Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي
Sign in to follow this  
Safaa

Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Recommended Posts

Over the last three weeks , I was heavily involved into an interesting debate through an email thread with some of my former engineering school colleagues.. We were discussing that last Pope's speech and then we moved through different Islamic issues and concepts.

I would like to share that debate with you. Please don't comment for now until I fully post the whole dialogue

Safaa

 

 

 

###############################################

a atar wrote:

We studies history and we learnt that Islam had spread its faith through Muslims' swords, but this particular fact has been hidden well and Muslims never admitted the fact that Islam used the sword and

intimidation to submit other nations and not as it is claimed by the just it offered.

 

Although the fact that Islam isn't a peaceful religion and it used to spread its faith via the sword has been denied all times, and although the Pope's lecture may have not meant it the way it has been interpreted (i.e.the Pope meant to criticise Islam for its violent nature), but to me someone has finally spelt the truth out loud and clear.

 

Look at those Muslims' demonstrations around the world where they display their anger by big foul mouths and teeth burning effigy of the Pope. Someone commented on such demonstration by saying "Can Muslim

learn not to cry foul". I agree all what they know is that they are the victims of others and they have the right to be violent....

 

.Salam Ala

 

 

 

#########################################

From: Walid

Subject: Re: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT)

 

I think, it is the culture, does not let them be flexible

enough to receive any comments or judgments regarding the Islam

religion, or any other facts, for that matter, instead of going back and dig in the

historical books, searching for some kind of evidence (If any) to

confront the comments made, they go violence, actually in a way they

are confirming what said about them...

 

Those kinds of comments will not stop coming, every body

is working

hard to promote his path, and some times required to

criticize others,

to look better, it might come from leaders, writers,

reporters etc. I

think they need to learn how to be matured enough to deal

with such consequences.

 

Rgds

wa..

 

 

 

####################################

From:Safaa

Subject: Re: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

 

http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=700

 

Have a look to the full test of the speech .. Indeed the Pope was

raising a very interesting points.

 

Away from the public reactions and personal opinions , we need to give

 

these remarks serious attention .

Having such remarks brought by a non Muslim, doesn't change the

reality that such concerns are very valid ..

 

I fully agree with a point raised by Salim on the above posting,

questioning

Muslims of why they react so angry

Is it because they don't believe that such accusation of legitimacy

of using violent means to spread Islam Or, they just don't agree to

call such legitimacy a non human and barbaric?

 

Cheers

 

Safaa

########################################

 

From: Mark

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

 

 

Well, Muslims abhor being criticized in the first place. The criticism

came from a Christian which is totally unacceptable (remember this guy

does not wash his butt with water, and does not wash his hand after

going to bathroom). Islam is the greatest religion and is perfect so no

one can come close to alluding to a criticism. Islam is a peaceful

religion although it get defended violently. The military campaigns that

the prophet had 14 centuries ago were to right the thinking of the

infidels and the people who were not on the right direction so it can

not be considered violent. The people who were conquered embraced the

religion as soon as they got the details of what it preached.

 

So what is your problem??

 

################################

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From saad

 

I find Pop's discourse a good impulse to criticize our history and know

it better.

 

There was a crucial moment for Islam to go for a state religion or to

continue as Muhammad ( SAW) wanted. This was the battle between Ali and

 

Mu3awya. Mu3awya won at the end, this outlined the wide spread of the

Muslim empire. It is described clearly in Ali Ilwardi books. Also you

might read

 

"left and right in Islam" by Ahmad 3abbas Salih.

 

We need to stop at that period to study it deeply in particular the

battle of Suffeen.

 

Imam 3ali (3S) was suffering his position as Khalifa and it was

conflicting with his religious belief and attitude. That is why we need

to separate

 

State from religion.

 

So instead of being cynical about Islam, what we actually need is

better understanding of history.

 

Also, I don't want to forget the 800 years of church oppression ! The

inquisitions, wars, domination and...

 

The pop talks about "Reason" because he lost his power in 1861. This

will never cancel the shameful history of the church.

 

It is a socio political staff exploiting what ever is convenient

including religion.

 

 

Regards

Saad

############################################

 

 

a atar wrote:

Are you refering to me Mudaffar!!!!.....Me having a problem with

islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no way...I have problems not a problem......

 

################################

 

 

Tahir wrote:

Gentlmen,

this event unveils a fact of grave consequence. it is not about Islamic

philosphy or separation of religion and state anymore.

there is a growing trend of Violently shutting up civil librties by some

muslims who are willing to destry the fabric of the progress made over centuries

of stuggle. these people are growing stronger,better financed, and have a

huge base of hurds who are willing to do whatever to shut up any notion of

criticism to muslim behavior right or wrong.

Moreover these people are breeding at an unprecedented rate an even more

Violent breed that has more teeth as they are home born and grown that render

all protective laws useless against them.

Although the number of these muslim is arguably represent a small muslim minority

but the fear they grow in teh heart of their commnities and intidation

tactics they use creat a large majority of passive and silent supporters that can not be

Ignored.

 

If no action is taken to change the trend , I say there will be a time

in the very near future that one of a number of things will happen;

1-these people will take control by infiltrating ( through the

elections) the legal and representation systems which i do not need to

tell you what happens if they do.

2-as per newtons law of gravity! , these actions and event, would not at

all surprise me to discover in the very near future a reaction as or more Violent

by the local eouropean who will feel their libirties are being violated by muslems

and will turn these localities into hot spots that will run out of

control.

3-if the trend continues , remember Bosnia, it will look like a picnik

compared to what will happen, and my guess the europeans will be forced by their

communities to change the laws to give them more tools to deal with

these mother fuckers.

I am saying this because I used to go to Mosques and muslem gathering

and what I have seen in general was repulsive and does not make common sense.

but this is beyond repulsive and common sense,

It is incumbent on the Passive supportive majority who care about their

faith to make sure the minority do not take over and act on their behalf, unless

they want to!!.

 

I know some muslim leaders started to change their attitudes, but i

think they are still in the minority and their Voices are so soft they are

swamped in the loud cries.

 

Salam.

###################################################

 

 

 

From: a atar

 

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:41:28 +0100 (BST)

 

A western apologist by the name Jonathan Freedland who writes regularly in

a well-spread national newspaper called the Guardian and in line with Tariq

Ali's thoughts but less radical, trying to lecturer people about whether

the Pope meant what he quoted or not? and whehter he should be quoting

Manaul II or not.

 

His argument suggests that people like the Pope shouldn’t be quoting

Manual II’s perception of Islam because someone like the Pope has a world

position and what he says can stir problems. This may be the case, but then

Jonathan has forgotten to to mention anything about Muslim figures such as

Al Qardawi (the Egyptian radical cleric who says killing Israeli civilians

or infidels is a duty of all Muslims) or President of Iran who promotes the

defence of Islam violently. Subsequently those western apologists’

arguments have holes because they take one side and they geared toward

using any world issue to promote themselves.

 

The second thing Jonathan mentioned in today’s Guardian is that in

general one shouldn’t criticise religion or culture as we do with political

ideologies because people’s identities are strongly attached to religion or

culture more than political doctrine. What I would like to say to Jonathan

or what I aleardy said to him in a email is: are you suggesting that we

shouldn’t offend a culture or religion even if it is oppressive, inhumane

and backward thinking!!....if the liberal west lose grounds to the

mentality of muslims and western apologists then we end up with lovely

dictatorships like Stalin, Saddam...etc ….Salam Ala

 

#####################################################

 

 

Safaa wrote:

 

http://www.amjaonline.com/english/headline.asp?Headid=152

 

Have a look to some other reply by some Muslim scholars in America.. Seems

our American fellows are much more talented than those in UK who raise a

starnge slogans as the one mentioned by Alla

 

Cheers

Safaa

#################################################

 

 

 

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:13:11 +0100 (BST)

 

In Francis Fukuyama's previous lecture in the city university

in London,he

suggested an interesting analysis of why immigrants (Muslims

and non-Muslims) in US are better integrated than the immigrants in

Europe.Although I agree with Fukuyama's core argument, but can't see a

lot of

talent the US's Muslims can bring forward in dealing with

serious issues,

and the evidence is below.

