Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Conversation

Offline Orange

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Conversation
« on: August 25, 2012, 01:28:39 PM »
Dear Brother Joseph,

I posted one photo (Inspired by Lesley Hazleton work "After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split") upon which one of my friend responded:

"Abu Sufyan was the greatest enemy of the prophet while his wife Hind ate the liver of Hamza. They did not convert to Islam till near the end of the Prophet's life when the Islamic leadership had gained supreme power in Mecca. Muawiya never recognised Ali as the 4th Caliph and waged war against him. Historically and in essence Muawiya was the 4th Caliph and not Ali."

"The 5th Caliph of Islam Yazid was the bitter enemy of Hasan and Hussein. This enmity led to the tragedy of Kerbala. Islamic Caliphate continued with the Ummayads and then by Abbasids the while the Hasimites were persecuted for generations."

"The ummayads were great invaders and stretched the Islamic empire right up to Spain. The great part of Islamic ideology in the world today is what was spread by Muslim caliphates in the first 200 years of Islamic dominance."


I shared with him your article:
http://www.quransmessage.com/articles/righteousness%20based%20on%20lineage%20FM3.htm

He again responded:

My comments have nothing to do with Quran, Belief, the debate on Caliphate or any other religious notions. I have simply stated "historical" records. Whether Hind eating the liver of Hamza was right wrong is not for me to judge. If Muawaiya and Yazid waged wars against Ali and his sons, am not judging who was right and who was wrong. Just stating what happened in a historical context my friend. Who knows Yazid killing a 6 month old baby was justified in order to save Islam. Islamic history is just marred with Blood from day one.

btw even Ayesha waged war against Ali in order to avenge Usman's death. FACT !! ... again who was righteous and who was not.. I am not going to argue on things which cannot be proven


I once again shared few of your articles:
http://www.quransmessage.com/articles/shia%20FM3.htm
http://www.quransmessage.com/articles/imammat%20FM3.htm
http://www.quransmessage.com/articles/the%20compilation%20of%20the%20quran%20FM3.htm

 
His response.

My Dear Friend

I am not from any sect but a student of religious history be it any religion. Thank you for sending me these files, I appreciate it. However I am aware of most of these verses and inclinations that they fall towards. I have tried to read your emails with an open mind and hopefully you will do the same.

“And hold fast, altogether, by the rope Which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves.” [Al-Qur’an 3:103]

“As for those who divide Their religion and break up Into sects, you have no part in them in the least: Their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.” [Al-Qur’an 6:159]

I think you are aware of these verses. Just by calling yourself a Sunni or a Shia makes a person disobey the very word of Quran.

I am ONLY going to indicate what is UNDISPUTED and is accepted by ALL schools of thought in Islam and what they agree upon. Let's not even get into the disagreements and disputed facts and events.

Your email was about Shia beliefs in the house of the Prophet and his family. It mentioned other prophets before Mohammad and their sons not being on the right path. Also as your email said there is no mention of the importance of the Prophets family in the Quran, any blood lines (aal).... etc

Ahl al-Bayt is an Arabic phrase literally meaning People of the House, or family of the House. The phrase "ahl al-bayt" was used in Arabia before the advent of Islam.

Please note a reply from the Quran:

QURAN Surah 3 (Aali‑Imraan), Ayah 61:“....then reply [O' Muhammad]: Let us call upon our children and your children, our ladies and your ladies, ourselves and yourselves,
then we pray so that Allah's wrath be upon those who are false.”
Ayah for Mubaahala in the 9th year of Hijrah is a well documented event accepted in all Schools of Islamic thought and history. It has ZERO disputes. As instructed by this Ayat of the Quran the Prophet took with him Ali, Hasan, Hussain and Fatima; the "Ahl al-bayt".

