Hello & Welcome to our community. Is this your first visit? Register
Ads by Muslim Ad Network


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 71 of 71
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2

    Regarding Western orientalists...

    I was looking for some books about Islamic history, the topic I have started to be interested in, and I have found the introductory book by some Western orientalist. Lured by the price I bought an e-book and started to read. The author in very first chapters discussed the credibility of basic Muslim sources, that is Quran and hadiths – in his opinion, based on many other books produced by orientalists, both are prepared at eighth and ninth centuries, so they can’t show a true picture about origins of Islam. There were other horrible biases and lies, like that of Satanic Verses and others. For example, campaigns of Prophet Muhammad were considered as aggressive attacks due to gain political power.

    I know lots of very good books about defending our Faith but their lies are still very popular and authors of that books are very respected due to their academic degrees. I have always been thinking they could speak things they are sure about and we could believe them, as they have devoted to their work all of their lives. So why do they write such lies, half-truths, and biases? Forgive me, but I am very shocked.

  2. #41
    SUFI HANAFI
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    42,182
    Mentioned
    500 Post(s)
    Quoted
    8567 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    795

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryMyers View Post
    ...Reading a book can be a 'student-teacher' environment especially if you favor all the books of that particular author only.
    I don't know what you mean or how it's relevant.

  3. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    438
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quoted
    323 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
    Your point is that the truth should be followed no matter who/where it comes from.
    Let me correct you. I said the truth must be acknowledged. Truth can also be in the form of a statement or findings. Following the truth actually mean acknowledging it. You can only follow and adhere to rules and laws or commandments AFTER you have acknowledged their truths..


    Quote Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
    Everything about Islam from a non-Muslim needs to be checked. Therefore, if everything needs to be checked then that source (non-Muslim) isn't one you should be learning from. Very simple.
    Again, its not about telearning or following, its about acknowledging what has been said. I certainly would not recommend anyone to learn Islam from a non-Muslim teacher or mentor but I would not stop anyone from acknowledging any statement made by non-Muslims if those statements do not contradict the Quran and they are also acknowledged by Muslim scholars.

  4. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    438
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quoted
    323 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
    I don't know what you mean or how it's relevant.
    Its simple. There are people who are mentored by Anthony Robbins NOT in person BUT by reading his books. So, in a way, Anthony Robbins is the teacher and mentor.
    Last edited by JerryMyers; 16-08-17 at 03:40 PM.

  5. #44

    Account Disabled

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    8,215
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Quoted
    6164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    @JerryMyers - Is this your first "discussion" with Abu Abdullah?

    Lol good luck explaining or defining things to him.

  6. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicen View Post
    Well Europeans view muslims as a sort of Orcs and Islam being orcish culture whereas they are some gloious paladins who will slay these beasts. It's a bit of good vs evil thing.

    And till date Islam is the only force in human history that has come closest to defeating European. They also hold grudge over this.
    It is absolutely true. When it comes to Islam, they say it is nothing but "culture of the barbarians".

    Quote Originally Posted by pronorah View Post
    Islam and Christianity are in fierce competition for what we could call "world domination". The reason why Christians are often hostile to Islam is because Islam, unlike other religions, is considered to be real competition. At Hinduism and Buddhism, Christians rather laugh. They consider these religions to be undangerous. They find it relatively easy to strip these religions from their believers and convert them to Christianity. Achieving conversion from Islam to Christianity, however, is considered to be a sheer impossible task. Christians may sometimes hate Judaism because it has a few original sources that mention Jesus in an unflattering way.

    You can find the official position of the Catholic Church on Islam in this link.

    Without religious scripture, you have no starting point from which you can reason and derive morality. Since even atheists will still have to produce moral determinations, without agreed starting point, these determinations will simply be arbitrary. Concerning the choice of religion, my personal position as a monotheist (tawhid) is that you cannot do this alone. Your environment will then just enforce rules that are not necessarily your choice. Since we have to make a choice, I clearly prefer Islam which is provable from the Quran, to Christianity which does not even try to be provable from the Bible. I do not even refer to any superior claims that would make either of both religions the superior one, because there is not even a need for that. Islam is superior already by its form alone.

    Competitors will never really like each other. At best, they will show respect. If Christians are somewhat hostile towards Islam, that is somehow what you should expect. They will not frequently be disrespectful, however. Christian churches generally condemn that kind of behaviour:

    Pope Francis on free speech: ‘You cannot insult the faith of others’

    My point of view is that you cannot expect more than that from a competitor.
    But couldn't they become Muslims? Why do they ignore the truth? Sorry for what I am going to say, it is caused by lack of knowledge, but I always wonder why the most of the people are non-Muslims condemned to go to the Hell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicen View Post
    Christianity is more or less a dead religion.

    Europe's new religion is atheism mixed with values like Freedom, democracy, etc
    At least in the place where I live, it is still living and even getting more stronger. What is more, it seems to be connected with democracy values (but not exactly full freedom of speech as in the West - anti-Catholic performances of liberals always make most of the people angry).

  7. #46

    Account Disabled

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    8,215
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Quoted
    6164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
    But couldn't they become Muslims? Why do they ignore the truth? Sorry for what I am going to say, it is caused by lack of knowledge, but I always wonder why the most of the people are non-Muslims condemned to go to the Hell.
    Well since you're a student (?) I think here's one way of looking at it.

    Say you want to give a maths test and there's a specific syllabus for 2017. Yet you read a book from 2015 because it looks Koooolz. But when you give the test by just reading 2015 syllabus you will come across questions you've never seen before. And you got a fail grade. You worked hard with 2015 but still failed because that previous syllabus has become irrelevant.

    Personally though I don't talk about it or gloat about it too much. Not useful, because a muslim should strive to be a better muslim instead of comparing with non-muslims.

  8. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicen View Post
    Well since you're a student (?) I think here's one way of looking at it.

