Jump to content
Islamic Forum

kadafi

Member
  • Content count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About kadafi

  • Rank
    sotA <-ponder it!

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
    Single

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Interests
    //test//
  1. American Christians Protest Crusades Movie

    Greetings Ignatius. The movie, in general, was not accurate. The portrayal of the Mujahideens and Salahuddin Ayyubi (May Allah have mercy on him) was fairly accurate but could have been much better. The portrayal of the Crusaders was grossly inaccurate -- see reasons in the previous posts. Karen Armstrong is a good source for westerners who are completely new to Islam. Her works do contain some inaccuraites but are not major ones. Regards
  2. American Christians Protest Crusades Movie

    Continued Salahuddin Ayyabi even helped his sick enemies who were prepared to attack him. He could have easily sought revenge for the massacre of the Muslims but he did not and thus saved the lives of 100k Christians. He guaranteed them their safe depature along with their property and belongings. Others were welcome to stay. Why did he not revenge the Muslims? Because Islam taught him otherwise. It taught him to be merciful, forgive and make no revenge. Allah (Exalted is He) said in Surah Ash-Shura: The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong. And in Al-Qasas: "But seek, with the (wealth) which Allah has bestowed on thee, the Home of the Hereafter, nor forget thy portion in this world: but do thou good, as Allah has been good to thee, and seek not (occasions for) mischief in the land: for Allah loves not those who do mischief." Once, several Christian women approached Salahuddin Ayyabi saying that their guardians (fathers, husbands or sons) had been missing. They told him that they no one to look after them nor did they have any shelter. Salahuddin Ayyabi wept upon hering their case and orderd the Muslim soldiers to find their missing guardians. As for those whose guardian were determined dead, they should be given liberal compensation. A man who truly acted upon Allah's Words when Allah (Exalted is He) said that He loves those who are just. I will not provide statements pertainin' to the massacres commited by the Crusaders which will also refute the claims of this revisionist. His fictitious claims about the character of one of the sons of Islam, Salahuddin Ayyabi, is laughable when it's presented to a credible historian. I do concede with him on the claim that the movie is historically inaccurate. The potrayal of Salahuddin Ayyabi (May Allah have mercy on him) as a merciful ruler could have been much better. What troubles me is that some of the Crusaders are potrayed in the film as chivalric knights fightin' for the freedom of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. But then again, I wish not to dwell in that topic for now. Wa'alaikuum Salaam
  3. American Christians Protest Crusades Movie

    Continued Allow me to quote a stance enemy of Islam who acknowledges the true position of Salahuddin Ayyabi. She (British Historian Karen Armstrong) said regardin' the capture of Jerusalem: On 2 October 1187 Saladin and his army entered Jerusalem as conquerors and for the next 800 years Jerusalem would remain a Muslim city... Saladin kept his word, and conquered the city according to the highest Islamic ideals. He did not take revenge for the 1099 massacre, as the Koran advised (16:127), and now that hostilities had ceased he ended the killing (2:193-194). Not a single Christian was killed and there was no plunder. The ransoms were deliberately very low... The Crusaders at that point were brainwashed that Muslims were nothing more than barbarous "infidels". They discovered that Muslims possessed virtues which they consider Christian values. The French historian Rene Grousse described Salahuddin Ayyabi as: "It is equally true that his generosity, his piety, devoid of fanaticism, that flower of liberality and courtesy which had been the model of our old chroniclers, won him no less popularity in Frankish Syria than in the lands of Islam." The Millennium Issue of Times Magazine dedicated its front cover in one issue to Saladin. It stated: When Dante Alighieri compiled his great medieval Who's Who of heroes and villains in the Divine Comedy, among the highest a non-Christian could climb was Limbo, Homer, Caesar, Plato and Dante's guide Vergil. But, perhaps what should not be most surprising in his catalog of 'Great Hearted Souls' was a figure 'solitary, set apart,' that figure was Saladin. When Dante--the most Christ-centered verse ever penned--wrote lionizing his name, Saladin had been dead for one hundred years. This solitary figure in Dante's Divine Comedy stands today as it did in the past as a testament to his extraordinary stature." The Christians praised Salahuddin Ayyabi for his tolerance and character and infact considered him as their own. They thought that he had European blood in his veins and was a Christian knight at heart. Compare this to what the revisionist Thomas wrote when he described Salahuddin Ayyabi P.H. Newby stated: The Crusades were fascinated by a Muslim leader who possessed virtues they assumed were Christian. To them to his Muslim contemporaries and to us, it still remains remarkable that in times as harsh and bloody as these a man of great power should have been so little corrupted by it." Karen Armstrong again wrote in her book, "Jerusalem, One City, Three Faiths": "Christians in the West were uneasily aware that Muslim leaders had behaved in far more 'Christian' than had their own Crusaders."
  4. American Christians Protest Crusades Movie