 

Before I start dealing with the evidence I would like to say

few words on scholarly work. I am a bit baffled about the description of mullahs as scholars; my simple question is: what research methodology Muslim scholars use in their research? Is just the use of fertile imagination of interpreting the Quranic text? All Arabs and Muslims enjoy having fertile imagination not proper scientific research? Can anyone shed some good light on this issue which is hidden well behind doors?

 

1. This talented Muslim scholar (Dr Hatim Al Haj) still

believes

and

tries to persuade the rest the world that Islam is/was peaceful

 

in preaching its doctrine.

2. This talented Muslim still believes that the bible and

other holey books lack of accuracy due to the heavy

manipulation and they(other holey books) may not represent the word of God. This talented Muslim isn't examining the possibility that the Quran itself may not be in its original text because it was written way later after Prophet Mohammad death and it has incoherent and inconsistent passages.

3. The same talented Muslim scholar still compares Christianity and

Judaism to Islam and portrays Islam as superior religion.

4. "It is known in Islam that when people accept peace, they are left undisturbed" Muslims still tell lies about the practises of Muslims in the occupied foreign lands. Yes Muslims may have had done good jobs in developing some social aspects but that doesn't't mean Muslims' practice were all absolutely humane and it was better than other religions' practises.

5. This talented scholar still believe that because of the Inherent superiority of Islam, it can embrace other faiths but what he Forgets is that other faiths believe in their superiority over Islam and

their tolerance to embrace Muslims as we see it in modern liberal west.

6. Many talented Muslim scholars still battling with the idea that Islam is better than liberal democracies in tolerating other faiths.

But they witness so many daily evidence of the superiority of liberal democracies over religious faiths.

 

Finally as human being, superiority complex surfaces to our existence when we are in a deep rut of doubts and uncertainty about our faith,our human value and our abilities to thrive, and this is what Muslims experiencing right now.

 

 

Salam.. Ala

####################################################

 

 

Safaa wrote:

 

 

“my simple question is: what research methodology Muslim

scholars use in their research?”

 

Alaa,

 

No offense but how much do you know about Muslim scholars. Do you know about the moslim Philosophyers Avicenna , Averoes and Kindus .Or even their opponent Alassaree's sect that prohipted rational thinking which unfortunately got adopted by the main stream Sunni sects of Islam later

Are you aware that the word philosophy had its origin from Arab word falsafa because Arabs were the one who first reached the western Chrestian world , backward then, with it. How much do you do know about great Soofees like Alsahrawardee or Alhalaj who was chopped by the Sunni Khleefa on bases of Kufer . what do know About the late great Iranian Mulla Sadra and about the one thousand year old school of Najaf traditions and their methodology..

If by any how you don't, then again I would recommend " A history of God" to answers most of your questions.. BTW , the author is not a converted to islam one, She was a nun for more than thirty years in England then is converted to be atheist with harsh critisim to the religous thinking and had her lecturing post currently with a famous Jewesh Studies College n LA-California .. I might not agree with some of her conclusions , but she wrote a very good count about the idea of God and it's development through the three Ibrahimic religions

 

If you really think Islam is nothing but about these Mullas

touring Mosques todays to kill Alhusain or to torture followers with long preachings teaching them how to wash their Buts, then you are missing a lot of fun my friend!

 

Cheers

Safaa

 

################################################

 

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:15:28 +0100 (BST)

 

I am reasonably aware of all those Muslim intellectuals and they represent an era that has less relevance to the current intellectual debates of the Islamic doctrine and their thoughts and knowledge has been developed way further by westren philosophers and scientists but muslims still hanging on to a legacy that has less relevance to todays' advancement of the scienctific and philosoaphical debate. To test you as you assumed of me not knowing much of those people, I ask you a question: what was

Averroes approach and how different it is from Farabi for instance?

To correct you, philosophy has it's Latin and Greek origin linguistically and practically not Arabic, don't just assume thatsome Arab and Muslim initiated the whole science and philosophy!!!! This is a typical

assumption by Muslims and Arabs: everything started when they touched on science and philosophy and nothing existed before them. Before them existed a huge amount of knowledge and Arabs and Muslims knew nothing about but translated into Arabic using Jewish translators who did such jobs

because they seeked protection.

 

Now ...you haven't answer my initial question: what is/are the current research methodologies used by current Muslims scholars?

Talking about books and trying to use them to endorse an argument without knowing more what these books all about isn't sufficient my friend. Manji Irshad wrote "what is the trouble with Islam?" it may tell

you more than what the "history of God" can tell. What I am saying is that mentioning one book doesn't resolve a debate, but can add some value to the debate.

 

I looked at the website you've provided and looked at fatwas section and examined an example of the way these "talented scholars" deal with questions and found inconsistencies, incoherence, contradictions and delegating answers to simple questions they cannot answer to God.

 

Finally, you've forgotten to addressed the six points I wasdebating, i.e. the "talented scholar's" comparison of Islam and Christianity and the implicit assumption of Islam's superiority!!!!!!!!!!.....

 

Salam

Ala

 

 

#########################################################

 

 

 

 

Safaa wrote:

Azizi,

I feel sorry that my questions might be interpreted on personal bases.. I was just referring to all those Muslim scholars that had contributed to the human understanding , that is in reply to your question. May be I should not use the non appropriate direct dialogue..

 

 

I fully agree with your point that the problem with Muslims is that

they failed to peruse that Path.. I even go further, as part of another

thread with Saad, to claim that the real issue is not of stopping such

great works by the Muslim Philosophers, but even to abandon them..I think, the freeze

of the Muslim intellectuality had started on the moment in history

when the state adopted the Ashaaree irrational mind and imposed that on

Muslims by law. It was the moment when the islamic mind went through a long dark freeze

 

As for your point that you assume myself claiming the Falsafa as an

Arab made, I need to put my self clear. I never said that , I was

Referring to the fact that the west took it from the Arab, who got it through the great translation of the Greek books to Arabic. That translation and retranslation that preserved those great human knowledge .. If this word is of

Original Greek or not , that is a different issue.. It might be of Summerian origin too that Greek took .. The human intellectual interaction has no end and no should claim authority ..

 

 

And about your comments on the article, I think the best one to

Direct to is the author through the web site.. I forwarded it just to let you know that the reaction by Muslims are not only through the ignorant slogans..

However, I am not an expert of Bible, do you think the quoting that the author listed are non accurate?

 

Cheers..

BTW , about the what was Averroes approach and how different it is from Farabi for instance?

 

I would really like to know the answer.. Alkidi might not be

Described as a true Faylasuf. But he was a poineer in the Islamic attempt to harmonize religious truth with systematic metaphysics.. Am I right?

 

Safaa

 

 

################################################

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:50:43 +0100 (BST)

 

Listen Safaa...Your questions weren't interpreted but were written

The way they meant to be, you seem to use the language in ways that suit you but you feel sorry for using that type of language when others examine it closely!!!!! You seem to use a lot of " I never said that...etc" as if am here to pin you down and by doing so you impose a loss of the essence of the argument.

 

I think you don't seem to want to understand my points: I said

Whatever Muslims did in the past has no/less relevance to the present debate and will not give them a status like their Muslim ancestors had.

Furthermore the current Muslims scholars are not up to an open debate because they lack proper thinking and even research methods, they are more into the defensive than opening up to see what is the problem with Islam that generates

All this radical reactions or backward Islamic culture..... I hope you

are going to say "Islam has no problem but Muslims do".

 

Muslims are so desperate to acquire a special status even without

any contribution to global debates, scientific development and the

general intellectual development, but they demand from the world to

be treated like world class people because of their "extraordinary Islam" or because the legacy of their ancestors who contributed to some extent to the world knowledge but at the same time were colonial in their domination to other nations as the Roman were, for instance.