    Say you want to give a maths test and there's a specific syllabus for 2017. Yet you read a book from 2015 because it looks Koooolz. But when you give the test by just reading 2015 syllabus you will come across questions you've never seen before. And you got a fail grade. You worked hard with 2015 but still failed because that previous syllabus has become irrelevant.

    Personally though I don't talk about it or gloat about it too much. Not useful, because a muslim should strive to be a better muslim instead of comparing with non-muslims.
    You are right. Their words and deeds just make me sad and I am afraid of their hatred.

  9. #48
    Odan Thunderstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    1,766
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1111 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    110

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    @YoungMuslimah78 What did you want to know more about in history? I can give you some links with free material.
    Say what somebody can do instead of the haram if you want to help.

  10. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderstorm View Post
    @YoungMuslimah78 What did you want to know more about in history? I can give you some links with free material.
    Thank you very much. May Allah swt reward you.

    I am interested in the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islamic conquest and the Crusades.

  11. #50
    Odan Thunderstorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    1,766
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1111 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    110

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
    Thank you very much. May Allah swt reward you.

    I am interested in the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islamic conquest and the Crusades.
    Seerah(series): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO22...Hi1C7YJ4ZCVmVl
    Abu Bakr & Umar(radiallahu anhumma) & Seerah: http://www.kalamullah.com/anwar-alawlaki.html
    Uthman(radiallahu anhu)(the links under the title "The Fitnah") : http://www.kalamullah.com/kamal-el-mekki.html / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1tAQ_YqLew
    Almoravids(North-western Africa, Morocco, Andalus) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0OMUXvizCI
    Salahuddin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi2JuunStdc

    There were some lectures on the Seljuks, Ottomans and Harun Ar-Rashid but I can't find them right now. I'll keep looking.
    As far as books go, here you can find some: https://www.kalamullah.com/current-affairs.html

    These are what you're looking for I suppose:
    "Conquest of Constantinople"
    "The Crusades Through Muslim Eyes"
    "Raid of The Mongols"
    "Atlas Of The Islamic Conquests"
    "The Islamic Conquest of Syria"
    "The Muslim Conquest of Persia"
    "The History of the Khalifahs"
    "Salah ad-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin)"

    Also I think you should read Tabari's books, you can find most if not all of the volumes here: http://www.kalamullah.com/tabari.html
    Say what somebody can do instead of the haram if you want to help.

  12. #51
    Odan
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Gender
    Girl Unspecified
    Posts
    2,165
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1415 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryMyers View Post
    Nonsense ?? Because none of them became Muslims ?? Grow up, please !

    I personally know a non-Muslim who has been very positive about Islam and the Prophet SAW since age 23 (or earlier) but only became a Muslim recently at age 38. As a Muslim, you should know whether they become Muslim or not, is not something for us to frown down on as only Allah SWT can open their hearts to Islam, NOT you, NOT me. However, for them to say the right things about the Prophet SAW, is a step in the right direction. Insya Allah.



    So, the Prophet SAW "was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level" and “founded and established a religion and an empire” is nothing great to you ??



    So, what’s wrong if they praised Prophet Muhammad SAW as a person ?? You mean what they said of Prophet Muhammad SAW as a person and Besant calling the Prophet SAW as “one of the great messengers of the Supreme" are nonsense to you ??

    So, Besant claimed that “there would be a greater, final prophet yet to come” after Prophet Muhammad, errrr.. let me ask you.. is there something stopping you from rejecting that particular claim ??

    The fact that they praised the Prophet SAW as a person IS a step in the right direction. Will they revert to Islam ?? Only Allah SWT knows.
    I don't think there are any prophets, so of course I reject the claim that “there would be a greater, final prophet yet to come” after Prophet Muhammad. However, it demonstrates that Besant herself did not consider Mohaamed the greatest or final prophet.
    What none of these people said is that they accepted the claims made for Mohammed in the koran or by muslims. They did not believe Mohammed was the final prophet of mankind. Neither Hart nor Gandhi said he was a prophet at all. They said he was a great man. It is perfectly possible for someone to be a great man - however you define it - without believing that god or religion was involved in any way in their greatness, even if the great man themselves makes that claim.

  13. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    564
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Quoted
    341 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
    But couldn't they become Muslims? Why do they ignore the truth?
    The position of the Christian leadership is that they are offering respect but not adoption. In fact, the Papacy could not even offer adoption. Just look at the political ramifications of doing that. His core constituency would simply repudiate the Pope and appoint an anti-Pope in order to continue Catholic traditions. Since the position of the Holy See pretty much depends on not doing that, you can see why he would never do it. Individual Christians, however, may choose to adopt Islam. It happens regularly. Still, Christianity is not the same as those really weak religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism that you can trivially strip naked of their believers. Therefore, there is indeed a slow erosion in Christianity bringing believers to Islam, but don't expect it to go fast. Historically, it never did. Furthermore, there is also a hardcore of believers that would never leave Christianity. They are a bit like quite a few Muslims. They would rather die than to abdicate. This is the nature of religion itself, which as a set of core beliefs, can be a very dominant thing. In fact, respect for Islam is not particularly a selfless strategy in Christianity. If people have no right to be disrespectful to Islam, an underlying principle of fairness suggests that they also have no right to be disrespectful to Christianity. It is a potent weapon against atheists who are not just be critical but often even derogatory. So, the Christian leadership wants a truce with Islam along those lines.