    I have read the review of Thomas F. Madden who happens to be a Christian professor. A few notes before I carry on. Thomas F. Madden has authored numerous revisionist books regardin' the Crusades and provides many apologist claims in order to justify their horrendous massacres. In addition, his views are not in accord with the mainstream historians concernin' the origins of the Crusaders. I have read some of his past articles which are riddled with fallacies (i.e. emotional appeal) and grave inaccuries. He argues that Islam was spread by the sword which reveals that his intense dislike of Islam clouded his ability to analyze the historical facts. Any rational historian who has fully studied the Islamic conquest would concede that Thomas F. Madden's revisionism is pure propaganda and a failed attempt to justify the position of the Crusaders. But instead of quotin' renowned historians such as Gibbon who argued that the Islamic expansion was one of the most memorable revolutions which has impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe; I will try to check if his view on Salahuddin Ayyubi (being an intolerant ruler) is in accordance vis-a-vis with the historical facts. He writes: "...Saladin nor Baldwin were tolerant rulers seeking peace between Muslims and Christians." and "Saladin preached jihad throughout his reign, making no secret of his desire to capture Jerusalem and massacre its Christian inhabitants" Subhan'Allah. Here he is tryin' argue that Salahuddin Ayyubi (May Allah have mercy on him), who is respected even by HIS enemies (i.e. Crusaders), was a mass-murder who had only one vision which was to massacre the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem. The German-Jewish historian of the Nineteenth Century, Heinrich Graetz in his Geschichte der Juden [History of the Jews], vol. 11, published in 1853, states that the Sultan, opened the whole kingdom to the persecuted Jews, so they came to it, seeking security and finding justice The Spanish poet Yehuda al-Harizi, who was in Jerusalem in 1207 , described the significance for the Jews of the recovery of Jerusalem by Salahuddin Ayyubi : (In A.D.1190) God aroused the spirit of the prince of the Ishmaelites [salahuddin Ayyabi], a prudent and courageous man, who came with his entire army, besieged Jerusalem, took it and had it proclaimed throughout the country that he would receive and accept the entire race of Ephraim, wherever they came from. And so we came from all comers of the world to take up residence here. We now live here in the shadow of peace.
  5. Why Dont U Become A Muslim?

    Greetings, I've carefully read the posts presented by both sides and what I've noticed that you described doesn't even come close to what I've observerd. The Christian users have all this sort of repetitious allegations (i.e. the Uthman Qur'ans) and misconceptions (which they see as factual) about Islam which refrains them from embracin' it. When that allegation and/or misconception has been shattered vis-a-vis with credible evidence; the same allegation is recycled again without lookin' at the refutal. This doesn't fit the description about 'seekin' the truth' . This fits the description of bein' in plain denial. You see, when one attempts to search for the Truth, he/she has to approach it with a open-mind. Open-mindedness is essential to the flexibility that goes hand in hand with every form of intelligent search for the Truth. Allah (Exalted is He) said in Surah 29, verse 49: Nay, here are Signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject Our Signs. Asking wrote: Greetings Asking. The Gita is known to have suffered interpolation. It has been changed and enlarged over centuries. And there are thesis' supported with a fair amount of evidence that the Gita was influenced by the NT. I'd also like to add that the oldest manuscript found of the Gita dated back to the 14th century CE. Considerin' the fact that the Gita was compiled between the 500 BCE and 200 BCE. Furthermore, the Qur'an is the only Scripture that has decent isnad (transmission) datin' back to the time of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). We have two elements of authenticity that any other Scripture lacks. PS, William Muir worked in India between 1865 and 1876, so he bound to have read the Gita :D Peace
  6. Why Dont U Become A Muslim?