 

Muslims nowadays resemble tyrannical children; in the psychological context tyrannical children use deafening noises and demands as their tactic to get what they want, Muslims use all the

noises to get what they want and even preventing others to say something of historical value

such as what the Pope said recently. Unfortunately the world is not

confronting them to stop the blackmailing of the world, the manipulation through victim

mentality and threatening language and acts they use. I wondered, who the badWord they think they are?????? To many they are more of a neurotic,narcissistic and ego-centric majority and very paranoid about their religion!!!!!!!........Salam Ala

 

 

 

##########################################################

 

 

Safaa wrote:

Alaa,

It is very interesting to read through your last two replies.. It

gave me some better understandings to some other ME arab radical mind

mentality..

Comparing your reaction to my regret with the repulsive reactions by

those ignorant Muslims to the Popes's , I frankly and again no

personal offense, found a pattern of similarity..

Both go around the point, both use a prejudgment , both have nothing

but a defiant stand and I might say prejudice one.

 

When I asked if you are aware about the whole Islamic scholar

rational thinking that started by Kindee, more than one thousands

year ago, till late Jamal Aldeen alfghani and Mohamed Abdua. Your

reply was nothing but a very defiant show off of another question

 

When I tried to explain my point, your reaction was nothing but use aprejudgment..

 

While I am calling for serious look into Islam theological problems

and tried to squeeze them into the lack of rational thinking among

current and last hundred of years main stream scholars , your reaction to me was:

Furthermore the current Muslims scholars are not up to an open

debate because they lack proper thinking and even research

methods, they are more into the defensive than opening up to see what is the problem with

Islam that generates all this radical reactions or backward Islamic culture.....

I hope you are going to say "Islam has no problem but Muslims do".

 

How do you know that I am going to say the above.. For me your looking to Islam is no difference to those fanatic Islamist one. Both of you came from same point of considering Islam as a statue. They

consider it a sacred one and you consider it a monster though.. You both miss a point that islam is just like any other living creature, it is developing. A great Sufi said once in describing his understanding to his faith " It is Just another anchor stop for my ship long trip".. It is a long complicated fun straggle, only those who came from simplistic mind set thought they know it for sure!

 

My friend , there is an wise Iranian saying

" Those who never get

wisdom at age of seven , would never get it even at age of seventy".

 

I hope you read through my comment more carefully and be able to get

rid of radical defiant stands at age of fifty..

 

Both ways I will keep enjoying your points ..

Cheers

safaa

 

 

######################################################

 

 

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:31:59 +0100 (BST)

 

Safaa....I never got personal but will start now. Your replies are

getting

more as personal assaults and unwise, well actually they are stupid.

You seem to be hiding behind a facade of higher Islam that never

existed to justify dreadful deeds by Muslims and their Islamic

doctrine.

 

If you see me as radical at fifty I see you as not sure of exactly

what debating Islam is all about with lingering ambivalence of your

past and what you would like to be now. At times babbling with list

of books that you haven't read or talking nonsense just to protect

your sacred Muslim identity.

 

"I hope you are going to say "Islam has no problem but Muslims do".

How do you know that I am going to say the above."

You already said

that in your previous emails and many Muslims trying to defend Islam by making distinction between the pure Islam and what followed after Mohammad by saying that everything after Mohammad was not a proper implementation of Islamic doctrine.

 

I have seen many like you coming to this discussion or on other websites and started defending the Islam using trivial arguments. Ask Saad who brought Ikhlas to defend Islam who started telling us about books that he himself hasn't read but heard about their high value.

 

By the way, if you cannot handle the heat, get out of kitchen. But if you change your mind and accept discussing Islamic and Muslims' issues, then I am willing to listen to what you say.

 

Final advice for you my friend, don't get defensive when Islam and Muslims are criticised and don't just blindly defend the indefensible because of some emotional attachment to it....

 

Salam Ala

##################################################################

 

 

 

Safaa wrote:

Ala,

Let us get out of personal attacks and move on to more fruitful

discussion, both of us made our selves very clear. I sincerely think that there is a lot that I can learn through this board, and don't want to lose such opportunity by going into such level of personal based dialogue

 

Before going that way let me explain something , not to be defiant but to make things clear..

You wrote

"I hope you are going to say "Islam has no problem but Muslims

do".

How do you know that I am going to say the above

 

You already said that in your previous emails and many Muslims trying to defend Islam by making distinction between the pure Islam and what followed after Mohammad by saying that everything after Mohammad was not a proper implementation of Islamic doctrine.."

 

You again using unfortunate prejudgment, mixing what I never thought of with what ever other experiences that you might had with some one that I might even not agree with...Which email that I wrote such nonsense.. I personally think that there is no such think as pure Islam. That was part of what I wanted to

explain when I referred to those Muslims who think that Islam is a statue ..

 

For me , Islam a complicated non harmonic mix of social and religious codes and there is no such thing as Islam purity. the Islam of Philosophers is different than Islam of Sufis different than Islam of

Ashaarees, of Jaafrees, different than Islamiliis , than Muatazalies..Each one of them added some, but there no such thing of single pure Islam. As the case with most genuine social big calls, Islam had different directions and developments and it is still developing, and for me, that what makes it so influential in human history . I personally not agree with those who believe that Islam is what Mohamed had teach. It is much more of what all the human exercise and contributions over thousand years..With out all these

contributions, Islam might be no more than a old ages doctrine. This is what, I think , early Islam was calling for. I think, discussing Islam , need first to have some basic understanding to the different versions of Islam and then to try to understand why the main stream Islam today stick to the irrational version of Ashaarees over other rational versions, at least over the last couple centuries..

 

Safaa

 

###########################################################

 

Tahir wrote:

Gentlmen,

I have been reading the Da VinCi code , it is a historical fiction

very intriguing and Gripping . I highly recommend reading it.

besides the drama and fictitious story , it deals with a lot of

historical facts and it shows the western christians tolerance to

brutal criticism.

 

I will leave you with this quote" History is a lie, it is always

written by the winners who always write it or change it to fit their point of view" that is the moral of the Davinci code story.

rgds.

 

########################################################

 

 

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:56:39 +0100 (BST)

 

I've seen the movie (i.e. Da Vinci Code), but then reading the novel

itself is a totally different process which I enjoy very much. At the

moment, I am rereading a book by Ali AlWardi titled (Ib Kaldoun's

thoughts" in which he exposes an immense number of Muslim authors of

the time (During the imperial Islam and its colonisation of other

nations) who were really prolific writers but their writings have no

much relevance/substance to the current/modern intellectual, scientific

 

and philosophical issues. Up to Averroes and Ibn Kaldoun majority of

Muslims authors, thinkers of the time were following Aristotelian

deductive approach to reach philosophical conclusions; those

conclusions were wrong, or I should say can be invalid, compared to

using the current inductive scientific methods, for instance.

Ibn Kaldoun was probably the first to introduce the scientific

observational approach in studying societies (i.e. social science

issues).

In other words, philosophically speaking

Muslims were more or less indulged into the luxury of Aristotelian

philosophy and contributed nothing to the modern thoughts until

Averroes and Ibn Kaldoun and that is why western historians refer to

Ibn Kaldoun and his book "Al Moqadima" a lot. Of course Ibn Batota

tried to study the cultural issues of nations through his observational

 

travels but not as systematic as Ibn Khaldoun, it is believed. Francis

Bacon was one of the first westerns who identify the value of modern

inductive scientific research methods to move science and philosophy

into new and better direction away form the luxury of Aristotelian

philosophy.

 

To expand on the above paragraph, one can say that current Muslims

still used the old Aristotelian approach to conclude or appraise on

real life issues by using Quranic text or hadith as premises of

arguments to reach conclusions that may not be of valid value to real

life. Now...one of the main reasons that Quran was/is interpreted into

so

many different ways is that because one piece of Quranic text can be

used to conclude certain conclusion, say conclusion 1, but other pieces

 

of Quranic text can lead to a contradictory conclusion to conclusion 1.

 

Although this aspect of Quran is admired by Muslims but really it shows

 

denied inconsistencies. This is what the syllogism in Aristotelian

approach and still used by "Muslim scholars". Actually that is why

"Muslim scholars" and Islam in general are seen as at least 500 years

behind current thoughts.