QURAN: Al‑Ahzaab, Surah 33, Ayah 33..... “Verily, Allah has decreed to purify you, O' Ahlul Bayt, and sanctify you in a perfect way”
Again the occasion and background tafseer is given in all schools of Islamic belief including Sahih Tirmidhi, Vol. 13, Pages 200. How the Ayah of Tat'heer (Purification) was revealed on behalf of Fatima, Ali, Al‑Hasan, and Al‑Husain. Quran clearly cleanses the Ahlul Bayt !!

QURAN: Surah 42 (Shoora), Ayah 23 demands the love of Ahlul Bayt.
Declare [O' Muhammad]:  “I ask you of no recompense for my toil except the love for my kin (family).”  Quran demands you to love the Kin of the prophet.

QURAN: Surah 8 (Al‑Anfaal), Ayah 75 "and the blood relations are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah.  Certainly Allah knows all" Blood relations clearly hold importance if you go by the Quran.

QURAN: Surah 37 (Al‑Saffaat), Ayah 130 "Peace unto Aali Yassin (aal / lineage of Mohammad). Verily, thus We recompense those who do good." ... Quran sends peace over the Prophets Lineage .. Aali yaseen.

There are many others like in which Ali's incident of giving his ring in charity while in rukoo is mentioned in the Quran.. something like those who give charity while in rukoo.... there are many others also ....

Almost all religions talk about a Saviour of the World that has to come at the end of time, Hindu's believe it will be Vishnus incarnation, we say it will be Mehdi, the Christians, the Jews the Bhudists all have this concept of a last Saviour. Anyway it is a long debate.

Now your own quote from the Quran... 068:036-38 "What is wrong with you, how do you judge? Or do you have another book which you study? In it, you can find what you wish?"

My friend I do not tend to impose anything, One just needs to continue the search if interested in it with an open mind. I will try to give you all the answers from Quran with my little knowledge but with my little experience of attempting to understand the great book multiple times. These answers will only give birth to more questions. That is why there are so many different beliefs stemming from the same book.

The answer for this is also in the Quran itself my friend.

QURAN: Surah 3 (Aali‑Imraan), Ayah 7 ....It is Allah who sent to you [O' Muhammad] the Book [Quran], wherein are some decisive verses —they are the basis of the Book—
and others having variable meanings.  Men with perversity in their hearts emphasize the unclear therein (seeking to mislead);
 while none knows the Quran's hidden meaning except Allah and the erudite (firmly rooted) in knowledge; who say
We believe in it, all is from our Lord. Nevertheless, none heeds this save those endowed with wisdom.

To understand the Quran in its entirety and its hidden meaning is impossible for human beings. According to the Quran itself. We can keep understanding more when we read from different sources, shia, sunni, sufi and what non believers have to say about it.

All these answers I have written taking reference from the Quran and could write a lot more from the Quran .. if I pick up the Sunni hadith books to relate the same. It will be never ending of what is the importance of the ahlul bayt in Islam.

All these arguments from the Quran are meaningless though if someone does not believe in it. For example I could easily say, I do not believe in the Quran and Islam. How can you prove to me that your or my argument means anything. It does not mean anything my friend. ZERO !! That is why I never state these as facts... I put Quran down as belief... more accurately ones interpretation of their belief.

When I say Fact.. I refer to historical events which are well documented and form a part of history and not belief. Events which even after a lot of distortion, book burnings remain consistent amongst all books and historians. It has nothing to do with religion.

Please come back to my original statement and answer in a yes or a no, for it being a historical fact in all history books.

I see you have removed the blood line of the Quraish from you page. I am sure you have your reasons and they are noble. However hiding Islamic history will not cleanse the blood it is stained with.

Anyway answer in a yes or no and we can maybe agree on my statement to your profile picture. You can read up on them in any book on Islamic history to verify it.

Ummaya the adopted son of the family had animosity with the Hashimites and they formed different clans before the birth of the Islam or the Prophet.

AbuSufyan (ummayad) was one of the biggest enemies of the Prophet and fought many battles with him (badr and Uhad), converted to Islam right at the end of Prophets life when the Muslim army had defeated Abu Sufyans force in Mekkah.