    :D Lack of careful readin' and graspin' is greatly demonstrated in this thread. Users are re-iteratin' the Uthman "versions" myth but when confronted it with evidence that we have early Qur'anic manuscripts pre-datin' the first half of the first century of hijra and are not simply not "Uthman Qur'ans" but are parchments written in Hijazi script then it's simply disregarded. In the academic world, the authenticity of the Qu'ran is indisputable. We've a great amount of evidence that strenghtens the authenticity of the Qu'ran. The famous Christian missionary from University of Oxford, Sir Willium Muir wrote in his book 'The Life Of Mohammad': The recension of 'Uthman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, - we might almost say no variations at all, - amongst the innumerable copies of the Koran scattered throughout the vast bounds of empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of 'Uthman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Muhammad have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but ONE KORAN has always been current amongst them.... There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text. The same [emphasised] statement "... probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text" refutes the claim that the Bible is the unadulterated Scripture revealed by God. Adrian Brockett said in his article 'The Value of Hafs And Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History Of The Qur'an': The transmission of the Qur'an after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in. Bernard Lewis in Islam in History makes a great point regardin' the transmission method used by the Muslims: From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science", as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth. Peace
  7. Why Dont U Become A Muslim?

    Greetings 'Asking' In Islam, shirk (assocatin' partners with God) is the ultimate crime. Shirk outweights all your sins put toghether. Allah (Exalted is He) said in Surah 4, verse 48 " Verily, Allah forgives not that partners be set up with Him [in worship] but He forgives other than that to whom He pleases; and whoever sets up partners with Allah [in worship], he has indeed invented an enormous wrong" Commitin' shirk is directin' injustice to your Creator -- the one who has provided you with all these necessary things -- and often a whole lot more. How right is it to to commit this offence to someone who provides everythin' for you. This form is the ultimate form of ingratitude. They rejected Him in this dunya, and thus Allah (Exalted is He) rejected them in the Day of Recompense. Allah has send down his servants to guide the ignorant to the path of God and worship Him only. Tawheed (Islamic monotheism) is the foundation, the first pillar of Islam. How injust would it be that everyone who rejected God in this dunya can attain Paradise after fulfillin' the prescribed punishment. That indicates that everyone who has ever lived can easily get in to Paradise. And like I stated in my previous reply, Allah (Exalted is He) forgives shirk to those who seek his forgiveness (repentance) in the dunya. Peace
  8. Why Dont U Become A Muslim?

