Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Regarding Western orientalists...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

    Originally posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
    Yes. It is impossible to change their way of thinking. For some of them, there is no holiness - they only trust to their scientific methods. According to these "scholars" who claim that Isa (A) never existed, they are atheists and attack religion in general. I don't know if the majority of them reached any conclusion, to be honest, just because there is strong Catholic (and Christan in general) opposition to be found. What is interesting, many of Catholic priests and theologians are historians too, and they even created "biblical archeology" based on finds in Israel.

    This is true. But I am curious why. Firstly, they have spent all of their lives at studying it. Secondly, what business have they in attack everything, especially Islam?
    Did you read about it? You know that the findings have been controversial. Both jewish and evangelical Christians found nothing about the Kingdom of Solomon in their archaeological projects. According to them the migration of Musa(A) and jews never happened.

    Originally posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
    Secondly, what business have they in attack everything, especially Islam?
    Agenda.

    Europeans have always hated Islam. It's a 1,400 year old enmity.

    Comment


      #17
      Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

      Originally posted by Spicen View Post
      Did you read about it? You know that the findings have been controversial. Both jewish and evangelical Christians found nothing about the Kingdom of Solomon in their archaeological projects. According to them the migration of Musa(A) and jews never happened.


      Agenda.

      Europeans have always hated Islam. It's a 1,400 year old enmity.
      No, I didn't. I have heard only about some tablets with the name of king David (A) on it. I assume that evangelical Christians have got a problem then. They interpret the Bible literally. According to your second point, I wonder why they hate Islam so much. Is it the matter of lifestyle or something in the temperament of Europeans?

      Comment


        #18
        Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

        Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
        Non-Muslims can never be a source for knowledge on Islam.
        Even if the non-Muslims’ views do not contradict the Quran and agree with the views of the Islamic scholars ??

        Consider these views on our Prophet Muhammad SAW by these non-Muslim personalities:

        Michael H. Hart, Professor of Astronomy, Physics and the History of Science.

        "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." [The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History, New York, 1978, p. 33]

        Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) Indian thinker, statesman, and nationalist leader.

        • "....I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These, and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble." [Young India (periodical), 1928, Volume X]

        Annie Besant (1847-1933) British theosophist and nationalist leader in India. President of the Indian National Congress in 1917.

        • "It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher." [The Life And Teachings Of Muhammad, Madras, 1932, p. 4]

        Now, are you saying these views on our Prophet SAW, which many Muslim scholars agreed, are nonsense because they are the views of non-Muslims ??

        The fact of the matter is when a non-Muslim wrote something on Islam or the Prophet SAW which is in total agreement with the Islamic Book and the views of the Islamic scholars, THAT is the sign of confirmation and acknowledgement on the truth of Islam and the Prophet SAW.

        So, why should you reject their works when they acknowledged the truth of Islam and the Prophet through their writings ??

        Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
        The fact that everything would have to be checked reflects the reason why.
        Yes, ‘everything’ here would also mean readings from Muslim source too.

        Salam.

        Comment


          #19
          Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

          Originally posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
          No, I didn't. I have heard only about some tablets with the name of king David (A) on it. I assume that evangelical Christians have got a problem then. They interpret the Bible literally. According to your second point, I wonder why they hate Islam so much. Is it the matter of lifestyle or something in the temperament of Europeans?
          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.

          Comment


            #20
            Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

            Originally posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
            No, I didn't. I have heard only about some tablets with the name of king David (A) on it. I assume that evangelical Christians have got a problem then. They interpret the Bible literally. According to your second point, I wonder why they hate Islam so much. Is it the matter of lifestyle or something in the temperament of Europeans?
            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.

            Comment


              #21
              Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

              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.
              Christianity is more or less a dead religion.

              Europe's new religion is atheism mixed with values like Freedom, democracy, etc

              Comment


                #22
                Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

                Originally posted by Spicen View Post
                Christianity is more or less a dead religion.
                I also believe that. It just keeps degenerating ...
                Originally posted by Spicen View Post
                Europe's new religion is atheism mixed with values like Freedom, democracy, etc
                A religion is systematic. It has a core set of beliefs. Atheism does not even have a core set of disbeliefs. Atheists do not accept a common position on anything, except for not wanting to use religion as their starting point for morality. However, they also do not have a systematized alternative. If nothing is assumed, nothing can be concluded. Therefore, atheists are fundamentally invested in non-morality, but that is still not an equivalent for morality. It is actually the opposite. Since atheists are incapable of referring to a common atheist ground for morality, you do not even need to debate them. Let them debate each other, and let them aggressively sink each other's arguments, and then you can possibly have a look at the rubble that they have left behind. Atheism is absolutely useless. If you say: "I support the following theory", they answer by saying: "I have no theory." From there on, the only valid reply becomes: "Since you've got nothing to say, why don't you just shut up?"

