Somali Cushites

[Caraweelo X]

Noah in a drunken state kulaha. These gaalo are cajiib. How can a Prophet get drunk?

Yeah, they said a Prophet got drunk and they named the people who was Ham's (who saw him naked) son "Cushite" and Christians later used this to justify Slavery. So that's how Somalis got the name "Cushite" It's a Biblical reference.

 

[ሕጊ።።]

Somalis and other people of the Horn are categorized as Cushitic or Kushites. Do you guys know how Somalis and people of the Horn got that name? I already know but I was wondering if anyone else knew!

Now it's just a linguistic grouping

 

[Keo]

Yeah, they said a Prophet got drunk and they named the people who was Ham's (who saw him naked) son "Cushite" and Christians later used this to justify Slavery. So that's how Somalis got the name "Cushite" It's a Biblical reference.

Was the son Cushite? I thought he was Canaan because that is what most people say.

 

[ሕጊ።።]

Was the son Cushite? I thought he was Canaan because that is what most people say.

Ham's son's were Kush, Mizraem, Put and Canaan. He cursed Canaan.

 

[Lord Flacko]

Was the son Cushite? I thought he was Canaan because that is what most people say.

Yeah, they said a Prophet got drunk and they named the people who was Ham's (who saw him naked) son "Cushite" and Christians later used this to justify Slavery. So that's how Somalis got the name "Cushite" It's a Biblical reference.

Somalis aren't affected by that curse of that's what you think

The term Hamitic originally referred to the peoples said to be descended from Ham, one of the Sons of Noah according to the Bible. According to the Book of Genesis, after Noah became drunk and Ham dishonored his father, upon awakening Noah pronounced a curse on Ham's youngest son, Canaan, stating that his offspring would be the "servants of servants". Of Ham's four sons, Canaan fathered the Canaanites, while Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cush the Cushites, and Phut the Libyans.[6]

However, the Bible itself indicates that Noah restricted his curse to the offspring of Ham's youngest son Canaan, whose descendants occupied the Levant, and it was not extended to Ham's other sons, who had migrated into Africa. According to Sanders, 18th-century theologians increasingly emphasized this narrow restriction and accurate interpretation of the passage as applying to Canaan's offspring. They rejected the curse as a justification for slavery.[7]

How are Cushtic people connected to the Kush kingdom when historians claim it was Nubian?

That Kingdom was 3000 years ago. Around the same time Somalis split off from other Cushites (in terms of DNA).

Ahh ok, i thought you was one of them guys that claim Cushites started all the advanced civilisations in Africa.

Uncle 19th century faranji said that not me

 

[Keo]

Somalis are cursed for other reasons lol

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Prince Abubu]

Actually, the Kingdom of Kush's predecessors , the Kermans, were a Cushitic speaking nation most likely sharing ancestry with Highland East Cushites like Sidama.

 

[ሕጊ።።]

Actually, the Kingdom of Kush's predecessors , the Kermans, were a Cushitic speaking nation most likely sharing ancestry with Highland East Cushites like Sidama.

The Kushites and the Canaanites actually spoke Semitic languages in the bible (of Shem). Nations of Put and Mizraim spoke Hamitic languages.

 

[Prince Abubu]

The Bible is Hebrew myth partly stolen from the mesopotamians. It's not a valid historical source. I'm saying historians have found evidence that shows the Kermans and C cultures that preceded Kush spoke Cushitic and Berber languages. Semites didn't reach Nubia until the Muslim age.

 

[Bahal]

Because Arabs enslaved us while they were smoking Kush. So they called us Kushites.

 

[ሕጊ።።]

The Bible is Hebrew myth partly stolen from the mesopotamians. It's not a valid historical source. I'm saying historians have found evidence that shows the Kermans and C cultures that preceded Kush spoke Cushitic and Berber languages. Semites didn't reach Nubia until the Muslim age.

That's just conflict of belief then. There were Semitic languages spoken in the Horn however for a long time.

 

[Prince Abubu]

That's just conflict of belief then. There were Semitic languages spoken in the Horn however for a long time.

You are right, since about 1000BC. But the Semites were restricted to the northern coast of Eritrea and northern tigrey region of Ethiopia. It was only in the medieval Adal wars that the Habesha extended to Semien, Gojjam, Gonder, Harer etc.

 

[ሕጊ።።]

You are right, since about 1000BC. But the Semites were restricted to the northern coast of Eritrea and northern tigrey region of Ethiopia. It was only in the medieval Adal wars that the Habesha extended to Semien, Gojjam, Gonder, Harer etc.

True. They basically followed the areas in which kingdoms were located (D'mt->Aksum->Abyssinia), so they did spread southwards.

 

[Inquisitive_]

Another interesting fact is that a very similar narrative is painted by Ibn Tabari. Although I have failed to find any evidence for his claims from religious sources. I mention this as it very explicit and very racist and it comes from one of the greatest Muslim commentators. Note that I am NOT trying to start some sort of debate.

Incredible dishonest statement, Ibn Tabari if you read the very first page of his book, states that he is only narrating what he has heard, with no chain of narration or 'sanad' as we know to prove their authenticity.

There is a tonne of crap that he narrates that he has heard from the people, he is nothing more then a mere historian travelling, documenting whatever he hears, with the disclaimer in the first page in his book that these are not his views, the so called dubbed 'satanic' verses fairy tale story was also told.


Here is the verbatim opening statement in Ibn Tabari's Book

Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us