    You see, Christian scholars know what the Quran says about their errors. Unprovoked, the Christian leadership stays clear of entering into polemics. They have to accept that, because otherwise there would be no truce. Personally, I avoid rubbing salt into their wounds by repeating these verses to them. My own approach consists in pointing out the flaws in the Christian formalism. That has always been a big issue in Christianity. The Protestants broke off brandishing the mantra "sola scriptura", the scripture only. However, even the Protestants did not really follow through on that, because if you remove the numerous non-Biblical teachings, it really would no longer be Christianity. The non-Biblical teachings of the church have always been the Achilles heel of Christianity. Christianity is not provable from the Bible alone. This renders their formalisms inferior. Even the Christian public at large incessantly complains that the interpretations of their churches are actually arbitrary. Christianity will not be destroyed by external factors. It is the inconsistencies and contradictions of their own formalisms that is their worst threat. Christianity has always been dividing and imploding from within, and this problem will not get any better. Let history just run its course.

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
    Sorry for what I am going to say, it is caused by lack of knowledge, but I always wonder why the most of the people are non-Muslims condemned to go to the Hell.
    Christians do not believe that they will be going to hell for furthering Christianity. Quite a few Christians sincerely believe that it is Christianity that will bring them to heaven. Christian religion is clearly in constant regression but it still exists.

  14. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    438
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quoted
    323 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sceptic View Post
    I don't think there are any prophets, so of course I reject the claim that “there would be a greater, final prophet yet to come” after Prophet Muhammad. However, it demonstrates that Besant herself did not consider Mohaamed the greatest or final prophet.
    What none of these people said is that they accepted the claims made for Mohammed in the koran or by muslims. They did not believe Mohammed was the final prophet of mankind. Neither Hart nor Gandhi said he was a prophet at all. They said he was a great man. It is perfectly possible for someone to be a great man - however you define it - without believing that god or religion was involved in any way in their greatness, even if the great man themselves makes that claim.
    I guess there’s always 2 ways of how people see a notable personality. One, they view him/her as a person, that is, his/her personality, his/her characters, his/her moral standards and commitments, etc. The other, they view him/her from the professional or religious circle that he/she represent.

    As these individuals are not Muslims and they are not scholars in religions, its rather expected that their views on the Prophet SAW are that of a person only which is okay as those comments did not degrade the image of the Prophet SAW as a person in any way. In fact, anyone who had not known the man, Muhammad, should, after reading their comments, have nothing but admiration for the Prophet SAW as a person, especially when such accolades came from non-Muslim personalities. It would not have much of that “in your face!” impact if those accolades came from Muslim personalities as people will turn around and say “Sure, they are Muslims, what else do you expect them to say about their own prophet ??”

  15. #54
    striving to be sincere Abu Kamel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    5,640
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1587 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    183

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    As head of the Theosophical Society, Annie Bessant was a evil enemy of Islam. She was instrumental in bringing about the Hindutva movement and the RSS and their Hindu nationalism. She and her group built Hindu schools throughout India to teach Hinduism and implant Hindutva. She also taught Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani to bring about Qadianism. The TS also revived Buddhism by rebuilding temples and starting Buddhist schools.

    The Theosophical society doctrine
    Allahumma, aranee al haqqu haqqan wa arzuqnee itiba`ahu, wa aranee al baatilu baatilaan wa arzuqnee ijtinaabahu.Oh Allah! show us the truth as true, and inspire us to follow it. Show us falsehood as falsehood, and inspire us to abstain from it.
    " Do you know what destroys Islam? A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray

  16. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    438
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quoted
    323 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Kamel View Post
    As head of the Theosophical Society, Annie Bessant was a evil enemy of Islam. She was instrumental in bringing about the Hindutva movement and the RSS and their Hindu nationalism. She and her group built Hindu schools throughout India to teach Hinduism and implant Hindutva. She also taught Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani to bring about Qadianism. The TS also revived Buddhism by rebuilding temples and starting Buddhist schools.

    The Theosophical society doctrine
    Question is – how do you define ‘enemy of Islam’ ?? If you define ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who practise any other religions OTHER THAN Islam and therefore they should be hated, then, its no surprise why Islamophobia is on the rise.

    I would define ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who DELIBERATELY fight against Islam, physically (physical violence against Muslims) or verbally (derogatory and abusive words against Allah SWT and/or the Prophet SAW).

    More interestingly, how did the Prophet SAW define ‘enemy of Islam’ ? If the Prophet SAW too defined ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who practice any other religions OTHER THAN Islam, then, the non-Muslim Arabs living during the time of the takeover of Mecca by the Muslims led by the Prophet SAW, would not have survived back then BUT they did. Not only they survived, they are given freedom to practice their respective faith. All this at a time when he could have easily destroyed his worst enemies, Prophet Muhammad SAW showed remarkable restraint. This is even more significant given the culture of vicious tribal rivalry and guilt by association practiced at the time. There is a reason why Allah SWT described the Prophet SAW as a ’mercy to mankind’ (Quran 21:107) but we, Muslims today, have forgotten to emulate this important trait of the Prophet SAW.

    So, tell me, how do you define ‘enemy of Islam’ ??

  17. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderstorm View Post
    Seerah(series): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO22...Hi1C7YJ4ZCVmVl
    Abu Bakr & Umar(radiallahu anhumma) & Seerah: http://www.kalamullah.com/anwar-alawlaki.html
    Uthman(radiallahu anhu)(the links under the title "The Fitnah") : http://www.kalamullah.com/kamal-el-mekki.html / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1tAQ_YqLew
    Almoravids(North-western Africa, Morocco, Andalus) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0OMUXvizCI
    Salahuddin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi2JuunStdc

    There were some lectures on the Seljuks, Ottomans and Harun Ar-Rashid but I can't find them right now. I'll keep looking.
    As far as books go, here you can find some: https://www.kalamullah.com/current-affairs.html

    These are what you're looking for I suppose:
    "Conquest of Constantinople"
    "The Crusades Through Muslim Eyes"
    "Raid of The Mongols"
    "Atlas Of The Islamic Conquests"
    "The Islamic Conquest of Syria"
    "The Muslim Conquest of Persia"
    "The History of the Khalifahs"
    "Salah ad-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin)"