Hind, Muwaviya's mother and Abu Sufyans wife ate the liver of Prophet's and Alis chacha... Humza. (after defeating the Muslims in Uhad)

Ayesha came to the battle field to fight Ali in order to avenge the death of the 3rd Caliph Usman. Battle of Jamal - the Camel.

Ameer Muawiya declared himself Caliph and never took oath under Ali. They fought battles for Caliphate turf, eventually Ali was killed and Muawiya remained the only Caliph in the Muslim world. Battle of Siffin

Yazeed son of Muwaviya Killed Hussain and his family at the battle of Kerbala and remained the Caliph of Islam.

Ummayds remained the Caliphs followed by the Abbassid Caliphs for centuries of Islamic rule.

These are not beliefs... these are historical events. What could constitute as belief could be.... Who was right, who was wrong... who had the true message of Islam... should the Muslim empire have spread by conquering ? Should it not have...

Fact is that Muslim Armies went in as Invaders with armies ... fought wars and battles... conquered land and converted millions after the result of a bloody war. Including Mohd Bin Qasim also an Ummayad who came as an Invader into the Indian Sub Continent and was a great conqueror.

These are not misconceptions or unproven events my friend... they are historical events which remain undisputed in all sources of History. You can of course deny it my saying no Kerbala never happened and neither did Mohd Bin Qasim invade India. No one can stop you from it. But Fact is that Hitler was the head of the German Army !!

What can be misconception are the beliefs in these events ... righteousness... who was fighting for Allah.. who was fighting for glory... for power... land... but FACT is they were fighting... one has to read enough to come to their own conclusions of righteousness... or one can ignore them in fear to uncover the ugly truth..

believing that Yazid was on the wrong and Husain was right can be a misconception but Yazid winning the war and beheading Hussain is not a misconception but an historical event.

If I tell you my belief you might accuse me of an non believer and blasphemy so lets not even start on what I believe in. Yes what I am interested in is the evolution and history of religion, all religions. It is a subject I picked up in University and still research on.

Now my personal take on the subject which can be a misconception and has nothing to do with historical fact or Quranic reference; my personal view of the Sunnu Shia Debate and Islamic history is.... 

Shias over exaggerate certain beliefs in order to assert their identity and upgrade the men who held the rightful teachings and tradition of the Prophet. Their piety against the sins of their oppressors clearly shows who was on the right path. The Quran and the Prophet stated them as cleansed and a lot of shias consider them as incorrectly infallible.

The Sunni down play a lot of events in order to hide the ugly Islamic history and evolution completely tainted with blood of one another and much distortion of the sharia itself. They downgrade the men who kept the true tradition of the prophet.The Islamic ideology spread in the world was that of the monarchs (misguided caliphs) of early Islam thus it forms the majority in the Islamic world and Muslims remain misguided today.

Both sects toed different lines so the hate and distance has just gotten wider over time. Somewhere in the middle lies the true spirit of Islam.

The Sufis find a wonderful balance but their ways are sometimes difficult to understand by ordinary minds. On the surface their practices seem polytheistic as their reverence to the saints and intercessions points towards shirk. On the contrary the core of Sufi belief is Oneness of God and his Supremacy over the universe. My research on Sufism is on at the moment and I find it very intriguing.

I have extensively travelled through Middle East Asia (covering all GCC countries), East Africa, Most of Far East Asia, North America and all western and northern European countries. I have spoken to many people on the subject but have not found 10% of my inner self, that is where the truth lies.

Sadly I found Muslims to be the worst people I have come across. The entire Arab belt is full of hardened heartless souls. May they be guided. "Jo ban nahee sakey insaan woh kyaa baningay musalman (Who can't be a human can't be a Muslim)"... Northern Europeans who have no religion seem to be on the right path of God/Allah/Humanity.

Opening one's mind is one of the most difficult things to do in this world. I consciously try doing it every day of my life. Maybe there is no one true religion in this world but the religion that is inside your own heart that is true for you is the true one. Your own soul and conciousness forms the spirit of your religion. Being true to it will bring you to peace.