 

What you brought here Tahir (i.e. " History is a lie, it is always

written by the winners who always write it or change it to fit their

point of view" ) is a very important fact that many people denies

since it may offend their religious sensibilities. But it is a fact

that Islamic history written by Muslims, therefore it may contain a lot

 

of lies or biased anecdotes of Muslims'practices such as the non

colonisation nature of Islamic expansions, the Muslims' domination and

subjugation of other nations by sword, slavery of Africans....etc. I am

 

glad that you brought forward this valuable piece of information or I

should say common sense ..etc....Salam Ala

 

 

##########################################################

From: Safaa

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

 

Interesting interview with Dr. Hamid abo Zaid that might be in relation to what we are talking about here..

 

http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=707

 

-Safaa

 

####################################################

 

 

 

 

 

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:44:21 +0100 (BST)

 

Safaa...what annoys me about your accounts in general is that you

state things and don't allow others to examine them closely. For instance

there is a subtle contradiction of current Islamic practices and your idea

of evolving Islam (mentioned below)!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if Islam has evolved

then it should have views on liberal practices that contradicts Islamic doctrine and values, for instance...and Which aspects of Islam are evolving?

how it can evolve if still uses medieval approaches? Can one say that the stagnant aspects of Islam are overriding the evolving ones? Are there good evidence of this claimed evolution? and finaly would having different sects means evolution or confustion among Muslims?....etc

 

Now...I use language describing Islam that reflects precisely majority of Muslims' destructive practices (destructive to the most humane system human beings ever developed, i.e. liberal democracy), therefore if you feel that my language is offending you, then refrain from personal attacks

otherwise I will do whatever it takes to stop you. On the other hand, we go along discussing interesting issues whatever they may be with open mind. I don't understand or I don't have scared issues such as religious believes,

political dogma or tribal values that need special handling, all issues for me are there to be examined and maybe more....Salam Ala

 

 

#############################################

 

Safaa wrote:

 

Ala,

Good questions. that could be a good start for another round of thoughtful debate..

I am open to any examination or objection to my points, it would for sure highlight those points that I might be missing. So please feel free to put all your concerns as clearly as you think. Indeed that why I like this board message :-)

 

I will come back to you on your raised concernces regarding the possible evolution in Islam. I am kind of bussy and would like to enjoy your assesment on this point . Do you mean that the Prophet's Islam is same as Suffi's or Shia or AlAshaarees " the four sunni sect"..

 

Cheers

Safaa

 

#################################################

 

 

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:39:54 +0100 (BST)

 

Do you mean that the Prophet's Islam is same as Suffi's or Shia or

AlAshaarees " the four sunni sect"..................I am not sure which

part of my replys you are referring to?.....Salam Ala

#################################################

 

 

 

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:36:47 +0100 (BST)

 

I see what you mean; in your eyes you see that prophet's Islam has

evolved into Sufi's other Sunni's sects Islam...etc as evidence of evolving

Islam. If you mean that then my answer is simply embodied in my last statement

of the below email, and here it is again:

 

"and finaly would having different sects means evolution or confusion

among Muslims?" Look at my reply to Tahir on the Da Vinci code novel where

I suggested the confusion rather than evolution ............Salam Ala

 

##########################################################

 

 

Safaa Hasan wrote:

 

 

 

I think you are referring to your's: I've seen the movie (i.e. Da Vinci Code), but then reading the novel itself is a totally different process which I enjoy very much. At the moment, I am rereading a book by Ali AlWardi titled (Ib Kaldoun's thoughts" in which he exposes an immense number of Muslim authors of the time (During the imperial Islam and its colonisation of other nations) who were really

prolific writers but their writings have no much relevance/substance to the current/modern intellectual, scientific and philosophical issues. Up to Averroes and Ibn Kaldoun majority of Muslims authors, thinkers of the time were following Aristotelian deductive approach to reach philosophical conclusions; those conclusions were wrong, or I should say can be invalid,compared to using the current inductive scientific methods, for instance. Ibn Kaldoun was probably the first to introduce the scientific observational approach in studying societies (i.e. social science

issues). In other words, philosophically speaking Just to have me understand your point better, comapring Islam to Cheristianity or Judism, are their sects a symptom of confusion too? if not, why?. Do you think that the eastren Orthodox and Qubti Churchs are in

same boat with Catholic or Protestant , as far as the evolution process

concern

How you differentiat betwen evolution and confusion? can you please

ellaborate

 

Cheers

Safaa

 

###############################################

 

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:01:09 +0100 (BST)

 

Here is just one interpretation of evolution and confusion and there are

more if you like :

 

Evolution is the process of moving from one form into a form that allows

space for better survival. Taking Christianity as an example it has evolved

not in terms of its preaching but in accepting defeat to liberal democracy

and let it take the power from it (the church) and letting the west develop

science and technology further than Muslims’ nations who got stuck with

attempts to impose the power of Islam on national institutions.

 

Confusion on the other hand is to muddle with varieties of

interpretations and develop less and not to let for example societies

develop freely without the influence of religion........Salam Ala

 

################################################

 

 

Safaa wrote:

Based on this definition, that I might argue later, the Sufism is an evolved

state of Islam. While Orthodox church teachings is kind of in the midde of

that processl.. Right?

Cheers

Safaa

 

####################################

 

 

 

From: a atar

 

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:08:31 +0100 (BST)

 

Bear in mind that the measure (my existential and humanistic metrics) is

how a particular religious doctrine serves the liberties and the varieties

of experiences humanbeings may experience regardless of their

contradiction with religion.........Salam Ala

 

###################################################

 

 

 

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 07:51:50 +0100 (BST)

 

Not my measure, the current measure of civilised societies, civilised

religion and civilised culture that respect human rights and allow human

experiences regardless of their contradiction with religion.

 

Agree with what? you said you are going to prove the evolution of Islam

by the set measures, go ahead as for me I sit back and watch the proof ....

 

############################################

 

 

Safaa wrote:

It is not whose measure. Based on that measure,how do you look to Muslim Suffi's and Orthodox chrestians?

 

Please be specific..I realy want to understand your point..

Safaa

 

#################################################

 

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:38:24 +0100 (BST)

 

I haven't studied the Sufis or the Christian orthodox in depth but will read a bit on them and maybe formulate some initial views. Now...I don't see where are heading with all that. Can I suggest that you write about your complete views of any evidence of evolution, it will only take two to three pages, and let us take it from there.

 

Our measure/metrics may need to fit in the following framework: Tolerating humans' experiences and respecting/protecting their liberties even when contradicting religious values (any religion) is how I assess the evolution of religions. For instance I see Christianity (obviously not all sects) tolerating its defeat to liberalism and letting go of the power it used to enjoy is some form of evolution and any move that opposes such trend is regression. Now if Sufis managed such a things then I would say that Sufis may have got some evolutionary moves in its development otherwise it is not. And we mustn't forget that I am scrutinising the big trend current in Islam, not the insignificant ones.

 

I can't be more specific the subject is complex and requires open discussion if you're ready for that is well and good....Salam Ala

 

 

####################################################

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ala,

I liked much your tolerance and respect measure. I can't agree more ..

Let me go direct to where I am heading , please feel free to stop and shut me up as loud as you can, I desperately need to examine my thoughts through a very tough counter stand that is sharing same measure, specially when it comes from a thorough blunt and non hypocrite mind like yours.

So let us enjoy our minds going wild , and let me brief my point.

 

I think , based on that measure , any generic statement towards any social/religious system is a sign of simplification. Christianity like Islam like Jewdism are complex example of such systems.. They all went through evolution, per our definition. As example, I would refer you to the following interpretations to the " La ekrah fee al deen" sura 256-2 that I copied from the source word by word.

