Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Suhaib85 last won the day on January 25 2014

Suhaib85 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Suhaib85

  • Rank
    Jr. Member
  • Birthday 12/24/1985

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
  • Religion

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

248 profile views
  1. Ok, well I am a proud Muslim convert who has followed the faith of Islam for 12 years now. The more and more I practice it and see the spiritual effects it has on the heart and soul, the more and more I consider the role of logical proofs about Islam, and the more and more I see how the previous scriptures also lead one to the same conclusions that I came to.... the more I see being Muslim as a great blessing. That is the short answer of why I think others should at least consider Islam as an option. Open your heart and mind and let's discuss
  2. 911 Another Point Of View

    This naivete which insists whatever the government and media said about 9/11 "must be true" - negating any other possibilities outside of it - is nothing but a new dogma, which its proponents here want us to accept on blind faith! There is no open mindedness there, just a constant repetition of the big lie - repeat it enough times so it "MUST" be true. Oh yeah, like government never lies? Like people high up in power don't cover up things and have secrets? The bottom line, when it comes to wars and finding the justifications for wars, government - and by government I refer to the true economic powers wielding all the strings, and not just the corrupt bureaucrats at lower levels who have limited responsibilities - has CONSISTENTLY lied and used false flag events. USS Maine, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods....just some examples. There are certain people who have a cold personality, that they wouldn't let anything or anybody stand in their way wherever there's power or money to be made. The existence of psychopaths and sociopaths in positions of power is only too self-evident to anyone who isn't an ostrich....no offense to ostriches who at least don't put blind faith in government. We are truly living in Orwellian times where the "official" establishment view has been turned into a dogma and the burden of proof is always on those who dispute it but never on the government to prove their version!
  3. The Purpose

    I agree that faith is essential WITH logic. That is why historically the Islamic theologians always used logical arguments (kalam) to explain matters of doctrine as well, not just pointing to scripture and telling people to just "believe" because its in the Qur'an. However, it is important not to just subject everything to the whims of human reasoning and scientific theories, exactly because its exactly that - theories. This is where the fitra comes in, the fitra being the natural state of disposition which Muslims believe (and people of other traditions believe in some form or another, like natural law) is inculcated into every person. That is, people know certain things instinctively by their sound mind. The way things operate in our world, the structure of the universe and all the creatures, plant life, animal life, the weather patterns, etc... all of these attest to the existence of a Creator. Logically, things just don't suddenly exist from a previous state of non-existence on their own; they don't just build themselves and organize things on their own. There has to be some origination at some point, otherwise this would lead to the absurdity of infinite regression. Atheists are a new religion who define themselves by what they DON'T believe, but this itself is still a belief. Most became atheists as part of some emotional reaction against religion as they saw or experienced it, or people who were "religious" but were unable to reconcile it with logic.
  4. A New Nation Arises?

    Yes, I stand by what I said about them having a false ideology. That group is a well known proponent of a movement and sect which calls itself the "Salafi Jihadi". This is a well known fact, so denying it wouldn't do any good. As such, they are NOT united upon a specific madhhab but rather they have a la-madhhabi ideology....therefore, they are not abiding by the correct fiqh but rather an innovated political ideology which uses a warped interpretation of religion as a cover. There are TRUE Sunnis and scholars of Ahlus-Sunna among the Syrian revolutionaries, but this group gives them a bad name; the TRUE Sunni mujahideen should be getting our attention and not this joke of a media-caricatured group that you promote on here! What have they accomplished except more bloodshed through fighting even other opposition groups? Bottom line, I am STAUNCHLY anti-Zionist and support the rights of the Palestinian Arabs completely. Not going to back down from that one inch. But at the same time, I am an opponent of pan-Arab nationalism which has been responsible for persecuting the indigenous Berber people of Algeria, slaughtering the black people of Libya, and now in northeast Syria groups like this group of fanatics are trying to deny the Kurds the right to have their own land and autonomy. You seem to imply that such Arab Muslims are automatically "fighting for Islam," whereas these other Muslim ethnicities fighting for their rights are somehow "secular"?! "but you abhor anyone trying to implement sharia" --- Quite the contrary! Its the WRONG interpretation of sharia that I oppose to be implemented. This group has the same ideology as the Al-Shabab in Somalia and look what they did? Alhamdulillah the Muslim people of Somalia took up arms against this group, exactly because they were a HERETICAL group that had nothing to do with true Islam. "And suhaib if you think the concept of the Islamic State is not from Islam then what was the khilafah?" Exactly my point! You hold to this ideology I am speaking of, that would seek to "Islamize" concepts which are inherently foreign to the umma, such that it seems strange to you otherwise. Khilafa is NOT a state, never was a "state", and has nothing to do with statism. Just as Siyasa has nothing to do with the Western idea of "politics"....Khilafa is Islamic, must be viewed within an Islamic framework connected to its very history. On the other hand, from the very rise of the concept of a "state" in renaissance Europe, it was connected to inherently un-Islamic institutions : the rise of a central bank, with usury and the bankers in ascendency. The creation of a constitution, which likewise has nothing to do with Islamic history (some claim the agreements the Prophet sallallahu 'alaihi wa salam made with different groups was a "constitution" but this is a modernist argument; the idea of a constitution came later, in Europe). And the creation of a new identity of the people known as "citizens", which evolved from the feudal idea of "subjects". The two articles I linked to earlier explains why the Khilafa has nothing to do with the idea of a "state", much less that oxymoron "Islamic" state. Only the confused, identity crisis people in the wake of the growth of this la-madhhabi ideology think in such limited terms....bounded they are by the legacy of the political and economic servitude which still has the umma in a vice grip. This is why even the so-called "Islamic" parties except usury and international loans!!! Allahu musta'an
  5. A New Nation Arises?