    Greetings, In many verses (Ayaat), the Qur'an has emphasised to the means through mankind can achieve salvation and success. Salvation can be reached through both faith and good deeds. Bear in mind that faith always comes first. In fact, in several verses mentions that salvation is based on faith alone. However, these verses cannot be used to completly define the Islamic Aqeedah (belief). In Islam, Allah can forgive all sins except Shirkh (polytheism). This doesn't indicate that those who commit shirk are doomed. If a person who has commited shirk, and then wishes to make repentance, Allah accepts his repetance and wipes the slate clean. But if he doesn't make a repentance in his life-time, then Allah will not frogive him on the Day of Recompense. A person can achieve salvation based on faith alone and can have all his sins forgiven without the need of a middle-man (i.e. Jesus). That's the Grace of the Almighty. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "“Observe moderation in deeds (and if it is not possible, try to be near moderation) and be aware that none among you can attain salvation only by virtue of his own deeds.� The companions said: "O Allah’s Messenger! Not even you?� The Prophet replied: “Not even me, unless Allah encompasses me with His mercy and grace." If the mass-muderer has repented for his sins and Allah (Exalted is He) has forgiven him, it shows the magnanimity of Allah. Let me share with you a story narrated by the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "There was a man among a people before you who committed ninety-nine murders. Then he inquired about the most knowledgeable man on earth and he was led to a monk. He went to him and told him that he had killed ninety-nine people and asked him if it was possible for him to repent. The monk told him: 'NO!' So the man killed him also and completed his hundred. Then he inquired about the most knowledgeable man on earth and was led to a scholar. He went to him and told him that he had killed a hundred people and asked him if there was repentance for him. The man told him, 'Yes. And what can come in between you and repentance?' 'Then he told him, 'Go to such and such a town for in it live people who are devoted to God. Devote yourself there to God in their company and do not come back to your own town for it is an evil place.' So the man started towards that town. However, while he was halfway through the journey death overtook him. The angels of 'mercy' and 'punishment' descended and began to argue over him. The angels of mercy said: 'This man had repented and was seeking his Lord, (therefore he is our share),' while the angels of punishment claimed that, 'he had never done a good thing in life,' (so he was their share). While they were thus arguing, another angel arrived in the form of a man. They decided to accept him as their arbitrator. He said: 'Measure the earth between the two towns and let him be assigned to the fate of the one he is nearer to.' When they measured they found him nearer to the town he was heading towards. So the angels of mercy took him away." Here, it demonstrates the infinite Mercy of Allah. If a mass-murderer accepted Jesus as his saviour, wouldn't his sins be forgiven since he already attained salvation? What about his punishment? Similiary, Allah can forgive whom he wills if they turn in repentance. Allah is Just in His predestination and His Decree and Wise in all of His actions. I'd also like to mention that Christianity is not based on faith alone. The Bible talks frequently about works: "abounding in good works" (1 Cor. 9:8; Eph. 2:10; Col. 1:10), "being constantly aware of the fact that they will be judged by their deeds" [Mt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 1 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:17] The verse(s) that you cited (Ephesians 2:8-9) talk about faith. But it only states that faith is an important part of the salvation process. Neither of these passages state that you're saved "by faith alone". You do know that the text you just cited from "Stonebriar Community Church" site is completely junk? How did it varied from each other? In fact, I'm quite suprised that the site doesn't even provide a credible reference for such weak allegation. Another incorrect assertion. There were no "different versions". A short interpretation regardin' the action of Uthman (May Allah be pleased with him. In short, the reason why he burned the other manuscripts was because new nations, which were non-Arabs, embraced Islam. And they used to make mistakes in the recitation of the Qur'an. Therefore, he resulted to the above measure, thereby, united Arabs and non-Arabs under the same recitation and scripture as the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, commanded the Companions. We have Qu'ranic manuscripts that are dated to first half of the first century of hijara (i.e., before 50 AH / 670 CE). "you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamic-awareness(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Quran/Text/Mss/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamic-awareness(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Quran/Text/Mss/[/url] Again, this "different versions" myth. Why doesn't the author provide a reference for such an serious assertion? In fact, the whole article is missin' footnotes. Perhaps, they were concealin' the rejected scholaric references that they've used :D Old allegation which has been refuted by Dr. M S M Saifullah "you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamic-awareness(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamic-awareness(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html[/url] Christians can easily prove that the Gospel is the word of God by providin' authentic unbroken chain of transmission that the four "disciples" were actually the real companions of Jesus. If they what they wrote down was inspired, then it would be easy to provide evidence with authentic chain of unbroken transmissions that it was preserved perfectly. (since their God's Words). No no, perhaps providin' a authentic chain of unbroken transmissions to Isa son of Maryam's time (Peace be upon him) might be a difficult job. Let's simplify the challenge by statin' that is it possible if the Christians can provide a authentic chain of unbroken tranmissions datin' back to Prophet Muhammad's time (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? Peace
  9. Since you cited Theodore Dalrymple, the well known Islamophobe, cite also the works of Daniel "bigot" Pipes. I fully concur with brother Aburafay. The same old absurd rhetoric is recycled by some of these old "western" users who try use the false pretext that they come on this board to broaden their knowledge concernin' Islam. Gill for example has been a member since june 04 and yet not even once did he post a non-biased article, but continued to copy-paste articles produced by Islamophobes. I've criticized (in a constructive way) him on many occasions for this mindless behaviour but yet he tries to dodge my criticism by playin' the innocent user who "tries to understand Islam". The only user who has demonstrated real genuine interest in Islam and doesn't offer biased perspectives is Kale. A another example of a user who soley relies on anti-islamic garbage is maranatha. I've lost count how many times I tried to elucidate to her that the books she reads explainin' Islam are written by pseudo-scholars orientalists who consider themselves as enemies of Islam. But yet she continues to read them and quote from them. Quite tiredsome if you ask me
  10. Native Deen

    :D "you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.load-Islam(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/content/view/73/41/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.load-Islam(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/content/view/73/41/[/url] track 1
  11. Junk History