                Comment


                  #23
                  Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

                  Originally posted by pronorah View Post
                  I also believe that. It just keeps degenerating ...

                  A religion is systematic. It has a core set of beliefs. Atheism does not even have a core set of disbeliefs. Atheists do not accept a common position on anything, except for not wanting to use religion as their starting point for morality. However, they also do not have a systematized alternative. If nothing is assumed, nothing can be concluded. Therefore, atheists are fundamentally invested in non-morality, but that is still not an equivalent for morality. It is actually the opposite. Since atheists are incapable of referring to a common atheist ground for morality, you do not even need to debate them. Let them debate each other, and let them aggressively sink each other's arguments, and then you can possibly have a look at the rubble that they have left behind. Atheism is absolutely useless. If you say: "I support the following theory", they answer by saying: "I have no theory." From there on, the only valid reply becomes: "Since you've got nothing to say, why don't you just shut up?"
                  Europe's atheism which I like to call occidental atheism so as to avoid confusing it with marxist atheism foes have a common set of beliefs.

                  You only need to look at the beliefs of French revolutionaries or the french philosophers to understand their belief.

                  They believe human rights (***) , complete freedom which thy value greatly, democracy and the belief that the people(***) are true masters of their country, rights for queer people(***), etc.

                  *** when Europeans talk about people and humans they actually only refer to white europeans not other third world people.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

                    Originally posted by Talwaar View Post
                    Islamic Awareness has refuted much of the Orientalist claims

                    They only "study" Islam to attack it

                    The strategy is to attack everything
                    http://www.islamic-awareness.org

                    Yes that's true, Orientalist Nutjob Kuffar and their arguments are always a laugh,

                    :jkk:
                    http://www.ilovepalestine.com/campai...imesinGaza.gif

                    "It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs."

                    – Imam al-Shafi’i (Rahimahullah)

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

                      Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post
                      Even if the non-Muslims’ views do not contradict the Quran and agree with the views of the Islamic scholars ??...
                      In which case why would you go to non-Muslims? Think about it.

                      ...Yes, ‘everything’ here would also mean readings from Muslim source too.
                      Not necessarily. If you trust someone then everything wouldn't need to be checked based on that trust.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

                        Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
                        In which case why would you go to non-Muslims? Think about it.
                        You still did not get my point as you STILL make it sound as if I am saying you should seek Islamic knowledge PRIMARILY from the non-Muslims, which is not what I am saying.

                        Maybe I did not make it clear enough and I apologize for that. So, let me try it again -

                        In Post#13, I said “I am NOT saying you should seek Islamic knowledge primarily from non-Muslims BUT I am saying apart from learning and gaining Quranic and Islamic knowledge from the Muslim Quran experts and Islamic scholars, which, by the way, should be your PRIMARY sources of knowledge, you should also not ignore other sources of Islamic knowledge too, even if it was written by non-Muslims as long as they did not contradict the Quran.”

                        What that mean is that your primary source of Islamic and Quran knowledge should come from the Muslim Quran experts and true Islamic scholars. However, should you come across articles or reviews on Islamic history or on the Prophet SAW written by non-Muslims and they agree with the Islamic scholars’ views and they do not contradict the Quran, then, you should not reject it.

                        As an example, I did not go to non-Muslim sources to solely search for the views on our Prophet SAW by non-Muslim personalities which I gave you in Post#18, but I happen to stumble across them in the Muslim site - https://www.al-islam.org/ while browsing for any Islamic articles to increase my general knowledge on Islam. So, no one is talking about going to non-Muslim sources primarily to gain Islamic knowledge here. Hope that clears the air.


                        Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
                        Not necessarily. If you trust someone then everything wouldn't need to be checked based on that trust.
                        True, but we are talking about Muslim sources in general, NOT specific trusted Islamic sources.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

                          Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post
                          You still did not get my point as you STILL make it sound as if I am saying you should seek Islamic knowledge PRIMARILY from the non-Muslims, which is not what I am saying...
                          I got the point. I'm saying that you should ignore non-Muslims when it comes to learning about Islam. No exceptions.