 

The first example:

{ لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي ٱلدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ ٱلرُّشْدُ مِنَ ٱلْغَيِّ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِٱلطَّاغُوتِ وَيْؤْمِن بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدِ ٱسْتَمْسَكَ بِٱلْعُرْوَةِ ٱلْوُثْقَىٰ لاَ ٱنفِصَامَ لَهَا وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ }

 

 

المقالة الثانية عشرة:

 

في قوله سبحانه: { لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي ٱلدِّينِ }

 

وفيه أطوار:

 

الطور الأول

 

في اللَّفظ

 

" اللاَّم " في " الدين " إمّا أنه لام العهد كما ذهب إليه بعض، أو أنه بدل من الإضافة كما رآه آخرون، وهو مثل قوله تعالى:

{ فَإِنَّ ٱلْجَنَّةَ هِيَ ٱلْمَأْوَىٰ }

[النازعات:40]. أي: مأواه، والمراد " في دين الله ".

 

و " الدين " معناه في الأصل: العادة والشأن، ودانه: أذلّه واستعبده، يقال: دنته، فدان، ثم استعمل بمعنى الجزاء: دانه ديناً، أي: جازاه، يقال: " ما تُدين تدان " أي: كما تجازي تجازى بفعلك وبحسب ما عملت، وقوله تعالى:

{ أَإِنَّا لَمَدِينُونَ }

[الصافات:53]. أي: مجزّيون، ومنه: " الدَّيان " في صفة الله، و " قوم دين " أي: داينون، والمدين: العبد. والمدينة: الأمة كأنهما أذلّهما العمل ودنته: ملكته، ومنه سميَ المصر " المدينة " ثم استعمل بمعنى الطاعة، ودان له: أطاعه، ومنه " الدين " ، والجمع: " الأديان " وقد دان بكذا، ديانة وتديّن به، فهو دَيّن ومتديّن.

 

الطور الثاني

 

في المعنى

 

والتحقيق فيه: أنَّ " الدِّين " في الحقيقة، هو التسليم والرضا الحاصلين بسبب العقائد العلميّة التي وقعت بإفاضة الله على القلب المطمئن بالإيمان لمناسبة ذاتيّة، أو كسبية بمزاولة الأفكار والأنظار في طلب الكشف واليقين، وكما أنَّ العلوم الضروريّة تحصل في القلب بمجرّد الإفاضة من غير إكراه وجبر، فكذلك العلوم النظريّة والمعارف الإلهيّة إنَّما تحصل عقيب المبادئ والمقدمات الإلهاميّة، أو التعليميّة بمجرد الإلقاء في الروع، والتأثير في الباطن، والقذف في القلب من غير إجبار في الظاهر وإكراه في القالب.

 

وذلك لأن الدِّين أمر باطني، ولا تسلّط لأحد على باطن الإنسان وقلبه إلاَّ للواحد الحق، من جهة المناسبات الذاتيّة، والقربات المعنويّة، والمواجيد الذوقيّة، والمكاشفات الشوقيّة، والتجليّات الإلهيّة، وقد ورد في الخبر: " إنَّ الله تعالى إذا تجلّى لشيء خضع له باطنه وظاهره ".

 

وفي الحديث النبوي عليه وآله أفضل الصلوات والتسليم: " ليس الدين بالتمنّي ".

 

مع أن التمنّي نوع من الاختيار، فكيف يحصل بالإكراه - وهو الإجبار - وذلك لأنّ الدين هو الاستسلام لأوامر الشرع ظاهراً، والتسليم لأحكام الحق تعالى باطناً من غير حرج في الباطن، كقوله تعالى:

{ إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلإِسْلاَمُ }

[آل عمران:19]. وقوله:

{ فَلاَ وَرَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىٰ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ }

[النساء:65].

 

الطور الثالث

 

فيما سنح لنا بالبال في تحقيق المرام وفي انتظامه بما سبق من الكلام

 

إنَّ الله سبحانه وتعالى بعدما بيَّن معارف التوحيد الذاتي، والصفاتي، والأفعالي بوجه شاف كاف متعال، أراد أن يشير إلى طريق العبودية لهذا المعبود الموصوف بغاية الجمال والجلال، المنزّه عن المماثل في الكمال والشريك في الأفعال، فأشار إلى " مقام الرضا " الذي هو من لوازم المعرفة، واليقين، والبصيرة التامة، في أمر الدين، وهو أعلى مراتب العابدين قبل حصول الفناء، وأجلَّ مراتب العارفين الصديقين في هذه الحياة الدنيا حين بقاء الوجود فيهم بعدُ، وعدم اندكاك جبل هويتهم في ملاحظ الهويَّة الأولى، فقال: { لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي ٱلدِّينِ }.

Then I would post a different interpretation to same Sure by another "scholar" that belongs to different mind set, it is too the exact wordings