    "Too many of these groups are big on some ideology of Islam that is not taught by any madhab, is contrary to the Qur'an and the Sunna and a lot of it goes back to National pride and or racial pride. I abhor any state or group that opposes free thought and tries to teach that the prophet taught as much." You are absolutely right! Their ideology is inherently modernist, even though their personal interpretation of Islam may seem puritanical a la Saudi style. There is much I can go into about the history behind this type ideology, the various links which go back and the figures involved which I could to anyone interested. But basically its very important to know the central disease behind these ideologies is their belief that a Muslim does not need a madhhab, that they can go "straight" to the Qur'an and Sunna without the necessary filter of the tried-and-tested madhahib. If you look at the true historical exemplars of Islamic honor and chivalry - the BEST examples - such as Saladin, Imam Shamil and Emir Abdelkader El Jaza'iri...men who fought against an enemy but still conducted themselves with honor and always upheld the best Islamic virtues....they were men who followed one of the schools and who remained bounded with the strict guidelines of Qur'an and Sunna. Much evil has resulted from the spread of this la-madhhabi people, and in the process this includes Muslims conducting themselves with less honor, doing their own thing and in the process so often giving Islam a bad name. In relation to national and racial supremacy, the growth of the la-madhhabi ideology coincided with that of pan-Arab nationalism. The earliest founders of this included those against the Ottoman khilafa, thinking the khilafa should remain "Arab". Read about Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida, they link directly to this modern political ideology which has more to do with Western concepts of statism and the like, under the guise of Islam. Really, the idea of an "Islamic" state is an innovation which has nothing to do with traditional Islamic thought....so the very name behind the extremist group mentioned in this thread is un-Islamic. These articles illustrate some of the themes I'm alluding to: www.bogvaerker.dk/wordpress?p=806 www.lamppostproductions.com/is-an-islamic-state-just-a-form-of-muslim-zionism-dr-khalid-blankinship/ Now, if you look at this group "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant," they are fighting another group of Muslims in northeast Syria. These are the Kurds, a non-Arabic ethnic group which merely wants their autonomy. Perhaps because this group seems to equate Arab supremacy with the "right" interpretation of Islam, they are fighting against any effort by the Kurds to fight for their rights. Fortunately, Kurdish freedom fighters have successfully driven out these fanatics who only give Islam a bad name out of their own deviated ignorance about our faith :)
  6. A New Nation Arises?