My humble four cents...

Cheers Mate 

p.s. Try LSD / ACID ...  it might help !!


Please recommend how should I respond to him with respect to removing his thought (as you have mentioned in  APPEAL TO RIGHTEOUSNESS) Their actions would have no bearing on us. and misconceptions he has mentioned regarding Mehdi etc.

P.S. Do let me know how can I share that image with you here.

Offline Sardar Miyan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 970
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2012, 07:48:32 PM »
Assalam I do not want go into other details except to clarify the true definition of" Ahle Baiyth.Ahle Baiyth comprises of a family in a house usually consistent of husband,Wife and their children.The male child of the family continues to be a member  of the house even after marriage with a lady who also becomes a member of that household.On the other hand if the female child after attaining the age  gets married she becomes a member of her husbands house and she is no more a member of her parents house much less her husband.Likewise Hazrat Fatima would no more the member of Prophets house (Ahle Baiyt) after marriage much less Hazrat Ali.Simply because Hazrat Ali was residing with Prophet earlier does not make him Ahle Baiyth.It is very strange that the Shias do not include Azwaje Muttharath as Ahle Baiyth How come?Allah purifies Azwaje Muttharat.The Aya 37:130 refers to prophet Ilyas( Elijah). In short attributing Ahle Baiyth to Hazrat Ali Hazrat Fatima & their sons is not right. Further more Shias dont count three other daughters of Prophet.
May entire creation be filled with Peace & Joy & Love & Light

Offline HOPE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2012, 08:31:37 PM »
Peace,

I am not sure if we can define ahlu bait by blood only.  See 11:45-46 regarding Noah's son.  It is like  'the people of the house in faith'.  You are my brother in faith; prophet's wives are the mothers.

Allah knows best
"Hope is like a bird that senses the dawn and carefully starts to sing while it is still dark"

Offline Sardar Miyan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 970
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2012, 09:16:21 PM »
Salam Bro. Ahle Baith does not mean blood relation only as the wives & husband of a house are not blood relation.The sons & daughters when born are blood relation & members of a house.Pl do not take Shias explanation of Ahle Baith who limit to only Five as  "PANJATAN".Please see the universal concept of Ahle Baith ( Household) where husband,wife and their kids form part of family.Married daughters ,Sons inlaw & their kids belong to their house not to grand parents house. As you said Azwaje Muttahart are our mothers but they are Ahle Baith as they are Prophets wives & live under one roof. where is the place for married daughter,son in law and grand kids?We have to accept Universal Truth ane true definition of House Hold.
May entire creation be filled with Peace & Joy & Love & Light

Offline HOPE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2012, 09:56:25 PM »
Salaam,

I am not taking sides.  Just pointed out to a verse where Noah's son was not considered part of his household because of his beliefs.  Some even claim that Noah's wife must have cheated on him; the son is not the biological offspring of Noah.  I believe such a claim is to miss the point Quran is making.  It does not matter how the Jahilliyah understood this concept.  Quran brings a new view to the old concepts.  Maybe the wives are called the mothers of the muminun so they will not remarry after the prophet's death.  I agree with you on limit 5.  But then again, how can we judge who is worthy of being a member of the prophet's household.  I personally will add his slave to the mixture, too.  To be one of his wives doesn't say much to me.  People get married for different reasons.  Think about Lot, Noah, Pharoah's wives.

Peace
"Hope is like a bird that senses the dawn and carefully starts to sing while it is still dark"

Offline Joseph Islam

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
    • The Quran and its Message
Re: Conversation
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2012, 12:04:47 AM »
Dear Orange

Salamun Alaikum.

I have just had a chance to read your post.

With respect, the responses that have been presented to you are marred with interpolations and in effect show clear evidence of ‘circular reasoning’ (Islamic secondary sources used as a basis for the argument). This is then conflated with what I humbly find are unwarranted assumptions. E.g. “To understand the Quran in its entirety and its hidden meaning is impossible for human beings. We can keep understanding more when we read from different sources, shia, sunni, sufi and what non believers have to say about it. “

Please see my humble responses in blue.