    Also I think you should read Tabari's books, you can find most if not all of the volumes here: http://www.kalamullah.com/tabari.html
    Thank you very much. I am going to download the books and read them in free time. It seems very, very interesting

  18. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by pronorah View Post
    The position of the Christian leadership is that they are offering respect but not adoption. In fact, the Papacy could not even offer adoption. Just look at the political ramifications of doing that. His core constituency would simply repudiate the Pope and appoint an anti-Pope in order to continue Catholic traditions. Since the position of the Holy See pretty much depends on not doing that, you can see why he would never do it. Individual Christians, however, may choose to adopt Islam. It happens regularly. Still, Christianity is not the same as those really weak religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism that you can trivially strip naked of their believers. Therefore, there is indeed a slow erosion in Christianity bringing believers to Islam, but don't expect it to go fast. Historically, it never did. Furthermore, there is also a hardcore of believers that would never leave Christianity. They are a bit like quite a few Muslims. They would rather die than to abdicate. This is the nature of religion itself, which as a set of core beliefs, can be a very dominant thing. In fact, respect for Islam is not particularly a selfless strategy in Christianity. If people have no right to be disrespectful to Islam, an underlying principle of fairness suggests that they also have no right to be disrespectful to Christianity. It is a potent weapon against atheists who are not just be critical but often even derogatory. So, the Christian leadership wants a truce with Islam along those lines.

    You see, Christian scholars know what the Quran says about their errors. Unprovoked, the Christian leadership stays clear of entering into polemics. They have to accept that, because otherwise there would be no truce. Personally, I avoid rubbing salt into their wounds by repeating these verses to them. My own approach consists in pointing out the flaws in the Christian formalism. That has always been a big issue in Christianity. The Protestants broke off brandishing the mantra "sola scriptura", the scripture only. However, even the Protestants did not really follow through on that, because if you remove the numerous non-Biblical teachings, it really would no longer be Christianity. The non-Biblical teachings of the church have always been the Achilles heel of Christianity. Christianity is not provable from the Bible alone. This renders their formalisms inferior. Even the Christian public at large incessantly complains that the interpretations of their churches are actually arbitrary. Christianity will not be destroyed by external factors. It is the inconsistencies and contradictions of their own formalisms that is their worst threat. Christianity has always been dividing and imploding from within, and this problem will not get any better. Let history just run its course.


    Christians do not believe that they will be going to hell for furthering Christianity. Quite a few Christians sincerely believe that it is Christianity that will bring them to heaven. Christian religion is clearly in constant regression but it still exists.
    You are probably right. I have been always living with Catholics - some of them were pious and some of them not - and I have learned that actually, you won't convince all people of the world. They have their truths and reasons, their lifestyle and for most of them, it is well enough. They have even their historical truths and - what I have experienced - they want to discuss these topics and do this in a way that makes me feel dizzy. I didn't know their doctrine and history as well as you but I assume that if one of them had entered this forum would have a discussion. Regarding to Muslim converts from Christianity, in my country, it is very seldom. I have heard about some cases of women married to Islamic men who have changed their religion and about some man who has converted due to marriage with a Muslim girl.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Kamel View Post
    As head of the Theosophical Society, Annie Bessant was a evil enemy of Islam. She was instrumental in bringing about the Hindutva movement and the RSS and their Hindu nationalism. She and her group built Hindu schools throughout India to teach Hinduism and implant Hindutva. She also taught Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani to bring about Qadianism. The TS also revived Buddhism by rebuilding temples and starting Buddhist schools.

    The Theosophical society doctrine
    I don't know if I am sure, but Adolf Hitler was interested in Theosophical Society's doctrine.

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryMyers View Post
    Question is – how do you define ‘enemy of Islam’ ?? If you define ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who practise any other religions OTHER THAN Islam and therefore they should be hated, then, its no surprise why Islamophobia is on the rise.

    I would define ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who DELIBERATELY fight against Islam, physically (physical violence against Muslims) or verbally (derogatory and abusive words against Allah SWT and/or the Prophet SAW).

    More interestingly, how did the Prophet SAW define ‘enemy of Islam’ ? If the Prophet SAW too defined ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who practice any other religions OTHER THAN Islam, then, the non-Muslim Arabs living during the time of the takeover of Mecca by the Muslims led by the Prophet SAW, would not have survived back then BUT they did. Not only they survived, they are given freedom to practice their respective faith. All this at a time when he could have easily destroyed his worst enemies, Prophet Muhammad SAW showed remarkable restraint. This is even more significant given the culture of vicious tribal rivalry and guilt by association practiced at the time. There is a reason why Allah SWT described the Prophet SAW as a ’mercy to mankind’ (Quran 21:107) but we, Muslims today, have forgotten to emulate this important trait of the Prophet SAW.

    So, tell me, how do you define ‘enemy of Islam’ ??
    That is the very interesting question. I have heard many different claims regarding it.

  19. #58

    Account Disabled

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    8,215
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Quoted
    6164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryMyers View Post
    Question is – how do you define ‘enemy of Islam’ ?? If you define ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who practise any other religions OTHER THAN Islam and therefore they should be hated, then, its no surprise why Islamophobia is on the rise.

    I would define ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who DELIBERATELY fight against Islam, physically (physical violence against Muslims) or verbally (derogatory and abusive words against Allah SWT and/or the Prophet SAW).

    More interestingly, how did the Prophet SAW define ‘enemy of Islam’ ? If the Prophet SAW too defined ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who practice any other religions OTHER THAN Islam, then, the non-Muslim Arabs living during the time of the takeover of Mecca by the Muslims led by the Prophet SAW, would not have survived back then BUT they did. Not only they survived, they are given freedom to practice their respective faith. All this at a time when he could have easily destroyed his worst enemies, Prophet Muhammad SAW showed remarkable restraint. This is even more significant given the culture of vicious tribal rivalry and guilt by association practiced at the time. There is a reason why Allah SWT described the Prophet SAW as a ’mercy to mankind’ (Quran 21:107) but we, Muslims today, have forgotten to emulate this important trait of the Prophet SAW.