    I am sorry but I can't let this go: Opposing Bashar Assad's regime is one thing, but I have NOTHING but disdain for this fanatical, extremist group called "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and their interpretation of Islam. There are several more reputable groups among the anti-Assad opposition. The "khilafa" that group of extremists envisions I would NOT support as a Muslim! It would be a false "caliphate", united around a divisive agenda (as seen in their pan-Arabic chauvinistic attacks on Kurds who only want their freedom, as well as attacks on other Islamic groups which don't have the same interpretation as theirs) and a false methodology. Khilafa WILL return during the time of Imam Mahdi, as the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa salam) told us. But the "caliphate" envisioned by groups such as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "Jubhat an-Nubha" will be doomed to failure.
  7. Spreading Islamic Rule By Force

    However, I won't be an apologist and claim that the LATER conquests which came after the Islamic governance had already deteriorated, were never about simple conquests. Kingdoms often have their own worldly reason for waging war, as much true about Christian kingdoms as it was for Muslim kingdoms too. History is so complex and I don't ascribe to a blind ideological view of history. But rather I look at the nuances and prefer to examine things on a case-by-case basis. The basic thing I hope we would all agree on: The Christian religion was often spread quite violently and by force by kingdoms which were primarily concerned about their own worldly power or interests. Yet I wouldn't hold this against Christians, claim its inherent to Christianity, and use it as some kind of argument against Christians. On the same token, even if there were Islamic conquests then these should likewise be judged based on the historical context and not used as some kind of catch-all attack against Islam. So just trying to keep things balanced.
  8. Spreading Islamic Rule By Force

    Gods Servant - These earliest conquests outside the borders of Arabia were part of battles with the Byzantine and Persian empires. There were different circumstances behind these various conquests. For example, many border skirmishes with the Persians led to a confrontation between the Muslims and the Persian empire in modern-day Iraq. This itself led to confrontations with the Ghassanids, who were Arab clients of the Byzantines, and this soon led to a chain reaction that eventually led to the conquest of all of the Greater Syria region. The number one fact perhaps indicating that these were NOT wars or conquest was the fact that it wasn't until the year 636 that the Caliph Umar basically organized what could be considered a standing army. Until this point, whenever battles occurred different tribes would raise and send contingents, but there wasn't a standing army. Perhaps similar to the early foundations of the U.S., where there were initially militias but not a standing army until a little later. In any case, Umar had already been ruling for two years before he organized a standing army. His predecessor, Abu Bakr, devoted the two years of his own reign (khilafa) to consolidating Arabia, dealing with the people who refused to pay the Zakat and also the followers of a claimant to prophethood, named Musaylimah. Any battles with other powers outside Arabia were confined to border skirmishes with the Byzantines and Persians. Yes, this soon let to full-blown war; No, it wasn't designed as a war of conquest at the time. Btw, you asked me a question on another thread which seems to have been removed. It was about intercession. I was going to answer that yes, there is a prayer for the intercession of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alaihi wa salam). It is specifically said at the time of the call to prayer (adhan), after the person hearing the hadith repeats the words of the adhan: "Allahumma Rabba hadhihi da'watit-tammati was-salatil qa'imati, ati Muhammadan al-wasilata wal-fadilata, wab' athhu maqaman mahmudan-il-ladhi wa' adtahu." (O Allah! Lord of this perfect call and of the prayer which is going to be established. Give Muhammad the right of intercession and superiority and send him to the best and the highest place in Paradise which You promised him." Couldn't send a message so here's my response to that one question of yours
  9. 911 Another Point Of View

    Actually, I say this as an American - one who was still non-Muslim when 9/11 occurred and automatically smelled a rat - and I speak along with many, many other countless Americans (from all faiths and backgrounds) in questioning the official version of 9/11 that was sold to us by the government. It has become something of a dogma, a big lie which repeated enough by government and corporate media is accepted as the gospel truth, but....honestly, what evidence is there really?
  10. As Salam Alaykum. New Member From Alabama

    Wa alaykum as salam and thanks to all the comments. I have already found some interesting discussions here, so its already beginning well. And brother Fathi actually told me about this forum. Took awhile to get on here but finally here I am. Better late than never. Cool! Where in Alabama? I've never been up to Michigan, aside from Detroit airport. I live between Birmingham and Atlanta, very close to Georgia.
  11. Some Basic Questions