حَدَّثَنَا بِشْر بْن مُعَاذ , قَالَ : ثنا يَزِيد , قَالَ : ثِنَا سَعِيد , عَنْ قَتَادَةَ : { لَا إكْرَاه فِي الدِّين قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْد مِنْ الْغَيّ } قَالَ : أُكْرِهَ عَلَيْهِ هَذَا الْحَيّ مِنْ الْعَرَب , لِأَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا أُمَّة أُمِّيّه , لَيْسَ لَهُمْ كِتَاب يَعْرِفُونَهُ , فَلَمْ يُقْبَل مِنْهُمْ غَيْر الْإِسْلَام , وَلَا يُكْرَه عَلَيْهِ أَهْل الْكِتَاب إذَا أَقَرُّوا بِالْجِزْيَةِ أَوْ بِالْخَرَاجِ , وَلَمْ يُفْتَنُوا عَنْ دِينهمْ , فَيُخَلَّى عَنْهُمْ . * - حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّد بْن بَشَّار , قَالَ : ثنا سُلَيْمَان قَالَ : ثنا أَبُو هِلَال , قَالَ : ثنا قَتَادَةُ فِي قَوْله , { لَا إكْرَاه فِي الدِّين } قَالَ : هُوَ هَذَا الْحَيّ مِنْ الْعَرَب أُكْرِهُوا عَلَى الدِّين , لَمْ يُقْبَل مِنْهُمْ إلَّا الْقَتْل أَوْ الْإِسْلَام , وَأَهْل الْكِتَاب قُبِلَتْ مِنْهُمْ الْجِزْيَة وَلَمْ يُقْتَلُوا . 4548 - حَدَّثَنَا ابْن حُمَيْد , قَالَ : ثنا الْحَكَم بْن بَشِير , قَالَ : ثنا عَمْرو بْن قَيْس , عَنْ جُوَيْبِر , عَنْ الضَّحَّاك فِي قَوْله : { لَا إكْرَاه فِي الدِّين } قَالَ : أَمَرَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ يُقَاتِل جَزِيرَة الْعَرَب مِنْ أَهْل الْأَوْثَان , فَلَمْ يَقْبَل مِنْهُمْ إلَّا " لَا إلَه إلَّا اللَّه " , أَوْ السَّيْف . ثُمَّ أَمَرَ فِيمَنْ سِوَاهُمْ بِأَنْ يَقْبَلَ مِنْهُمْ الْجِزْيَة ; فَقَالَ : { لَا إكْرَاه فِي الدِّين قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْد مِنْ الْغَيّ } . * - حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَن بْن يَحْيَى , قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْد الرَّزَّاق , قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَر , عَنْ قَتَادَةَ فِي قَوْله : { لَا إكْرَاه فِي الدِّين } قَالَ : كَانَتْ الْعَرَب لَيْسَ لَهَا دِين , فَكُرِهُوا عَلَى الدِّين بِالسَّيْفِ , قَالَ , وَلَا يُكْرَه الْيَهُود وَلَا النَّصَارَى وَالْمَجُوس إذَا أُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَة . 4549 - حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَن بْن يَحْيَى , قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْد الرَّزَّاق , قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا ابْن عُيَيْنَةَ , عَنْ ابْن أَبِي نَجِيح , قَالَ : سَمِعْت مُجَاهَدًا يَقُول لِغُلَامٍ لَهُ نَصْرَانِيّ : يَا جَرِير أَسْلِمْ ! ثُمَّ قَالَ : هَكَذَا كَانَ يُقَال لَهُمْ . 4550 - حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّد بْن سَعْد , قَالَ : ثني أَبِي , قَالَ : ثني عَمِّي , قَالَ : ثَنِيّ أَبِي , عَنْ أَبِيهِ , عَنْ ابْن عَبَّاس : { لَا إكْرَاه فِي الدِّين قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْد مِنْ الْغَيّ } قَالَ : وَذَلِك لَمَّا دَخَلَ النَّاس فِي الْإِسْلَام , وَأَعْطَى أَهْل الْكِتَاب الْجِزْيَة . وَقَالَ آخَرُونَ : هَذِهِ الْآيَة مَنْسُوخَة , وَإِنَّمَا نَزَلَتْ قَبْل أَنْ يُفْرَض الْقِتَال . ذِكْر مَنْ قَالَ ذَلِك : 4551 - حَدَّثَنِي يُونُس بْن عَبْد الْأَعْلَى , قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا ابْن وَهْب , قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنِي يَعْقُوب بْن عَبْد الرَّحْمَن الزُّهْرِيّ قَالَ : سَأَلْت زَيْد بْن أَسْلَم عَنْ قَوْل اللَّه تَعَالَى ذِكْره : { لَا إكْرَاه فِي الدِّين } قَالَ : كَانَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِمَكَّة عَشْر سِنِينَ لَا يُكْرِه أَحَدًا فِي الدِّين , فَأَبَى الْمُشْرِكُونَ إلَّا أَنْ يُقَاتِلُوهُمْ , فَاسْتَأْذَنَ اللَّه فِي قِتَالهمْ , فَأَذِنَ لَهُ . وَأَوْلَى هَذِهِ الْأَقْوَال بِالصَّوَابِ قَوْل مَنْ قَالَ : نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الْآيَة فِي خَاصّ مِنْ النَّاس , قَالَ : عَنَى بِقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى ذِكْره : { لَا إكْرَاه فِي الدِّين } أَهْل الْكِتَابَيْنِ وَالْمَجُوس , وَكُلّ مَنْ جَاءَ إقْرَاره عَلَى دِينه الْمَخَالِف دِين الْحَقّ , وَأَخَذَ الْجِزْيَة مِنْهُ . وَأَنْكَرُوا أَنْ يَكُون شَيْء مِنْهَا مَنْسُوخًا . وَإِنَّمَا قُلْنَا هَذَا الْقَوْل أَوْلَى الْأَقْوَال فِي ذَلِك بِالصَّوَابِ لِمَا قَدْ دَلَّلْنَا عَلَيْهِ فِي كِتَابنَا كِتَاب اللَّطِيف مِنْ الْبَيَان عَنْ أُصُول الْأَحْكَام " مِنْ أَنَّ النَّاسِخ غَيْر كَائِن نَاسِخًا إلَّا مَا نَفَى حُكْم الْمَنْسُوخ , فَلَمْ يَجُزْ اجْتِمَاعهمَا . فَأَمَّا مَا كَانَ ظَاهِره الْعُمُوم مِنْ الْأَمْر وَالنَّهْي وَبَاطِنه الْخُصُوص , فَهُوَ مِنْ النَّاسِخ وَالْمَنْسُوخ بِمَعْزِلٍ . وَإِذْ كَانَ ذَلِك كَذَلِكَ , وَكَانَ غَيْر مُسْتَحِيل أَنْ يُقَال : لَا إكْرَاه لِأَحَدٍ مِمَّنْ أُخِذَتْ مِنْهُ الْجِزْيَة فِي الدِّين , وَلَمْ يَكُنْ فِي الْآيَة دَلِيل عَلَى أَنَّ تَأْوِيلهَا بِخِلَافِ ذَلِك , وَكَانَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ جَمِيعًا قَدْ نَقَلُوا عَنْ نَبِيّهمْ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُ أَكْرَهَ عَلَى الْإِسْلَام قَوْمًا , فَأَبَى أَنْ يَقْبَل مِنْهُمْ إلَّا الْإِسْلَام , وَحَكَمَ بِقَتْلِهِمْ إنْ امْتَنَعُوا مِنْهُ , وَذَلِك كَعَبَدَةِ الْأَوْثَان مِنْ مُشْرِكِي الْعَرَب , وَكَالْمُرْتَدِّ عَنْ دِينه دِين الْحَقّ إلَى الْكُفْر وَمَنْ أَشْبَهَهُمْ , وَأَنَّهُ تَرَكَ إكْرَاه الْآخَرِينَ عَلَى الْإِسْلَام بِقَبُولِهِ الْجِزْيَة مِنْهُ , وَإِقْرَاره عَلَى دِينه الْبَاطِل , وَذَلِك كَأَهْلِ الْكِتَابَيْنِ , وَمَنْ أَشْبَهَهُمْ ; كَانَ بَيِّنًا بِذَلِك أَنَّ مَعْنَى قَوْله : { لَا إكْرَاه فِي الدِّين } إنَّمَا هُوَ لَا إكْرَاه فِي الدِّين لِأَحَدٍ مِمَّنْ حَلَّ قَبُول الْجِزْيَة مِنْهُ بِأَدَائِهِ الْجِزْيَة , وَرِضَاهُ بِحُكْمِ الْإِسْلَام . وَلَا مَعْنَى لِقَوْلِ مَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّ الْآيَة مَنْسُوخَة الْحُكْم بِالْإِذْنِ بِالْمُحَارَبَةِ . فَإِنْ قَالَ قَائِل : فَمَا أَنْت قَائِل فِيمَا رُوِيَ عَنْ ابْن عَبَّاس وَعَمَّنْ رُوِيَ عَنْهُ : مِنْ أَنَّهَا نَزَلَتْ فِي قَوْم مِنْ الْأَنْصَار أَرَادُوا أَنْ يُكْرِهُوا أَوْلَادهمْ عَلَى الْإِسْلَام ؟ قُلْنَا : ذَلِك غَيْر مَدْفُوعَة صِحَّته , وَلَكِنَّ الْآيَة قَدْ تَنْزِل فِي خَاصّ مِنْ الْأَمْر , ثُمَّ يَكُون حُكْمهَا عَامًّا فِي كُلّ مَا جَانَسَ الْمَعْنَى الَّذِي أُنْزِلَتْ فِيهِ . فَاَلَّذِينَ أُنْزِلَتْ فِيهِمْ هَذِهِ الْآيَة عَلَى مَا ذَكَرَ ابْن عَبَّاس وَغَيْره , إنَّمَا كَانُوا قَوْمًا دَانُوا بِدِينِ أَهْل التَّوْرَاة قَبْل ثُبُوت عَقْد الْإِسْلَام لَهُمْ , فَنَهَى اللَّه تَعَالَى ذِكْره عَنْ إكْرَاههمْ عَلَى الْإِسْلَام , وَأَنْزَلَ بِالنَّهْيِ عَنْ ذَلِك آيَة يَعُمّ حُكْمهَا كُلّ مَنْ كَانَ فِي مِثْل مَعْنَاهُمْ مِمَّنْ كَانَ عَلَى دِين مِنْ الْأَدْيَان الَّتِي يَجُوز أَخْذ الْجِزْيَة مِنْ أَهْلهَا , وَإِقْرَارهمْ عَلَيْهَا عَلَى النَّحْو الَّذِي قُلْنَا فِي ذَلِك . وَمَعْنَى قَوْله : { لَا إكْرَاه فِي الدِّين } لَا يُكْرَه أَحَد فِي دِين الْإِسْلَام عَلَيْهِ , وَإِنَّمَا أَدَلَّتْ الْأَلِف وَاللَّام فِي الدِّين تَعْرِيفًا لِلدِّينِ الَّذِي عَنَى اللَّه بِقَوْلِهِ : لَا إكْرَاه فِيهِ , وَأَنَّهُ هُوَ الْإِسْلَام . وَقَدْ يُحْتَمَل أَنْ يَكُون أُدْخِلَتَا عُقَيْبًا مِنْ الْهَاء الْمَنَوِيَّة فِي الدِّين , فَيَكُون مَعْنَى الْكَلَام حِينَئِذٍ : وَهُوَ الْعَلِيّ الْعَظِيم لَا إكْرَاه فِي دِينه , قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْد مِنْ الْغَيّ . وَكَأَنَّ هَذَا الْقَوْل أَشْبَه بِتَأْوِيلِ الْآيَة عِنْدِي ..