    So, tell me, how do you define ‘enemy of Islam’ ??
    I don't think you have a starting clue about what RSS is. I suggest you do a bit of looking and you will realize why he said that RSS scums are enemies of islam.

  20. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    438
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quoted
    323 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicen View Post
    I don't think you have a starting clue about what RSS is. I suggest you do a bit of looking and you will realize why he said that RSS scums are enemies of islam.
    Are you referring to the Indian right-wing, Hindu nationalist organization that was said to be the main driver for the violence against Muslims ?? Sure, by my definition, if the violence on Muslims was because of RSS non-acceptance of Islam, then, yes, they are the scum enemies of Islam, no doubt.

    Question is, how was Beasant instrumental in the cause of RSS to kill Muslims? I find it quite odd for her to speak highly of the Prophet SAW as a person and then at the same time be hateful towards Islam, the very same religion that the man she had nothing but admiration and reverence, preached. When she was talking about women rights, she quoted Islam and said “Look back to the history of Islam, and you will find that women have often taken leading places – on the throne, in the battle-field, in politics, in literature, poetry, etc.”

    So yes, I find it odd for her to hate Islam just as I find it odd for all the accusations of violence that people said the Prophet SAW committed when I truly know and understand the nature of our Prophet SAW through the Quran and authentic hadiths.

    The Quran warned us on just believing everything we heard or read – “O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful.” – Quran 49:6

    Then again, maybe you are right - I don’t have a clue about RSS and Beasant. So, it will be a great help to me if you can show evidences of Beasant personal involvement or her own sayings that can prove she hated Islam and the Muslims. Appreciate your help in this.

  21. #60
    striving to be sincere Abu Kamel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    5,640
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1587 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    183

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryMyers View Post
    Question is – how do you define ‘enemy of Islam’ ?? If you define ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who practise any other religions OTHER THAN Islam and therefore they should be hated, then, its no surprise why Islamophobia is on the rise.

    I would define ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who DELIBERATELY fight against Islam, physically (physical violence against Muslims) or verbally (derogatory and abusive words against Allah SWT and/or the Prophet SAW).

    More interestingly, how did the Prophet SAW define ‘enemy of Islam’ ? If the Prophet SAW too defined ‘enemy of Islam’ as those who practice any other religions OTHER THAN Islam, then, the non-Muslim Arabs living during the time of the takeover of Mecca by the Muslims led by the Prophet SAW, would not have survived back then BUT they did. Not only they survived, they are given freedom to practice their respective faith. All this at a time when he could have easily destroyed his worst enemies, Prophet Muhammad SAW showed remarkable restraint. This is even more significant given the culture of vicious tribal rivalry and guilt by association practiced at the time. There is a reason why Allah SWT described the Prophet SAW as a ’mercy to mankind’ (Quran 21:107) but we, Muslims today, have forgotten to emulate this important trait of the Prophet SAW.

    So, tell me, how do you define ‘enemy of Islam’ ??
    This is not a small matter. A lot can be said about this topic both in general and in response to your post.

    I love the Prophet more than I love myself. I hope and pray that I might be with him at al Kauthar.

    And yet, I am a sincere worshiper, servant, slave of Allah. I do not worship the Prophet . I worship Allah, and He said the following:

    Holy Quran (tmq) 48:29:
    Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves. Thou (O Muhammad) seest them bowing and falling prostrate (in worship), seeking bounty from Allah and (His) acceptance. The mark of them is on their foreheads from the traces of prostration. Such is their likeness in the Torah and their likeness in the Gospel - like as sown corn that sendeth forth its shoot and strengtheneth it and riseth firm upon its stalk, delighting the sowers - that He may enrage the disbelievers with (the sight of) them. Allah hath promised, unto such of them as believe and do good works, forgiveness and immense reward.
    So the believers strive to be "those with him" the Messenger are hard against the disbelievers and merciful to each other. And even the appearance of the believers enrage the disbelievers.

    Why is that?

    The Holy Quran (TMQ) 2:98:
    Then, Indeed! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the disbelievers.
    4:101
    Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy.
    And Abdullah ibn Abbas commented on 2:98 that not just Allah, but the angels and believers are enemies of the disbelievers.

    60:1
    O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies, extending to them affection while they have disbelieved in what came to you of the truth, having driven out the Prophet and yourselves [only] because you believe in Allah , your Lord. If you have come out for jihad in My cause and seeking means to My approval, [take them not as friends]. You confide to them affection, but I am most knowing of what you have concealed and what you have declared. And whoever does it among you has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way.


    And the matter of alliance support among the believers and enmity and spite against the believers is widely explained in numerous books.

    And this is the original rule and primary position between the believers and disbelievers.

    And more to be said about Makka and the Prophet's mercy shown to the Quraish
    Allahumma, aranee al haqqu haqqan wa arzuqnee itiba`ahu, wa aranee al baatilu baatilaan wa arzuqnee ijtinaabahu.Oh Allah! show us the truth as true, and inspire us to follow it. Show us falsehood as falsehood, and inspire us to abstain from it.
    " Do you know what destroys Islam? A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray

  22. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    438
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quoted
    323 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Kamel View Post
    This is not a small matter. A lot can be said about this topic both in general and in response to your post.
    I love the Prophet more than I love myself. I hope and pray that I might be with him at al Kauthar.
    And yet, I am a sincere worshiper, servant, slave of Allah. I do not worship the Prophet . I worship Allah, and He said the following:
    Holy Quran (tmq) 48:29:
    So the believers strive to be "those with him" the Messenger are hard against the disbelievers and merciful to each other. And even the appearance of the believers enrage the disbelievers.
    Why is that?
    The Holy Quran (TMQ) 2:98:
    4:101
    And Abdullah ibn Abbas commented on 2:98 that not just Allah, but the angels and believers are enemies of the disbelievers.
    60:1
    And the matter of alliance support among the believers and enmity and spite against the believers is widely explained in numerous books.
    And this is the original rule and primary position between the believers and disbelievers.
    And more to be said about Makka and the Prophet's mercy shown to the Quraish
    In the context of Islam, disbelievers are those who have taken other partners with Allah or has taken other gods beside Allah. Similarly, in the context of Christianity, disbelievers are those who do not accept Jesus as God and that he died for the sin of man.