    You're welcome and I appreciate it. Well I'm very wary of the media, even though I'm actually trying to get into the journalism field myself. They will easily take things out of context according to whatever corporate agenda they have. Moreover, when it comes to Islam they either want to put forward the extremists as the "true representation", or otherwise they rely on modernistic type people who sugar-coat things and don't really take a clear stand differentiating themselves from the dominant post-religious, materialistic, corporatist environment. ' Well, even though its quite outdated in the language it uses, I don't see a problem with such translations as those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali. One that I really like and use is one that a brother from UK sent me, and that is one by this convert husband and wife named the Bewleys. It uses a more updated language, whilst remaining true to what the verses actually say. As for Hilali/Khan, they have a certain interpretation of Islam which is the one taught as official doctrine in Saudi Arabia and which has spread due to the petro-dollars. Not to get into that sect, but as it relates to the Hilali/Khan translation, they change certain translations of words to suit what their religious interpretation is. And they heavily use brackets of what they think is the implicit meaning of such verses, basically viewing one opinion which ignores the vast evidences for other meanings. I feel one should just leave the verses as they stand without using brackets to "clarify" or imply meanings. Well, its really the arguments of these theologians are spread out in numerous works. The most well known include Imam al-Ghazali, who bridged the previous gap between the theologians (mutakallim) and the mystics, ensuring the former held to an inner spirituality and the latter remained orthodox. His argument about the existence of the Creator - using pure logic - has also been used by Christians. Indeed, if you look at the medieval Scholastic theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas and others, they often borrowed from the books of such Islamic theologians. I like this basic summary of the entire matter: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=13472&CATE=1 It all goes back to what we know is necessarily true about the Creator and what is impossible. The idea of more than one god, for example, is easily refuted by logic....if one deity wants to do something but the other deity opposes, well if they can do it then the other is not a god but if they can't then they aren't god. The Creator necessarily has the best Attributes, is Eternal and Perfect, with an Everlasting Will and Power over all things. It would be pure chaos to assume there's more than one deity. An example of something the theologians dealt with is the question often asked by atheists, "Who created God?" One of these well known theologians was Imam Abu Hanifa, who used the example of the arithmetic number one. What comes before it? Nothing, so its the beginning. Others used to draw a line to illustrate that at some point there is a creator who was eternal before all else. Otherwise, it would be part of a never-ending infinite regression....it has to come to a beginning at some point. Imam al-Ghazali used many arguments to prove the existence of a Creator: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?4592-The-Proof-of-God-s-Existence These are just some examples, but there were many others used to prove other aspects of Islam. These were people conscious about scientific discoveries, but knowing the nature of science they didn't use what is inherently prone to constant revision, to "prove" faith. Things can also be proven using the previous scriptures as well, such as when we argue that the true message of Jesus was NOT the Trinity, etc.. So I hope this helped some, although I suspect I rambled too much. Allah knows best.
  12. Some Basic Questions

    "Are the Hadith an essential part of Islam? I gather that the collection contains stories that range from strong to fabricated. Can I just use the Quran as my 'spiritual roadmap' as it is not derived from man?" Of course the Qur'an has primacy and everything else should be weighed/measured according to the Qur'an. However, the hadith is a tried and tested secondary source. First of all, like you mentioned there were many that were fabricated....It is for this reason that there's only several thousand ahadith, whereas there used to be literally hundreds of thousands of such reports circulating. Until the specialists of hadith went through and sifted through the various reports, using rigorous methods to determine which were authentic, which ones were weak (and the varying degrees of their weaknesses), and which ones were outright fabricated. There is a type of hadith called 'mutawatir', which means that such a large number of trustworthy people collected it and passed it down from one narrator to another, and agreed on their authenticity, that these trustworthy people wouldn't have agreed on such a fabrication. So in this way, the hadith have in theory been rigorously passed down from the time of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa salam) down to the present way. In the process, hundreds of thousands have been discarded exactly because of the problems you highlighted regarding authenticity. "This question is a very important one. I have two male friends from college who have been in a life-long (20 years), monogamous relationship. They are probably the most honest, loving and selfless people I have ever known. I could never end our friendship. Is this a problem?" I personally wouldn't see it as a problem, as long as you're not necessarily condoning their lifestyle. In our day and age and in our society, its a given that there will be interaction between people with different lifestyles and opinions. The key is as long as you don't compromise your own principles or values. "On another thread I have come across some 'scientific miracles.' Some of them have been shown to be false. Are these commonly held beliefs? Is acceptance of them required? (I think that by definition, faith does not require proof)." Actually, MANY of us Muslims don't agree with this contemporary trend of trying to "prove" Islam by science exactly because science is NOT a revelation; scientific theories constantly change and evolve, new evidences come up all the time to challenge hypotheses, that subjecting faith to science would only make a mockery and provide grist to the mill of Atheists and other sceptics already looking for any excuse to discount people of faith. I can easily direct you to several other articles and lectures by learned Muslims criticizing this trend. But unfortunately, it seems to be the primary method of choice for many online apologists. I personally prefer to keep it with the scriptures and also logical arguments, such as was used quite effectively by medieval Islamic theologians which even now answer the arguments of Atheists and others in a very concise way. There are SO many things that science cannot answer, basic things that we all take for granted. With due respect to my fellow Muslims who choose to use such methods, I personally view them as merely "proofs" resorted to by the weak, because certainly the methods used by the well known theologians were far more successful. One of these theologians was named Imam Fakhrudeen ar-Razi. One day he was walking the streets of Baghdad with a large gathering of students. An old woman saw this and asked one of the students who this was. He told her, "He is the man who has 70 proofs for the existence of God." At this the woman replied, "If you didn't have 70 doubts you wouldn't need 70 proofs." When news reached Ar-Razi, he was quite impressed and used this as a humbling lesson to his students: "Have the faith of old women."
  13. Some Basic Questions

