[caseferter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJAr-...feature=relmfu

8 Minutes long, very inspiring English lecture about Islam and Muslims with the potential to grow.

[Unhappu]

TAKBIR:

[Peretool]

Allahu Akbar!

[Orefsmisits]

Just as soon as the guy started talking about Muslims in both of the Americas before Columbus I shut the video off.

We don't need to accept or believe in pseudo historical non sense in order to validate Islam.

Just saying.........

[anenselog]

Then you didn't give the speaker a chance and missed out on something wonderful. No need to debate the validity nor is it a point of needing to alter history to validate Islam... you'll get this if you listen to the short piece insha'Allah.

[Poohoppesmase]

what a great speech!

[ebBPxIai]

Abdul Hakim Quick is a trained historian, he also talks only very briefly about Muslims in the Americas (less than a minute), the rest of the lecture talks about what we can do to improve our conditions. It is very useful I thought.

Just as soon as the guy started talking about Muslims in both of the Americas before Columbus I shut the video off.

We don't need to accept or believe in pseudo historical non sense in order to validate Islam.

Just saying.........

[plalleste]

Abdul Hakim Quick is a trained historian, he also talks only very briefly about Muslims in the Americas (less than a minute), the rest of the lecture talks about what we can do to improve our conditions. It is very useful I thought.

I started to watch it but quit again.

When he next started talking about how "we" were in slavery and brought to the Americas.

I am not a "we" and my ancestors were never slaves.

Just your typical Afrocentric racist world view that I don't buy into.

Sorry.........

[PIORARMADDERI]

You are white? America also had white slaves known as indentured slaves.

I started to watch it but quit again.

When he next started talking about how "we" were in slavery and brought to the Americas.

I am not a "we" and my ancestors were never slaves.

Just your typical Afrocentric racist world view that I don't buy into.

Sorry.........

[imawlBoli]

You are white? America also had white slaves known as indentured slaves.

Thanks for the history lesson.

But they were called indentured servants; not slaves.

A distinct difference.........

[Susanleech]

I started to watch it but quit again.

When he next started talking about how "we" were in slavery and brought to the Americas.

I am not a "we" and my ancestors were never slaves.

Just your typical Afrocentric racist world view that I don't buy into.

Sorry.........

oh arent you irish? blue haired blonde eyed?

i know a video you might watch till the end: 'We are NOT ashamed of IRA'

(m just kidding : p. dont explode lol)

[RilmAlime67]

oh arent you irish? blue haired and blonde eyed?

Blue haired and blond eyed!?!?

Now that would be a sight to behold......... lol

[SodeSceriobia]

Thanks for the history lesson.

But they were called indentured servants; not slaves.

A distinct difference.........

Yes and how was their contract of employment different from black slaves? There was no difference, so they were slaves. Besides I am neither black nor white but I can still identify with the victims of the powerful. It does not mean I am a victim, it just means I am aware of the BS that powerful people spin. Today they call it Psy-OPs or Patriotism or Nationalism...it is important to know when one is being psychologically manipulated. I have more in common with the Indians in America than the invaders, I have more in common with the Irish in Ireland than the British invaders. I have more in common with the Black Africans stolen from Africa, and the indentured white slaves than I do with banksters and other ruling class elites or later day Pharoahs

[tsovimnpb]

Yes and how was their contract of employment different from black slaves? There was no difference, so they were slaves.

Incorrect.

Slaves were forced against their will to work and serve their owners. They were owned and the was No contract involved.

Indentured servants had voluntarily signed a legal contract for a certain period of time. The contract holder paid their ship's passage to America in exchange for their labor. It was a business arrangement that was agreed to by both parties.

Much like people do today when they sign into a work contract for various projects.

For you to equate slavery with indentured servitude is very disingenuous and historically incorrect.

[majestictwelve]

Not ashamed of Islam , but certainly ashamed of many Muslims.

[glagoliska]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJAr-...feature=relmfu

8 Minutes long, very inspiring English lecture about Islam and Muslims with the potential to grow.

Thanks for sharing.

[SiM7W2zi]

I have studied Native American religions somewhat. As Muslims we believe that every people received the prophetic tradition in some manner. Therefore, (Allah knows best), it is highly likely the native americans received independent prophets from those of the old world.
I do find it doubtful that Muslims reached America and signficantly impacted on the people, i would expect to see more evidence of this but i am willing to change my mind.
Regarding Native American religions:
It was held good to fast if unmarried and the highest honour to have never even physically touched a woman before marriage.
Native Americans would go out and quietly meditate during fajr time.
Many believed in one God (after the apocalyptic arrival of the Europeans, sadly these religions became much more corrupted resulting in shamanistic behaviour which actually arose as a reaction to Europeans.. e.g. sun dance/ghost dance etc.
Native Americans were very non-materialistic - they held things in common for the tribe. so for example, if one needed another's pot, they would go into the others tent, take the pot and simply use it. they also loved to give gifts to one another and this was a sign of high status.
_
all of this would have been highly compatible with Islam.

Source: Bury my heart at wounded knee and Mammoth Book of Native Americans.

[BarBoss]

Indentured servants (slaves) - some do indeed enter into agreements but the conditions of the contract are misleading or fabricated whereby they do not find themselves at the end of the contract but rather in one contract after another over which they have no real control over. Then there are those who are roped into giving their children over (on 'contract' of course)... the child likely has no say in this contract and while they are viewed as indentured servants (by way of their parents), they are indeed slaves. In the end, both work against their will.

And, while the lines may be blurred for some and clear-cut for others, both indentured servants and slaves suffer. The key point isn't to focus on semantics but on the suffering endured by some at the pleasure, comfort, and material gain of others.

[Teprophopay]

And, while the lines may be blurred for some and clear-cut for others, both indentured servants and slaves suffer.

And exactly how do you know for a fact that indentured servants suffered?

Or is that just wishful thinking in order to prop up your agenda..........

[adverwork]

Incorrect.

Slaves were forced against their will to work and serve their owners. They were owned and the was No contract involved.

Indentured servants had voluntarily signed a legal contract for a certain period of time. The contract holder paid their ship's passage to America in exchange for their labor. It was a business arrangement that was agreed to by both parties.

Much like people do today when they sign into a work contract for various projects.

For you to equate slavery with indentured servitude is very disingenuous and historically incorrect.

Were both Whiteys huh??

Indentured Servants signed the contract in order to get over to America. There they would look for a period of time until the master told them they repaid their debt. When the servants were freed they would still be extremely low in the social scale.

Servants could be treated like slaves. It depended on the "master".