My Dear Friend

I am not from any sect but a student of religious history be it any religion. Thank you for sending me these files, I appreciate it. However I am aware of most of these verses and inclinations that they fall towards. I have tried to read your emails with an open mind and hopefully you will do the same.

“And hold fast, altogether, by the rope Which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves.” [Al-Qur’an 3:103]

“As for those who divide Their religion and break up Into sects, you have no part in them in the least: Their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.” [Al-Qur’an 6:159]

I think you are aware of these verses. Just by calling yourself a Sunni or a Shia makes a person disobey the very word of Quran.

I am ONLY going to indicate what is UNDISPUTED and is accepted by ALL schools of thought in Islam and what they agree upon. Late consensus of sources compiled by individuals removed (at times) centuries from the period they intend to capture is not fact. Critical scholarship from both a Muslim and Western perspective clearly indicates that genesis of these sources were late and 'fluid'. This was an attempt by late compilers to salvage history as is evidenced from their works. Therefore, the premise of the argument has no historical basis. The burden of proof is with those to provide the historical accuracy of its origins and proof of its veracity. Let's not even get into the disagreements and disputed facts and events. This statement ring fences the discussion without any warrant whatsoever when the parameters of the discourse and sources underpinning them have not been proven as viable. For the remainder of the response, this will be referred to as 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'

Your email was about Shia beliefs in the house of the Prophet and his family. It mentioned other prophets before Mohammad and their sons not being on the right path. Also as your email said there is no mention of the importance of the Prophets family in the Quran, any blood lines (aal).... etc

Ahl al-Bayt is an Arabic phrase literally meaning People of the House, or family of the House. The phrase "ahl al-bayt" was used in Arabia before the advent of Islam.

Please note a reply from the Quran:

QURAN Surah 3 (Aali‑Imraan), Ayah 61:“....then reply [O' Muhammad]: Let us call upon our children and your children, our ladies and your ladies, ourselves and yourselves,
then we pray so that Allah's wrath be upon those who are false.”
Ayah for Mubaahala in the 9th year of Hijrah is a well documented event accepted in all Schools of Islamic thought and history. It has ZERO disputes. 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'. As instructed by this Ayat of the Quran the Prophet took with him Ali, Hasan, Hussain and Fatima; the "Ahl al-bayt". None of these names exist in the Quran. Please provide unequivocal evidence that the Quran refers to these personalities.

QURAN: Al‑Ahzaab, Surah 33, Ayah 33..... “Verily, Allah has decreed to purify you, O' Ahlul Bayt, and sanctify you in a perfect way”
Again the occasion and background tafseer is given in all schools of Islamic belief including Sahih Tirmidhi, Vol. 13, Pages 200. How the Ayah of Tat'heer (Purification) was revealed on behalf of Fatima, Ali, Al‑Hasan, and Al‑Husain. Quran clearly cleanses the Ahlul Bayt !! 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'. None of these names exist in the Quran. Please provide unequivocal evidence that the Quran refers to these personalities.

QURAN: Surah 42 (Shoora), Ayah 23 demands the love of Ahlul Bayt.
Declare [O' Muhammad]:  “I ask you of no recompense for my toil except the love for my kin (family).”  Quran demands you to love the Kin of the prophet. Please provide evidence from the Quran as to who are the 'kin' in question without support from Islamic secondary sources.

QURAN: Surah 8 (Al‑Anfaal), Ayah 75 "and the blood relations are nearer to one another in the Book of Allah.  Certainly Allah knows all" Blood relations clearly hold importance if you go by the Quran.  Please provide unequivocal evidence of the individuals that constitute the Prophet's kin from the Quran. If Zayd can be mentioned as an adopted relation 33:37, why are the crucial names absent of the Prophet's actual kin?