    Peace be with you. I myself came from a Christian background and came to the same realization that you have about it, just flies in the face of logic and common sense of what we know is necessarily true and not true about the Creator. So you seem to be on a good path there. And you've raised some good, interesting questions. I hope to answer them satisfactory. First, the 'Islamic Awakening' forum is indeed divisive and a very extremist interpretation of Islam which strays from the dominant orthodox position of Islam on countless issues. So you're right to avoid it and I've had my own bad history with that site. Second, you mentioned the Hilali/Khan translation. I personally DON'T like their translation at all, and this is because of their agenda which is very clear in how they place what they think certain verses imply, in brackets....without just leaving the verses alone on face value, they add what they "think" the verses means. But this is me and if you feel comfortable with it, then I can't really argue. Just wouldn't recommend it personally. "I am not overly convinced by the need for highly structured ritual in faith. Are things like praying 5 times a day in a certain way, and saying 'peace be upon him' after every mention of the Prophet, etc essential or can it be a more personal, internal relationship with Allah?" Islam includes multifaceted ways of this personal, internal relationship with Allah. There is the inner spirituality, the ways to cleanse the heart and soul, to increase one's consciousness of the Divine and draw closer to Allah. On the other hand, there IS an outer way of implementing Islam. There is not the conflict between the letter and the spirit of the law, although there is indeed a wrong tendency of some Muslims to obsess so much over the outer law that they forget the deeper, inner spirituality. One way of illustrating the prayers is when the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was asked why he stood up nightly praying to Allah even though all his sins had already been forgiven. His answer was, shouldn't a servant be thankful? So our prayers are a way for us to activate our worship of Him, to spend some time out of our day to praise Him after He has given us so many blessings and life. If one believes in a Creator, wouldn't one WANT to worship and pray to that Creator? Similarly, we send peace and blessings upon the Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu 'alaihi wa salam, and may also make prayers after mentioning the names of other prophets, because of our respect and love for these special individuals. ....
  14. Aligarr - No, actually more than just a basic belief in One God. There are also basic moral laws, such as not killing, stealing, cheating others, etc.. Economically, to avoid injustice of others, excesses, materialism, and usury. There are the beliefs in the various prophets which were also mentioned in the Bible. There is the respect given to Prophet Jesus and the blessed Virgin Mary. There is the belief in a Paradise and Hell, an Afterlife that is. Both have a spiritual and mystical tradition, expressed in such venues as poetry or acts of good done by religious people, etc.. Now, what I have said is not to deny the countless examples of both Muslims and Christians who may not live up to those ideas....but nevertheless those ideas are shared by both religions in theory at least. And I say this as a former Catholic Christian who accepted the faith of Islam.
  15. Tunisia - An online forum is perhaps not the best representation of Islam. There is a DEEP spiritual tradition in Islam, indeed a deep mystical tradition. Very vibrant, people who are deeply concerned with matters of the heart and soul. Whereas with the internet, there are a lot of egos and personalities involved, etc. and things can get heated in the course of discussions/debates. So don't lose hope about the positive things you felt about Islam. Search out the people, search out these sources, and in sha Allah you will find them. There are many former Christians such as Fathi and myself, who have likewise found this spirituality which was enough to change our own lives for the better mashaAllah.