The second was one example of the early interpreters, around 1000 AD, while the first is example of the late sixteenth century but of different sect. I can trace a radical change of the first to the way of interpretation which is based on human rights and respect to their liberty in choosing their faith and thoughts rather than being based on sacred narrated strict historical stories.

 

The question is if this is an evolution. I think there is a problem here , each sect that the two are representing, consider them self as the right representation of Quran and not an evoluted one. We need to remember that the two are interpreting same old text and are not putting their own from scratch.

So it might better saying that there is evolution in the way Quran is interpreted . I think this is what many current scholars are missing when assessing Islam. Islam is not like catholic faith , where there is a central authority who manage the way the faith looks to the world and religious issue. In Islam , there no such position of clergy, there no such main religious rule of Church. To be Catholic, you need to be blessed by a priest in a church . In Islam people are born Muslims by nature " alfitra",though this might be considered as an indirect tolitarian imposition of faith but this is a nother point that we might need to discuss later.

I think this is the core value that Mohamed and the Quran had added to the human relation to their God.. In Islam there is no barriers , no means " wasita" as the case with previous religions. The only measure in Quran is mind " Alaakel"..However it is a problematic too. The lack of clear central and well defined mechanism might cause chaos.. but it might be a powerful tool too. Let me explain this point as I noticed you commenting on it before. I don't know how far is your experience with C and C++ programming. Those who used to the C language , might find it to problematic to handel the C++ open interface object oriented style. it is more difficult to manage but on other hand the decoupling of the code from the specifics of the hardware is providing more powerful universal system. I think the decoupling had happened through the new impersonal God that the Quran proposed and the human self centric theology , which sufis might later took to it'ds extreme, was the real value of Mohamed's call.

 

Now the big question is, if this is the way main stream Muslims are looking to Islam.. I think the answer might be not to the extent that one might expect.. This need another round of hard thinking and time .. But let me first get your intake on the above..

 

Cheers

safaa

 

 

 

To be continued..No reply please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 07:59:46 +0100 (BST)

 

I will be coming back to the underlined issues in your previous email,

but needed to comment on few general issues which may have been implied by

the Sura.

 

Obviously the first interpretation may show some basic development in

the general understanding of human psychology, but less detailed

understanding of for example the interaction between the rational processes

and the uncontrollable emotional processes. Having said that, what are the

Muslims' current attempts to interpret Quranic text to cater for deeper

aspects of human psychology in the light of for example modern theories of

human motivation to worship God without been forced as the Sura indicated?

 

Below are few points that need to be considered:

• The imposition of the Jiza is in contradiction with the modern

definition of human rights, because extra tax cannot be imposed on citizens

who are of other faith living under Islamic laws. It also may contravene

with modern equality laws such as laws to prevent discrimination on ground

of race, religion and gender.

• There may be practices in societies that may contradict

religious values but not social values and because the Sura suggests that

religion mustn’t be forced upon people then such practices must tolerated

regardless of their conflict with the doctrine’s values and principles.

• If individuals have chosen not to practice any religion and may

practice other line of thoughts which may argue the validity of religion

(i.e. to put it simply they are the Kafers by Islamic definitions) then

those people must be left alone as the Sura may have suggested.

 

Mustn’t the above points, for instance, included in any new attempt to

interpret Quranic text to prove the current evolution of the interpretation

of Quran?.....Salam Ala

 

#############################################

 

 

Safaa wrote: Many interesting points..

 

The interpretation by first scholar was in the sixteenth century, that is

way before the enlightenment in Europe and all of it's revolutionary human

right new concepts, so it might be not appropriate to root it to the coop

with the current era. That scholar is simply belonging to a different mind

sect than the second's. It might be worth mentioning that those who follow

the same second's sect are still using his methodology till today and are

considered as one of the main stream muslims while the other is considered

as another main stream.

 

As for your point of conducting contradicting practices.. Let me refer you

to the followings:

 

First: when Mohamed concurred Mecca, he didn't ask Mushrekeen to disband

their faith, though he was an absolute winner,. all what he asked for, was

to enter their homes to isolate them from those who might fight back..

Quran tells that these Mushrekeen were allowed to practice their faith for

the next two years before an incident happened that distract Muslims from

doing their haj, then Mushrekeen were abundant to do so in Mecca.. We might

discuss this incident in more details later

 

second: The only physical punishment that Quran imposed was toward those

who violate others rights, such as stealing or committing homicide. The

Irony is that there is no physical punishment in Quran to those who violate

Islamic believes even the greatest duty in Islam, praying, or any other

islamic pillars like fasting or paying Zakaa not mentioning drinking

alcohol which punishment had never been known till lately after the death

of the prophet when the second Khleef imposed it after noticing so many

Muslims became addicted to it. Some thing that would block them from

conducting well or participating in the wars.. .

 

This might raise many concerns towards those Muslims who believe in

physically enforcing people to their spirtual or personal rights or

wrongs.It is very clear that the Quranic philosophy is that these

violations be managed only by Allah in the other life and not by people on

earth.

 

I think that sharia laws enforcement at the personal conduct level on

people , muslims or non muslims, was part of evolution , some times

backward :-), which was a necessity of political order than of Islamic core

intention. something that had happened after the death of the prophet when

the stronger central state started to control religion. A phynomina that

is still governing muslim world till today " and not the other way that one

might misleadingly think". .. It would be another interesting subject to

discuss later.

 

 

As for Jezia law . I think it's current state is one of the proofs of

Islamic thinking evolution. Let us have two current Muslim based systems.. A

shia Iran constitution and Sunni Saudi sharia based.

Both of them don't apply such concept of Jizia on their citizens . As far as

discussing the analogy of the concept it self, we might come to this later

but the way I put it, is to be part of the social political dynamics. Let me

give you two different examples that might explain what I mean. Today in

Israel, as example of democratic based constitutional system, any Jew in the

world has the right to Israeli citizenship even if they have never visited

the country, while those who still hold the keys of their grand grand

father's homes are denied from such access. Another example of current

civilized political system, rich people are exposed to higher tax percentage

than lower income ones. Is that fair?

I think all of these are part of the social political requirements to rule

and manage ..

 

Cheers

Safaa

 

####################################################

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:41:33 +0100 (BST)

 

 

Having said the above, it seems to me and many others that Mohammad’s era

 

may stand to be the only reference and eras after Mohammad may have had

 

practices that may not be approved by Quran if the Quran is interpreted

 

to cater for the current modern social development. To push the argument

 

even further one can suggest that any social practice that contradict previous

 

Quran’s interpretation are ok if Quran is reinterpreted to cater for modern thoughts.

 

 

 

Final possible conclusion: there must be separation of social and political

 

development and religious practices but there may be some moral and

 

ethical input from religion and that in itself can be seen as some form

 

of secularism too…. .Salam Ala

 

 

 

#####################################################

 

Alaa,

Generally I would agree with your conclusions, however I have some concerns

 

One can't separate different islamic eras on bases of black and white. It is way more complex to be easily draw lines. What I was referring to is that there are some flag points that might raise a lot of concerns about current Islamic concepts and to how much it is complying with the only authenticity non debatable document " Quran".

 

Most of these islamic concepts and judgment are based on interpretations of Quran which were based on two sources

First what is called credible Sunna " Hadith" and narrated stories, the second is the one you mentioned before: history.

 

In order to interpret Quran , one might need to understand the surrounding circumstances and history behind any Aya. Muslims scholars through history had put a whole structure of Hadith and history to support their findings ..So it is not as easy as one might thought to understand the real intention by quran ayat.