QURAN: Surah 37 (Al‑Saffaat), Ayah 130 "Peace unto Aali Yassin (aal / lineage of Mohammad). Verily, thus We recompense those who do good." ... Quran sends peace over the Prophets Lineage .. Aali yaseen.  Please provide unequivocal evidence of the individuals that constitute the Prophet's kin from the Quran. If Zayd can be mentioned as an adopted relation 33:37, why are the crucial names absent of the Prophet's actual kin?

There are many others like in which Ali's incident of giving his ring in charity while in rukoo is mentioned in the Quran.. something like those who give charity while in rukoo.... there are many others also .... This citation is unclear on grounds of relevance and remains ambiguous.

Almost all religions talk about a Saviour of the World that has to come at the end of time, Hindu's believe it will be Vishnus incarnation, we say it will be Mehdi, the Christians, the Jews the Bhudists all have this concept of a last Saviour. Anyway it is a long debate. There is no unequivocal proof of such sentiments of a 'saviour' in the Quran.

Now your own quote from the Quran... 068:036-38 "What is wrong with you, how do you judge? Or do you have another book which you study? In it, you can find what you wish?"

My friend I do not tend to impose anything, One just needs to continue the search if interested in it with an open mind. I will try to give you all the answers from Quran with my little knowledge but with my little experience of attempting to understand the great book multiple times. These answers will only give birth to more questions. That is why there are so many different beliefs stemming from the same book.

The answer for this is also in the Quran itself my friend.

QURAN: Surah 3 (Aali‑Imraan), Ayah 7 ....It is Allah who sent to you [O' Muhammad] the Book [Quran], wherein are some decisive verses —they are the basis of the Book—
and others having variable meanings.  Men with perversity in their hearts emphasize the unclear therein (seeking to mislead);
 while none knows the Quran's hidden meaning except Allah and the erudite (firmly rooted) in knowledge; who say
We believe in it, all is from our Lord. Nevertheless, none heeds this save those endowed with wisdom.

To understand the Quran in its entirety and its hidden meaning is impossible for human beings. According to the Quran itself. We can keep understanding more when we read from different sources, shia, sunni, sufi and what non believers have to say about it. This statement is non-sequitur on the basis of 3:7 cited above.

All these answers I have written taking reference from the Quran and could write a lot more from the Quran .. if I pick up the Sunni hadith books to relate the same. It will be never ending of what is the importance of the ahlul bayt in Islam.

All these arguments from the Quran are meaningless though if someone does not believe in it. For example I could easily say, I do not believe in the Quran and Islam. How can you prove to me that your or my argument means anything. It does not mean anything my friend. ZERO !! That is why I never state these as facts... I put Quran down as belief... more accurately ones interpretation of their belief. With respect, these comments are disjointed and do not provide unequivocal evidence

When I say Fact.. I refer to historical events which are well documented and form a part of history and not belief. Events which even after a lot of distortion, book burnings remain consistent amongst all books and historians. It has nothing to do with religion. 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'.

Please come back to my original statement and answer in a yes or a no, for it being a historical fact in all history books. 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'.

I see you have removed the blood line of the Quraish from you page. I am sure you have your reasons and they are noble. However hiding Islamic history will not cleanse the blood it is stained with.

Anyway answer in a yes or no and we can maybe agree on my statement to your profile picture. You can read up on them in any book on Islamic history to verify it.

Ummaya the adopted son of the family had animosity with the Hashimites and they formed different clans before the birth of the Islam or the Prophet.

AbuSufyan (ummayad) was one of the biggest enemies of the Prophet and fought many battles with him (badr and Uhad), converted to Islam right at the end of Prophets life when the Muslim army had defeated Abu Sufyans force in Mekkah. 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'. Please provide proof from the Quran.

Hind, Muwaviya's mother and Abu Sufyans wife ate the liver of Prophet's and Alis chacha... Humza. (after defeating the Muslims in Uhad) 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'. Please provide proof from the Quran.

Ayesha came to the battle field to fight Ali in order to avenge the death of the 3rd Caliph Usman. Battle of Jamal - the Camel. 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'. Please provide proof from the Quran.