    So, the Christians are disbelievers to the Muslims just as the Muslims are disbelievers to the Christians. However, that is in the context of faith. In the context of living harmony in a society, are the Muslims the enemies of the Christians and vice-versa ? That IS the question, isn’t it?

    The Holy Quran clearly denounces enmity and the use of force in terms of religion. It is ultimately the choice of people to choose any religion (for good or bad), and the duty of the Prophets is not more than conveying, educating people and reminding them of the right path. They have never been authorized to force people.

    The following verses explain this view:

    “Let there be no compulsion in religion; Truth stands clear from error.” (Quran 2:256)

    “If it had been the Lord’s Will, all who are on earth would have believed. Will you then compel mankind against their will to believe?!” (Quran 10:99)

    “Say, the Truth is from your Lord, let him who will believe, and let him who will disbelieve.” (Quran 18:29)

    “You shall remind, for you are the reminder. You are not one to manage (men’s) affairs.” (Quran 88:21-22)

    The sole duty of the messenger is to deliver the message, and Allah knows everything you declare and everything you conceal.” (Quran 5:99)

    From Islam’s perspective, there will always be believers and unbelievers – that is the will of Allah SWT. Yes, they are enemies to one another in matters relating to God BUT should they be hostile to one another and one forcing one’s will over the other ? The Quran answers – “Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in one faith], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.” – Quran 5:48

    In other words, Allah SWT wants to test the believers in their faith in what He has revealed. Does Allah SWT wants hostility between believers and disbelievers ? No, He wants believers and unbelievers to live in peaceful harmony and strive for or race to good for to Allah we shall all return and that’s when Allah will preside over matters that the believers and unbelievers differ.

    When you quote Quran Verses like 48:29, 2:98, 4:101 and 60:1, do you know the respective historical background of these verses ?

    Do you know what “And those with him are hard against the disbelievers” means in the context of Quran Surah Al-Fath (Chapter 48) which you quoted ?

  23. #62
    Senior Member TURJUMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    90 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryMyers View Post
    In the context of Islam, disbelievers are those who have taken other partners with Allah or has taken other gods beside Allah. Similarly, in the context of Christianity, disbelievers are those who do not accept Jesus as God and that he died for the sin of man.

    So, the Christians are disbelievers to the Muslims just as the Muslims are disbelievers to the Christians. However, that is in the context of faith. In the context of living harmony in a society, are the Muslims the enemies of the Christians and vice-versa ? That IS the question, isn’t it?

    The Holy Quran clearly denounces enmity and the use of force in terms of religion. It is ultimately the choice of people to choose any religion (for good or bad), and the duty of the Prophets is not more than conveying, educating people and reminding them of the right path. They have never been authorized to force people.

    The following verses explain this view:

    “Let there be no compulsion in religion; Truth stands clear from error.” (Quran 2:256)

    “If it had been the Lord’s Will, all who are on earth would have believed. Will you then compel mankind against their will to believe?!” (Quran 10:99)

    “Say, the Truth is from your Lord, let him who will believe, and let him who will disbelieve.” (Quran 18:29)

    “You shall remind, for you are the reminder. You are not one to manage (men’s) affairs.” (Quran 88:21-22)

    The sole duty of the messenger is to deliver the message, and Allah knows everything you declare and everything you conceal.” (Quran 5:99)

    From Islam’s perspective, there will always be believers and unbelievers – that is the will of Allah SWT. Yes, they are enemies to one another in matters relating to God BUT should they be hostile to one another and one forcing one’s will over the other ? The Quran answers – “Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in one faith], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.” – Quran 5:48

    In other words, Allah SWT wants to test the believers in their faith in what He has revealed. Does Allah SWT wants hostility between believers and disbelievers ? No, He wants believers and unbelievers to live in peaceful harmony and strive for or race to good for to Allah we shall all return and that’s when Allah will preside over matters that the believers and unbelievers differ.

    When you quote Quran Verses like 48:29, 2:98, 4:101 and 60:1, do you know the respective historical background of these verses ?

    Do you know what “And those with him are hard against the disbelievers” means in the context of Quran Surah Al-Fath (Chapter 48) which you quoted ?
    The enemies of Islam are generally speaking; Kuffar (non-Muslims) & Hypocrites. Islam is the only accepted religion by Allah & whosoever denies it the hell is his abode. We have an example of Abu Talib; the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وسلم) who despite not waging war against Muslims, he dies as an enemy to Allah. He refused to worship his creator even though he showed mercy to his Muslim kins. That, my sister, should tell you what blessings you have been bestowed in Islam.

  24. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    564
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Quoted
    341 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by TURJUMAN View Post
    That should tell you what blessings you have been bestowed in Islam.
    The amazing thing is that it really works in very, very practical situations. If you execute it correctly, it should be very possible to achieve spectacular results. Unfortunately, it only works if you really believe that it will. That is where the perennial problem lies. I can barely give examples where it achieves big results, just with a single person's belief. It is the aggregate belief across large numbers of believers that generates the most incredible outcomes. If you say: "If you try, it should indeed work", most people do not really believe it; and that is in turn why it does not work for them; and then they say "You see, it did not work." Well, yeah, of course, it didn't.