On Hadith side, there are today more hadiths than what Mohamed could speak within his life time. Different sects put so much effort in " managing " credible hadiths to support their visions. All those hadiths " alsihah" were written at least two hundreds years after Mohamed death. That is because ,as All historians and Islamic sects confirmed, Mohamed himself prohibited writing his hadiths . This might put a real concern on the extent that Muslim can rely on what is called today "hadith sahih" and to be used on any legitimate argument base .

 

As for history of that early era, we need to remember that what most of what we call early Islam conduct and stories were written by Ibn Ishaq , 154 HJ, who used to be a non religious scholar but a narrator " kasakhoon" in the coffee shops of Kufa. All those who wrote about Mohamed life , from Ibn Kuthair to tabaree, used Ibn ishak's " sera" that was written during the tyranny Almansour period and on demand by the horrible khaleefa. So one might consider the extent of manipulation that such sera might bring to islamic history. By the way Ibn ishaq never met Mohamed nor even any of his companion's sons, he is just a non known Mowalli's of Kufa but with a nice voice , some thing like any shia "rawzakhon" who is ready to kill alhusain hundred times a day for couple of Dinars.

 

Reading through Ibn Ishak's Sera, Mohamed is no more than a cruel, sexually disturbed that would look even after his adopted son's beautiful wife. Some thing typical to image a tyrant khaleef.

 

When I referred you to the first example, I wanted to drew your attention that there is a line of interpretation to Quaran that try it's best to keep it within the text and not based on manipulated sources. To enjoy more quran great text, have a look to this

 

لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنكُمْ شِرْعَةً وَمِنْهَاجًا وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ لَجَعَلَكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَكِن لِّيَبْلُوَكُمْ فِي مَآ آتَاكُم فَاسْتَبِقُوا الخَيْرَاتِ إِلَى الله مَرْجِعُكُمْ جَمِيعًا فَيُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ

48سورة المائدة

 

Just scan through these words that were written fifteen's centuries ago and compare it with what is told today by those who claim authority of that book. are they related? Is it possible that the messenger of these words could be as the one whom Ibn ishak did narrated!

 

The most important question is if such complexity would make us in despair.? I personally don't think so. There are so many scholars today and before who work very hard to liberate QURAN FROM THE LONG TIME HIJACKING. They have a very powerful tool which is the fact that any muslim can't oppose " what ever contradict quran is worthless, even a credible hadith".

 

rather than try to kill Islam, try to liberate it.. ! Killing Mohamed's teachings is just another way to help the fanatics who had hijacked him

 

Cheers

safaa

#############################################

 

 

From: a atar

Subject: RE: Finally some truth about Islamic empires...interpretation

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:23:48 +0100 (BST)

 

I may agree with you on not separating Islamic eras but I may disagree with you, as you may have implicitly suggested that a whole picture of Islam and its practices have been completely revealed, and say that our discussions so far hasn't revealed the whole picture of Quran's interpretations and inhumane past/current Muslims' practices and the implications of those interpretation/practices on societies under the rule of Islam. On the other hand, I can see a hint of current attempts to push more humane image of Islam and its practices which may cause problems for you when encountering the current dominant Islamic trends. But then we all have to face our demons at some point in our lives.

 

Furthermore, I need to make sure that you are not trying just to give all-positive image of Islam just because it is your belief system or you sympathise with it more than other belief systems. What I can say to you now is that people like you are trying hard to make Islam a more acceptable religion which is fair to say and I hope that input like yours may change the way practising Islam means.

Just to pick on the undecidablility of Quran, to me and many others it may be fair to assume that the intensive abstraction of Quran may (not must) suggest its undebatability but its interpretations can be quite debatable.

I feel what you are trying to suggest here is that Quran is a dynamic document and can fit all eras and times by referring to its complex abstractionism and intention, but one can argue and say for example, the below Quranic text Sura Al Maeda 48 has either a contradictory text as in giving us the choices and making us different but plague us with difficulties and asking us to follow the good path.

 

OR it may be interpreted as in the granting of free will and subsequently only God has the definition of good and evil, therefore God is a very personal matter and anyone on earth cannot judge others for a presumed evil they have done......Salam Ala

###############################################

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Safaa

Ala,

When I talk about Islam in this thread, I try my best to be subjective and not biased. Having said that, I might still be not able to get out of my background education being raised as repulsive to current main stream islam which I find non satisfactory. This might get me try to escape to a reform vision of finding a rosy picture in early islam. So please point me to those instances that you would find inconsistent.As for those points that I am raising , the main intention was not to say that eary Islam is all-posative as might my comment misleadinglee implied. What I was refering to is the fact that there is an outstanding clear statements in Quran that are in relavent to our bench mark of tolerance and in contradiction to the current main stream Islamic views ofg supiriority and concure . That is at a time all Muslim sects undebatibily have no issue with Quran, indeed it is the only document that they agree upon. BTW, my refernce to " debatable" was in that meaning and not to imply any other divine authority one.

 

There are some other statements "aya" in Quran that might look very unusaul. For example the Sura that is called the aya of Sword " Alsaif" Sura al "Touba-5" , have a look

{ فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلأَشْهُرُ ٱلْحُرُمُ فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَٱحْصُرُوهُمْ وَٱقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلاَةَ وَآتَوُاْ ٱلزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ }
Which most interpreters use to legatimize the killing of Mushreeken or become muslims, they even include the prophet hadith "sahih"

وقد جاء في الصحيحين عن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: " أمرت أن أقاتل الناس حتى يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً رسول الله، ويقيموا الصلاة، ويؤتوا الزكاة "

 

Which has a very clear contradiction with basic rules in Quran, that of " Laekrah fe aldeen".

However, you might have a look to the whole picture of this Sura, I personally found that these interpreters try to take this Aya out of it's context

 

http://quran.al-islam.com/Display/Display....=9&nAya=1&l=arb

 

It is very clear from the Sura , as in the first aya , that this is in regard to those who had violated their contrat with Mohamed and killed Muslims after the concure of Mecca. Not all Mushrekeen as these interepreters might go for.. Even with those criminal Mushrekeen , Quran had set a window for forgiveness

 

فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلاَةَ وَآتَوُاْ ٱلزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ }

 

That is in my humbel understanding to it. I need to emphazize that I am not an expert in Quranic language but it is an arabic text that I might understand , the way that those who recieved it from the prophet, did.

 

 

From above it should not , by any mean, make me saying that there is a wrong and right in the evolution of islamic understanding to Quran. I think this was the intention by Quran auther and that what had happened. It is a path that people need to go through and have their own experience

 

{ كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ }

[الروم:32].

And as that great Islamic phelosipher said once

مذاهب شتّى للمحبّين في الهوى ولي مذهب فرد أعيشُ به وحدي

 

As for your point that though Quran is having no objection of being different, but to say later that it is Islam the best way to Alah, we need to remeber that all religons are going that way. Otherwise why they call people for it.. The problem is when it impose it self on others. which is clear not to be the path of Quran, despite the claims that it is not so."both islamic claims and non "

 

The other point that you raised regarding the concern that I might be promoting for the concept of Quran being for evry era and time through the concept of portability and abstraction. I never said that, however, if this what such abstraction might lead to then why are we upset of it?.. The abstraction of having tolerance as good way of behaving among human is an example of good one for all era and times.. right?

 

Cheers

Safaa

 

#######################################################

 

From Ala,

 

Your account seems honest and raising interesting points and intentions and there may a lot to talk to you about. Can I get back to you as soon as possible?.

 

The trouble with people like me Safaa is that I don't have an Internet connection at home with an immediate access and accessible all times, so I rely on the Internet access while being in libraries, bookshops, work and Internet cafes. I know this may seem quite funny but it is true, I am a bit behind the rest of humanity in this respect :-).....Salam Ala

###########################################

End of the debate

 

 

 

From here the debate is going to deal with the more interesting debate about definition of God in Quran.. This this the last post for this thread and I will open new one to deal with the next level of debate..

 

Feel free to comment now and thank you for your patiance..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...