Ameer Muawiya declared himself Caliph and never took oath under Ali. They fought battles for Caliphate turf, eventually Ali was killed and Muawiya remained the only Caliph in the Muslim world. Battle of Siffin 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'. Please provide proof from the Quran.

Yazeed son of Muwaviya Killed Hussain and his family at the battle of Kerbala and remained the Caliph of Islam. 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'. Please provide proof from the Quran.

Ummayds remained the Caliphs followed by the Abbassid Caliphs for centuries of Islamic rule. 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'. Please provide proof from the Quran.

These are not beliefs... these are historical events. 'Inadmissible evidence and premise for argument'. What could constitute as belief could be.... Who was right, who was wrong... who had the true message of Islam... should the Muslim empire have spread by conquering ? Should it not have...

[Further comments respectfully halted on basis of repetitive theme of the responder and failure to provide Quranic evidence for the assertions.]

Fact is that Muslim Armies went in as Invaders with armies ... fought wars and battles... conquered land and converted millions after the result of a bloody war. Including Mohd Bin Qasim also an Ummayad who came as an Invader into the Indian Sub Continent and was a great conqueror.

These are not misconceptions or unproven events my friend... they are historical events which remain undisputed in all sources of History. You can of course deny it my saying no Kerbala never happened and neither did Mohd Bin Qasim invade India. No one can stop you from it. But Fact is that Hitler was the head of the German Army !!

What can be misconception are the beliefs in these events ... righteousness... who was fighting for Allah.. who was fighting for glory... for power... land... but FACT is they were fighting... one has to read enough to come to their own conclusions of righteousness... or one can ignore them in fear to uncover the ugly truth..

believing that Yazid was on the wrong and Husain was right can be a misconception but Yazid winning the war and beheading Hussain is not a misconception but an historical event.

If I tell you my belief you might accuse me of an non believer and blasphemy so lets not even start on what I believe in. Yes what I am interested in is the evolution and history of religion, all religions. It is a subject I picked up in University and still research on.

Now my personal take on the subject which can be a misconception and has nothing to do with historical fact or Quranic reference; my personal view of the Sunnu Shia Debate and Islamic history is.... 

Shias over exaggerate certain beliefs in order to assert their identity and upgrade the men who held the rightful teachings and tradition of the Prophet. Their piety against the sins of their oppressors clearly shows who was on the right path. The Quran and the Prophet stated them as cleansed and a lot of shias consider them as incorrectly infallible.

The Sunni down play a lot of events in order to hide the ugly Islamic history and evolution completely tainted with blood of one another and much distortion of the sharia itself. They downgrade the men who kept the true tradition of the prophet.The Islamic ideology spread in the world was that of the monarchs (misguided caliphs) of early Islam thus it forms the majority in the Islamic world and Muslims remain misguided today.

Both sects toed different lines so the hate and distance has just gotten wider over time. Somewhere in the middle lies the true spirit of Islam.

The Sufis find a wonderful balance but their ways are sometimes difficult to understand by ordinary minds. On the surface their practices seem polytheistic as their reverence to the saints and intercessions points towards shirk. On the contrary the core of Sufi belief is Oneness of God and his Supremacy over the universe. My research on Sufism is on at the moment and I find it very intriguing.

I have extensively travelled through Middle East Asia (covering all GCC countries), East Africa, Most of Far East Asia, North America and all western and northern European countries. I have spoken to many people on the subject but have not found 10% of my inner self, that is where the truth lies.

Sadly I found Muslims to be the worst people I have come across. The entire Arab belt is full of hardened heartless souls. May they be guided. "Jo ban nahee sakey insaan woh kyaa baningay musalman (Who can't be a human can't be a Muslim)"... Northern Europeans who have no religion seem to be on the right path of God/Allah/Humanity.

Opening one's mind is one of the most difficult things to do in this world. I consciously try doing it every day of my life. Maybe there is no one true religion in this world but the religion that is inside your own heart that is true for you is the true one. Your own soul and conciousness forms the spirit of your religion. Being true to it will bring you to peace.