  25. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryMyers View Post
    In the context of Islam, disbelievers are those who have taken other partners with Allah or has taken other gods beside Allah. Similarly, in the context of Christianity, disbelievers are those who do not accept Jesus as God and that he died for the sin of man.

    So, the Christians are disbelievers to the Muslims just as the Muslims are disbelievers to the Christians. However, that is in the context of faith. In the context of living harmony in a society, are the Muslims the enemies of the Christians and vice-versa ? That IS the question, isn’t it?

    The Holy Quran clearly denounces enmity and the use of force in terms of religion. It is ultimately the choice of people to choose any religion (for good or bad), and the duty of the Prophets is not more than conveying, educating people and reminding them of the right path. They have never been authorized to force people.

    The following verses explain this view:

    “Let there be no compulsion in religion; Truth stands clear from error.” (Quran 2:256)

    “If it had been the Lord’s Will, all who are on earth would have believed. Will you then compel mankind against their will to believe?!” (Quran 10:99)

    “Say, the Truth is from your Lord, let him who will believe, and let him who will disbelieve.” (Quran 18:29)

    “You shall remind, for you are the reminder. You are not one to manage (men’s) affairs.” (Quran 88:21-22)

    The sole duty of the messenger is to deliver the message, and Allah knows everything you declare and everything you conceal.” (Quran 5:99)

    From Islam’s perspective, there will always be believers and unbelievers – that is the will of Allah SWT. Yes, they are enemies to one another in matters relating to God BUT should they be hostile to one another and one forcing one’s will over the other ? The Quran answers – “Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in one faith], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.” – Quran 5:48

    In other words, Allah SWT wants to test the believers in their faith in what He has revealed. Does Allah SWT wants hostility between believers and disbelievers ? No, He wants believers and unbelievers to live in peaceful harmony and strive for or race to good for to Allah we shall all return and that’s when Allah will preside over matters that the believers and unbelievers differ.

    When you quote Quran Verses like 48:29, 2:98, 4:101 and 60:1, do you know the respective historical background of these verses ?

    Do you know what “And those with him are hard against the disbelievers” means in the context of Quran Surah Al-Fath (Chapter 48) which you quoted ?
    Okay, this seems very logical to me. But again I am forced to say that I have seen many different interpretations of Quran Verses like 60:1. Some of them have been very - let's say - radical in their very meaning. They claim that these Verses are not to be read with historical background. And I am sure that enemy of Islam or some sort of non-Muslims will deny what you have said. How should I deal with it? Explain me this, because now I feel quite lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by TURJUMAN View Post
    The enemies of Islam are generally speaking; Kuffar (non-Muslims) & Hypocrites. Islam is the only accepted religion by Allah & whosoever denies it the hell is his abode. We have an example of Abu Talib; the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وسلم) who despite not waging war against Muslims, he dies as an enemy to Allah. He refused to worship his creator even though he showed mercy to his Muslim kins. That, my sister, should tell you what blessings you have been bestowed in Islam.
    I have been always thinking like that. It is what Noble Quran says. Is there a special way to interpret this? Should we live in peace with non-Muslims and tolerate their religion or simply avoid them? Does tolerance relate to peaceful non-Muslims (who aren't waging war against Muslims) only?

  26. #65

    Account Disabled

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    8,215
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Quoted
    6164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
    Okay, this seems very logical to me. But again I am forced to say that I have seen many different interpretations of Quran Verses like 60:1. Some of them have been very - let's say - radical in their very meaning. They claim that these Verses are not to be read with historical background. And I am sure that enemy of Islam or some sort of non-Muslims will deny what you have said. How should I deal with it? Explain me this, because now I feel quite lost.

    I have been always thinking like that. It is what Noble Quran says. Is there a special way to interpret this? Should we live in peace with non-Muslims and tolerate their religion or simply avoid them? Does tolerance relate to peaceful non-Muslims (who aren't waging war against Muslims) only?
    The Quran also says many things in relation to tolerance towards non-muslims but according to the sect Turjuman follows, those verses are abrogated. But the point is those verses exist, you can go read Surah Baqarah right now and you will find many like this.

  27. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicen View Post
    The Quran also says many things in relation to tolerance towards non-muslims but according to the sect Turjuman follows, those verses are abrogated. But the point is those verses exist, you can go read Surah Baqarah right now and you will find many like this.
    Thank you for your explanation. May Allah swt reward you. May I know what sect it is? According to the main topic of this thread, the Westerners assume that doctrine of abrogation exists in Sunni Islam in general.

  28. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    438
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quoted
    323 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
    Okay, this seems very logical to me. But again I am forced to say that I have seen many different interpretations of Quran Verses like 60:1. Some of them have been very - let's say - radical in their very meaning. They claim that these Verses are not to be read with historical background. And I am sure that enemy of Islam or some sort of non-Muslims will deny what you have said. How should I deal with it? Explain me this, because now I feel quite lost.
    To read Quranic Verses (or, for that matter, even the Biblical verses) without taking into consideration their historical backgrounds and why they were revealed would be NOT understanding the meaning in its proper context.

    For example, anti-Islam groups love to quote a part of Quran 2:191 – “And kill them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them…” as ‘proof’ that Islam preach violence against ALL non-Muslims. Sure, that’s what that verse imply IF you did not consider the historical background of that verse. This verse was revealed at Al-Madinah at a time where a new type of “Muslims”, munafiqin (the hypocrites) began to appear. These are the unbelievers who pretended to enter the Islamic fold with the intention to harm it from within. When their evil intentions and mischievous deeds became manifest, Allah sent detailed instructions about them and how to deal with them. So, when you understand the historical background, then, you will understand that Quran 2:191 was not about killing ALL unbelievers wherever you find them, but it was about killing those hypocrites, the unbelievers who became “Muslims” NOT because they truly believe in Islam BUT because they wanted to harm Muslims and they committed treason by spreading ‘fitnah’ against Islam from within.