    Dear Kale, I'm happy that you concede the contributions that the Ancient Muslims made durin' age of ignorance (i.e Dark Ages) but I simply disagree that Muslims forced their belief on others. This is simply incorrect and no decent historian would regard that claim as factual. It's clearly said in the Qur'an and the Hadith that Muslims shouldn't compell non-muslims to adopt their beliefs. And we all are aware that these Muslims were also more faithfull when contrasting the current state of the Ummah. Could you cite any prominent historians apart from the bigoted orientalists? The status of the janissaries been misunderstood and misrepresented by Orientalist historians for centuries. The exact same tactic is used to defame Islam and its adherents. The janissaries WERE NEVER forced to convert to Islam. They were encouraged but _never_ forced. The treatment of non-muslims equal like I stated in my previous posts backed with authentic evidence. The first janissaries were captives of war but later extended to children. These children in fact futureless and slaves. They were offered a chance to receive the highest education possible at that time ( no other than the janissaries received these types of educations). Some of them became vizirs while others went to the military education. They enjoyed high living standards, were exempted from taxes and earned a respected social status. Many of them became administrators and scholars. Retired and invalided janissaries even received pensions. The military ones even received pay. They even had the possibility to work as law-enforcers or as tradesmen in peaceful conditions. Would you deny them these rights and let them continue live as slaves? A good book to read (nonbiased) titled Muslim Military History: The Janissaries by David Nicolle (credible historian). Again my friend, you fail to present any evidence for these "forced conversion". Wouldn't it be wise and isn't the main essence of debatin' to present references? Quite the contrary. Edward Said, the Arab Christian author of the monumental work Orientalism states: With regard to Islam and the Islamic territories, for example, Britain felt that it had legitimate interests, as a Christian power, to safeguard. A complex apparatus for tending these interests developed. Such early organizations as the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1698) and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1701) were succeeded and later abetted by the Baptist Missionary Society (1792), the Church Missionary Society (1799), the British and Foreign Bible Society (1804), the London Society for Promoting Christianity Among the Jews (1808). These missions "openly" joined the expansion of Europe. These orientalists started a campaign against their no1 enemy; Islam. For example, Sir William Muir was an active missionary and author of several books on Islam. Presumely, his work is nowadays perceived as being biased but yet are often used for receferences. Any individual who had studied the history of orientalism in Europe since the advent of Islam would affirm that most of their work was based on defaming and fabricating. Only a few fair-minded invidiuals such as the greatest historian Ed. Gibbon and Thomas Arnold would see through the bias and correct it. Here, Edward Gibbon said in ‘History of the Saracen Empire': It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran....The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. Perhaps this is the most quoted statement by De Lacy O’Leary but yet so true: History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated. When the Laws of God are implemented on earth, it automatically becomes a utopia. Islam showed the world that the laws are workable, that they are not mere utopia but a practicable code of life. Like I stated in my previous threads (before the forum went down). There were a few despots like Mahmud of Ghazna or Muhammad bin Qasim (India) but they never forced the inhabitants to convert to Islam since they were spiritual dead (psuedo muslims). Sir Alfred C. Lyall wrote in Asiatic Studies: The military adventurers, who founded dynasties in Northern India and carved out kingdoms in the Dekhan, care little for things spiritual; most of them had indeed no time for proselytism...and to check the gathering of tribes into nations; but so far were they from converting India, that among the Mahommedans themselves their own faith never acquired an entire and exclusive monopoly of the high offices of administration. Thomas Arnold writes regarding Bin Qasim who was spiritually dead: That the conversion were in the main voluntary, may be judged from the toleration that the Muslims, after the first violence of their onslaught, showed towards their idolatrous subjects. The people of Brahmanabad, for example, whose city had been taken by storm, were allowed to repair their temple, which was a means of livelihood to the Brahmans, and nobody was to be forbidden or prevented from following his own religion, and generally, where submission was made, quarter was readily given, and the people were permitted the exercise of their own creeds and laws. Even under the worst leaders, they attained the right to practise their religion freely. The conclusion stands that no record has been recorded that Muslims forced their beliefs on other. That is a myth which is unfortunaley propagated by many Western thinkers. The prejudice and biasedness still exists 'till this day. Peace
  12. Junk History

    :D Jazaka'Allah Khairun brother Suleyman for reconigzing that the history I cited is far from junk. Unfortunaley, even to this day, people will reject the contribution made by the followers of Al-Islam and how they changed Europe, Africa and Asia. Wa'salaam bro
  13. The Veil