                          ...True, but we are talking about Muslim sources in general, NOT specific trusted Islamic sources.
                          Who learns from teachers deemed to be untrustworthy? Nobody. If you comes something new then you're still going to get it checked out by someone you trust. If the 'new' source is reliable then he/she may become another trustworthy teacher. If not you will most likely avoid them.

                          In the case of non-Muslims, you avoid them altogether.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

                            Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post
                            ...So, why should you reject their works when they acknowledged the truth of Islam and the Prophet through their writings ??...
                            They 'acknowledge' the truth yet reject it. Does that sound like someone that should be followed?

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

                              Originally posted by YoungMuslimah78 View Post
                              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.
                              Then prove what they say is lies. Presumably it's an easy matter.
                              As a muslim you are obliged to believe everything in the koran and hadith and early Islamic history is completely true. Nonmuslims do not share your belief. They might accept some claims as possible and credible in themselves, but other claims - made with equal certainty - about unverifiable entities such as jinn, that Mohammed split the moon in two and reunited it, for example, or that he rode from Mecca to Jerusalem and back in one night are... unacceptable, to put it politely... to nonmuslims. They are like a clock that strikes thirteen. It isn't just that we disbelieve these claims, but the doubt inspired covers every other claim made and such claims cannot be accepted without other confirmatory evidence.

                              Originally posted by JerryMyers View Post
                              Even if the non-Muslims’ views do not contradict the Quran and agree with the views of the Islamic scholars ??

                              Consider these views on our Prophet Muhammad SAW by these non-Muslim personalities:

                              Michael H. Hart, Professor of Astronomy, Physics and the History of Science.

                              "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." [The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History, New York, 1978, p. 33]

                              Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) Indian thinker, statesman, and nationalist leader.

                              • "....I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These, and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble." [Young India (periodical), 1928, Volume X]

                              Annie Besant (1847-1933) British theosophist and nationalist leader in India. President of the Indian National Congress in 1917.

                              • "It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher." [The Life And Teachings Of Muhammad, Madras, 1932, p. 4]

                              Now, are you saying these views on our Prophet SAW, which many Muslim scholars agreed, are nonsense because they are the views of non-Muslims ??

                              The fact of the matter is when a non-Muslim wrote something on Islam or the Prophet SAW which is in total agreement with the Islamic Book and the views of the Islamic scholars, THAT is the sign of confirmation and acknowledgement on the truth of Islam and the Prophet SAW.

                              So, why should you reject their works when they acknowledged the truth of Islam and the Prophet through their writings ??



                              Yes, ‘everything’ here would also mean readings from Muslim source too.

                              Salam.
                              Nonsense, no. Yet it is noteworthy that none of them became muslims. Michael Hart's claim that Mohaamed "was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level" is not a claim that he revealed the truth, just that he founded and established a religion and an empire. Equally, Gandhi does not ascribe Mohammed's success to his beliefs but to his personal qualities and character. Even Besant who called him "one of the great messengers of the Supreme", claimed that there would be a greater, final prophet yet to come. Their praise was for Mohammed as a person, not as the last and greatest prophet.
                              Last edited by Sceptic; 15-08-17, 08:49 PM.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Re: Regarding Western orientalists...

                                Originally posted by pronorah View Post
                                I also believe that. It just keeps degenerating ...

                                A religion is systematic. It has a core set of beliefs. Atheism does not even have a core set of disbeliefs. Atheists do not accept a common position on anything, except for not wanting to use religion as their starting point for morality. However, they also do not have a systematized alternative. If nothing is assumed, nothing can be concluded. Therefore, atheists are fundamentally invested in non-morality, but that is still not an equivalent for morality. It is actually the opposite. Since atheists are incapable of referring to a common atheist ground for morality, you do not even need to debate them. Let them debate each other, and let them aggressively sink each other's arguments, and then you can possibly have a look at the rubble that they have left behind. Atheism is absolutely useless. If you say: "I support the following theory", they answer by saying: "I have no theory." From there on, the only valid reply becomes: "Since you've got nothing to say, why don't you just shut up?"
                                You know some very odd atheists. If you say: "I support the following theory", they answer by saying "What is the evidence that supports that theory?" In fact - beginning with Epicurus and Epictetus - there is a long tradition of atheistic moral theory. It just doesn't rest on the claim that "God says X is good or bad, so that settles it and anybody who disagrees deserves to be killed."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X