    So, should Quran 2:191 be considered as violence against the unbelievers ?? Of course, NOT, as even by today’s law, treasons are punishable by death.
    Last edited by JerryMyers; 24-08-17 at 01:47 PM.

  29. #68

    Account Disabled

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    8,215
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Quoted
    6164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
    Thank you for your explanation. May Allah swt reward you. May I know what sect it is? According to the main topic of this thread, the Westerners assume that doctrine of abrogation exists in Sunni Islam in general.
    Oh abrogation is a part of Sunni Islam.

    The question is how many verses were abrogated.

    You have on one hand, the opinion that only a very few verses maybe as low as 17 verses were abrogated. Such was the opinion of Suyuti and the like thereof.

    On the other hand, some other scholars claim that many, many verses were abrogated. And usually it's the Makkan tolerant verses that were abrogated.

    Now on the subject matter of whether we should consider what Umar(Ra) said before he died. One of the last things he said was to take care of the dhimmis and not to overburden them with hardship and over-taxation. You tell me how it is possible to hate non-muslims and simultaneously worry about them in your deathbed at the same time.

    However, as Prophet(S) said that we muslims must struggle dor Islam so that it becomes the superior religion. It doesn't mean you have to put auto-hate mode on every non-muslim.

  30. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Gender
    Girl Female
    Posts
    61
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by JerryMyers View Post
    To read Quranic Verses (or, for that matter, even the Biblical verses) without taking into consideration their historical backgrounds and why they were revealed would be NOT understanding the meaning in its proper context.

    For example, anti-Islam groups love to quote a part of Quran 2:191 – “And kill them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them…” as ‘proof’ that Islam preach violence against ALL non-Muslims. Sure, that’s what that verse imply IF you did not consider the historical background of that verse. This verse was revealed at Al-Madinah at a time where a new type of “Muslims”, munafiqin (the hypocrites) began to appear. These are the unbelievers who pretended to enter the Islamic fold with the intention to harm it from within. When their evil intentions and mischievous deeds became manifest, Allah sent detailed instructions about them and how to deal with them. So, when you understand the historical background, then, you will understand that Quran 2:191 was not about killing ALL unbelievers wherever you find them, but it was about killing those hypocrites, the unbelievers who became “Muslims” NOT because they truly believe in Islam BUT because they wanted to harm Muslims and they committed treason by spreading ‘fitnah’ against Islam from within.

    So, should Quran 2:191 be considered as violence against the unbelievers ?? Of course, NOT, as even by today’s law, treasons are punishable by death.
    That is very interesting what you have said. Are hypocrites worst than plain non-Muslims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spicen View Post
    Oh abrogation is a part of Sunni Islam.

    The question is how many verses were abrogated.

    You have on one hand, the opinion that only a very few verses maybe as low as 17 verses were abrogated. Such was the opinion of Suyuti and the like thereof.

    On the other hand, some other scholars claim that many, many verses were abrogated. And usually it's the Makkan tolerant verses that were abrogated.

    Now on the subject matter of whether we should consider what Umar(Ra) said before he died. One of the last things he said was to take care of the dhimmis and not to overburden them with hardship and over-taxation. You tell me how it is possible to hate non-muslims and simultaneously worry about them in your deathbed at the same time.

    However, as Prophet(S) said that we muslims must struggle dor Islam so that it becomes the superior religion. It doesn't mean you have to put auto-hate mode on every non-muslim.
    According to the abrogations, the question arises who is right and who not. It seems to me that is the very important question for us, Muslims, as the Noble Quran is the word of Allah swt and guide in our lives.

    For the bolded part of your post, the Westerners don't want to be dhimmis.

  31. #70

    Account Disabled

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    8,215
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Quoted
    6164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
    According to the abrogations, the question arises who is right and who not. It seems to me that is the very important question for us, Muslims, as the Noble Quran is the word of Allah swt and guide in our lives.

    For the bolded part of your post, the Westerners don't want to be dhimmis.
    I didn't write that about Umar(Ra) to argue with westerners, rather it was against the sort of muslims who are on auto-hate mode regarding non-muslims.

  32. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    438
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quoted
    323 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
    That is very interesting what you have said. Are hypocrites worst than plain non-Muslims?
    That depends on what type of hypocrites are you referring to. Hypocrites can be categorised into 2 types – 1. Hypocrisy in Belief and 2. Hypocrisy in acts.

    Plain non-Muslims or plain disbelievers cannot be categorized as hypocrites because they proclaim their disbelief and they do not hide their belief. Its only when they enter into the fold of Islam, NOT because they believe, BUT because they wanted to harm and create confusions among the Muslims from within the Muslim community that they become the true hypocrites.

    Quran 2:191 was making reference to this type of hypocrites who was not only hypocrisy in belief but also hypocrisy in acts. These type of hypocrites are definitely worse than the plain non-Muslims because they confess Islam outwardly while concealing disbelief in it. They act like Muslims and do the things that Muslims do and yet their real intention is to harm the Muslims. These type of hypocrites are definitely the enemies of Islam.

    Hypocrisy in acts are normally among the Muslims who, when it comes to their Islamic duties, they are not totally sincere. For example, they will go to the mosque to perform their daily prayers NOT because they wanted to BUT because they wanted to project an image of piety to the society and they fear of what the society might think of them if they don’t.

    Nevertheless, may Allah SWT protect us all from any types of hypocrisy because Allah SWT does not accept any deeds unless they are based on true faith.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.2.7 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com

MPADC.com Islamic Web Hosting | Muslim Ad Network | Islamic Nasheeds | Islamic Mobile App Developement Android & iPhone | Islamic Web Hosting : Muslim Designers : Labbayk Nasheeds : silk route jilbab: Hijab: : Web Islamic Newsletter: Islamic Web Hosting

Students of Arabic Forum | Hijab Shop