    :D "you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.load-Islam(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/content/view/70/41/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.load-Islam(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/content/view/70/41/[/url]
  14. Junk History

    Peace, I have cited numerous fragments from the most esteemed historians. One that comes to mind is Gibbon, who is recognized as the greatest historian. He wrote concerning the expansion of Islam: one of the most memorable revolutions which has impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe Historians are baffled how Islam spread so fast and yet didn't force the inhabitants of the conquered lands to convert to Islam. But the most prominent historians unanimously agree that Islam never forced the people to convert as Allah SWT said in the Holy Qu'ran: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error". We're here talking about the early Muslim Ummah and how pious leaders they had such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Saladin etc. There is not even one single event recorded in history that Muslims used coercion, and it's only repeated by the orientalist Islamophobics (enemies of Islam). Huston Smith who is one of the most respected and beloved authorities on world religions wrote in "The Religions of Man": ...and the Near East, Christians, Jews, and Hindus lived quietly and in freedom under Muslim rule. Even under the worst caliphs, Christians and Jews held positions of influence and in general retained their religious freedom. If the Caliphs really used coercion as the early medieval Christians did, then they would have atleast wiped out Christanity as easily as what happend to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Al-Andalus. Let's use some logical reasonin'. The Christians and the Jews and any other minorities fled to the Islamic Empire when they were persecuted by the Church to seek justice. Now why on earth would they jeopardize their lives in order to seek justice by the "merciless" Muslims who use the forced conversion method in order to gain adherents. Not only does history state the contrary but it goes against one of the main teachings in Islam. This is observed by a Non-Muslim author Ira Zepp Jr who wrote "A Muslim Primer": It is unfortunate that Islam has been stereotyped as the 'religion of the sword' or that Islam was 'spread by the sword.' The historical reality is that the expansion of Islam was usually by persuasion and not by military power. In any case, Islam cannot be forced on anyone; if profession of the shahadah [i.e. the declaration of Islam] is forced on someone, it is not true Islam. As the famous historian Thomas Arnold wrote in "the Spread of Islam in the World": We have never heard about any attempt to compel non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organized persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity. As Washington W. Irving wrote in "Tales of the Alhambra": As conquerors [Muslims], their heroism was equaled only by their moderation, and in both, for a time, they excelled the nations with whom they contended. Severed from their native homes, they loved the land given them as they supposed by Allah and strove to embellish it with everything that could administer to the happiness of man. Laying the foundations of their power in a system of wise and equitable laws, diligently cultivating the arts and sciences, and promoting agriculture, manufactures and commerce, they gradually formed an empire unrivaled for its prosperity by any of the empires of Christendom . . . The cities of Muslim Spain became the resort of Christian artisans, to instruct themselves in the useful art. The Universities of Toledo, Cordova, Seville, Granada, were sought by the pale student from lands to acquaint himself with the sciences of the Arabs and the treasure lore of antiquity. Let me close with the famous quote of the noted historian Thomas Carlyle who pretty sums it up and simultaneously abolishes the misconception: The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man's head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and tries to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On a whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can. aebrain wrote: Instead of quoting translated text that bears many inconsistencies, let's look at the original source and the tafsir (interpretation) The original Arabic text, the verse directs that the Muslims should not take the Jews and the Christians as awliyaa which stands for "leaders". This is again one of the many mistranslated mistakes in the translation of the Qu'ran. The original meaning of the verse is a political advice to the Muslims not to take non-Muslims as leaders, guides, or descision makers, which is actually wise and logical enough. Which nation, whether Muslim or Non-Muslim has ever offered its leadership to strangers? As for the second verse, Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid from Islam-qa perfectly explains it in simple terms: Please do not try to interpretate the verses to merely to what you've perceived from the translated version of the Qu'ran, espcially since you haven't studied the basic tenets of Al-Islam. This is simply incorrect and and a gross assertion. Therefore, I want you to state the exact Hadith quotes without taking them out of context. There is not even ONE single Hadith that directs Muslims to force their beliefs on others. As for the "disputed" authencity of the Hadith assertion. This again is simply incorrect and it demonstrate your lack knowledge concernin' the science of the Hadith. Perhaps this link, who convers the simply basics, will broaden your knowledge regarding the compilation of Al-Hadith. "you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/atit.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/h...adith/atit.html[/url] I'm not going to conver the indepth and comprehensive science of Al-Hadith, however, I will address one point. The isnad (i.e chain of narration) used for authenticating the integrity of the Qu'ran and the Hadith has never been used for the Bible. There is not even one decent isnad of the Bible going back to the time of Prophet Muhammad (P) let alone Prophet Jesus (P). We all know that Isnad is part of the religion as Abdullah b al-Mubarak , one of the teachers of Imam al-Bukhari, said: The isnad is part of the religion: had it not been for the isnad, whoever wished to would have said whatever he liked What do you expect. The Islamic Empire never toke a advantage to conquer and massacre whole populations. This is evident when the Mongols literally massacred millions of Muslims, or the miedval Christians who not only massacred the Muslims but also burned the Jews. Additionaly, a bunch of attacks have been executed on the Muslim economy that set the Muslims back. It was never the intention for Muslims massacre inhabitants based on their faith, colour, or appearance. This is barbaric and since Muslims didn't use these methods, they had to face the conquences from the Crusaders and the barbaric Mongols for being tolerant. Peace!
  15. Submission