My humble four cents...

Cheers Mate 

p.s. Try LSD / ACID ...  it might help !!
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' 
George Orwell

Offline Orange

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2012, 04:13:16 PM »
Mr friend respond,

My friend your interpretation of the Quran could be different from mine. I do not know who are the the women and children that the Quran points towards in the the Muhaabla. You think it is the Prophets wives who are the ayhl-e-bayt and I think it is his daughter and his grandsons. It is your interpretation vs mine. The argument has been going on for centuries, each one of us thinks we are right else we would have thought otherwise.

Another disagreement is on what mathal and mutahsabi are and what from the Quran should and should not be sought to find its true meaning. As you increase in knowledge there is more and more you can understand from the book. Also understanding it in its entirety is what hold the key to eternal bliss.

Also if you think it is not advisable to discuss the Quran or Islamic history with a non-believer than sadly I disagree. The Prophet (pbuh) toiled for many years in order to convince people of the one true God.

This is a never ending debate and what is clear for me is not for you and vice versa.

However I keep coming back to my first comment that I made on your profile picture. The things I stated were simply from Islamic history which you seem to be well aware of but have reserved commenting on for your own good reason I am sure, perhaps to subdue fitna.

As sad as it is, The battle of Badr, Uhad, Jamal, Siffin and Kerbala are all a part of Islamic history. It was fought between arch enemy tribes. You can deny them or refuse to talk about them but history has borne witness to it.

Good to know that you have read the book "After the Prophet" it is a great book. I browsed through it at my cousins house. Could not read it in its entirety due to the shortage of time.

I respect your path of sticking to "only" the Quran for answers. A lot of Muslims have taken this route due to the inauthenticity of secondary text.

Like I said Islam is just one of the religions I study and there is a lot that can be learnt from other religions as well. Including Bhagawad Gita and the books of Kabbalah.


Offline Joseph Islam

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
    • The Quran and its Message
Re: Conversation
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2012, 04:31:50 PM »
Thank you Orange for sharing the response that you have received.

The following sentiment was good to read:

"I respect your path of sticking to "only" the Quran for answers. A lot of Muslims have taken this route due to the inauthenticity of secondary text."

With regards judging history, we only need to look at two newspapers from two sides of a conflict and see that events that later become history are oft not recorded without bias. It is simply a perspective and is often influenced by the political landscape in which it finds genesis.

With regards people of yore in general, the Quran provides very powerful wisdom.

002.134
"Those are a people who have passed away. Theirs is that which they earned, and yours is that which you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do"

Peace.

PS: Please can you email me the profile picture or image that the poster is referring to so that I can attach it for you on this forum.

Regards,
Joseph
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' 
George Orwell

Offline Orange

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2012, 01:08:04 AM »
Please share your email address.

Offline Orange

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2012, 01:12:59 AM »
 :) I have sent email at josephislam1@gmail.com.

Offline Joseph Islam

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
    • The Quran and its Message
Re: Conversation
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2012, 03:01:39 AM »
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' 
George Orwell

Offline Orange

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2012, 11:17:41 PM »
 It is inspired by book of Ms. Lesley Hazleton "After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split"

Offline Sardar Miyan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 970
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2012, 06:01:19 PM »
Assalm Bro JAI Did you happen to read the book of Hazelton" After Mohammad : The epic story of Shia- Sunni split"? Is it available on line? Thanks
May entire creation be filled with Peace & Joy & Love & Light

Offline Joseph Islam

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
    • The Quran and its Message
Re: Conversation
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2012, 11:19:17 PM »
Dear Sardar,

My humble work is usually associated with the earliest historical sources that are used in sketching such accounts and assessing the scholarship around these sources. So I would be more interested in studying the sources the Book writer has used and not the book writer's interpretation of those sources.

I haven't read the book, but I am sure others who have read it would be able to give you a better appraisal God willing.

With respect,

Regards,
Joseph.
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' 
George Orwell