffers, while rendering impotent all legal means for fighting their evils based on "race."  Based on Tancredo's comment on item #4, a faux-colorblind society that continues to favor the White race over Blacks, means no less than a return to a time when being Black was to be invisible (except when you were being hung from a tree).

It is vital that the African-American community reinvent itself and become the "improvers." Build up the tried-and-true activist methods used first by you, then your special interest rivals to later out do you, and then become a strong fighting force to reverse the enemy's efforts to return you to chattel.   This is something you absolutely MUST do right this second.