    Can someone explain to me how the Truth can be biased? BC, in order to grasp why Islam gets slandered all the time and ergo why you cannot trust the words of Orientalists; we should go back to 675 CE. John of Damascus first began the tradition of ridiculing Islam and the Prophet(P). He claimed in his book De Haeresbius, that the Qur'ân was not revealed but created by the Prophet(P), and that he was helped by a Christian monk, Bahira, to use the Old and New Testament to create a new scripture. He also claimed that the Prophet(P) created verses of the Qur'ân to fulfill his own wants, and these were usually to do with lust and sexual deviancy. Others followed John of Damascus in spreading ideas that portrayed Islam as an inferior religion, headed by Maracei, Hottinger, Nicholas de Cuse, Prideaux and others. They called it the Satanic religion, distorted the Qu'ranic verses and even fabricated some. They called it the religion of the devil and attributed many malicous names to the Prophet (P). Let me cite a few examples: H.A. Lammens, a Jesuit and Church pastor, wrote that Muhammad(P) "ate a lot, followed his (sexual) desires and died because of stomach disease". Prideaux wrote the following: "Islam is the religion for the followers of the devil. The Moslems are an ignorant race and the Koran from the beginning to the end is filled with the stories of the impossible". Roger Du Pasquier conces my point by stating: One is forced also to concede that Oriental studies in the West have not always been inspired by the purest spirit of scholarly impartiality, and it is hard to deny that some Islamicists and Arabists have worked with the clear intention of belittling Islam and its adherents. In addition Dr.Maurice Bucaille (reverted Muslim) writes: When one mentions Islam to the materialist atheist, he smiles with a complacency that is only equal to his ignorance of the subject. In common with the majority of Western intellectuals, of whatever religious persuasion, he has an impressive collection of false notions about Islam. In An Authoritative Exposition - Part 1, by Abdur-Rahîm Green, it's stated: The history of Orientalism is hardly one of unbiased examination of the sources of Islam especially when under the influence of the bigotry of Christianity. From the fanatical distortions of John of Damascus to the apologetic of later writers against Islam, that told their audiences that the Muslims worshipped three idols! Peter the Venerable (1084-1156) "translated" the Qur'an which was used throughout the Middle Ages and included nine additional chapters. Sale's infamously distorted translation followed that trend, and his, along with the likes of Rodwell, Muir and a multitude of others attacked the character and personality of Muhammmed. Often they employed invented stories, or narration's which the Muslims themselves considered fabricated or weak, or else they distorted the facts by claiming Muslims held a position which they did not, or using the habits practised out of ignorance among the Muslims as the accurate portrayal of Islam. As Norman Daniel tell us in his work Islam and the West: "The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal . . . " (p. 267). One thing really suprises me, if Islam is a "inferior" devilish religion with many complicated doctrines and degratory practises then why would so many people, from Western Orientalists to Christian missionaries, have to tell so many untruths about it? If Islam is indeed from the Devil, you do not need the Devil's ways to defeat it - explaining the truth would be enough. As for Math-E's, your copy&paste excerpts from the "Prophet of Doom" site is self-explanatory. Let me add that if Islam really "degraded" women, then could you please explain to me in very lucid way why for every male convert to Islam, 4 females convert to Islam in the US? Peace
×