Posted by: Sun Zoo Aug 15 2006, 01:12 PM


In the words of C.S. Lewis, God's compulsion is our liberation, and this can be seen in the cross of Christ.

It's an immense gift of incaculable value, unearned yet freely given.

Posted by: Sanders Aug 15 2006, 02:55 PM

Daniels and Sun Zoo, in that exchange, hit on the crux of the appeal of the Christ story that fueled Christianity's rise... Christ was a man like you and me, and at the same time was imbued with the spirit of God (or he was God... or whatever). It's this duality that is the defining point of Christianity, that he was the Son of God yet when he found himself up on the cross with nails in his feet and hands he reacted just like anyone would,... and said, WTF?? (Is that blasphemous to put it that way I wonder? I can get kind of disrespectful at times but I feel like talking normally about it helps get the point across easier.)

In other words, the duality of Christ is like the wave-particle duality in quantum physics. Scientists have been arguing about it for a hundred years. As Richard Feinman put it, if you think you understand it, you don't. No one does. (Oops, more blasphemy!! Sorry - it's just an anology.) That's what the Council of Nicea was about, and even though the Trinity'rs won out, the Aryans (or Presbyters if you will) rose up again in Germany half a millenium later.

Presbytarianism doesn't just differ from Roman Catholisism in that the reformed denominations emphasize Jesus's humanness, it also rejected the pomp, the grandiose churches, etc. It's interesting that, in the stories of Judaeism people were punished time and again for decsending into idolatry, yet in Catholisism (both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodix type), no holds were barred in grandness and decoration. When Prince Vladimir of Novgorod went looking for a monotheistic religion to convert to around 900 AD, he picked Eastern Orthodox specifically because of it's extravagence (archetecturally and decoratively).

The Kings and Nobles of the middle ages had nothing on the bigger churches, in fact it was they tried to buy their way into heaven by building them. Europeans were absolutely maniacle in their 'faith' a thousand years ago, Nobles built churches and monestaries for no other reason than to secure their place in heaven, the bigger and more extravagant the better. The other way to "get close to god" was holy relics. People traded them (anything from objects handled by the Apostles to the bones of saints) with abandon, even stealing them from churches or graves. Getting into heaven was a primary concern, particularly for the nobles that had the most money to spend getting there and the most sins to atone for, the church was the center of people's lives. The excommunicated King John even transferred the Crown over to the pope in order to get re-communicated (is that a word??). That was the mentality when Pope Urban II called for the 1st Crusade - but I'm getting ahead of ourselves...

P.S. I misspelled Kaba (?) I think in my last post. (Someone really out to try to explain what the Kaba rites are, and tie it in to Mohammed's conquering of Mecca... ? I'm not that well versed in that area.)

Posted by: coverdws Aug 15 2006, 06:30 PM

Daniels:

I think you are refering to the Hajj when you say the Kaaba rites. Wikipedia has a pretty decent description of Hajj. In a nutshell though:

Tawaf: duplicates actions performed by Prophet Mohammed (pbuh)
Sa'y: Running between Safa and Marwah (two small mounts near the Kaaba) duplicates Hagar's frantic search for water for Ishmael. Her search is ended by the apearance of the ZamZam well which has been flowing since.

Mina: Stoning of the jamrah. Throwing 7 chic pea sized stones at each of 3 pillars which represent Prophet Abraham's encounter with Satan on his journey to Mecca. Angel Gabriel instructed him to pelt Satan at 3 locations

The plain of Arafat (nothing to do with the former Palastinian leader) This is the location of The Prophet Mohammed's (pbuh) Farewell Sermon.

Its worth having a quick read on the above. I will quote one section however: "O People,
No prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well therefore, O people, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and the Sunnah (Hadith), and if you follow these you will never go astray. All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listened to me directly.

Hope this helps Sanders. Its really brief, but its a large topic.

I would also like to make one observation. Trinitarian Christianity was born out of the need of the Roman Empire to control its citizens. They did an extremely thorough job of wiping out any gospels which did not support the Pauline view.

I would be interested on the "Christian" view of the Gospel of Barnabus.

Posted by: usediscernment Aug 16 2006, 04:57 AM


Heres something to chew on...

For centuries before Muhammad was born, Allah was the al-ilah (chief god) among the more than 300 idols in the Ka’aba. Allah was the moon god, who had no son but three daughters, al-Uzza, al-Lat and Manat (see TBC reprints for Feb ’00, April ’03). Allah was represented by one of the idols in that pagan temple. Yet Islam blasphemously teaches that this sanctuary for false gods was built by Abraham and Ishmael. Surah 3:96,97 claims that the Ka’aba was “the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind...where Abraham stood up to pray; and...pilgrimage [hajj] to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, for him who can find a way thither.”

There is no claim in Islam that the Ka’aba, as Abraham (supposedly a Muslim) allegedly built it, was without idols, or that they were added later, justifying Muhammad in smashing them, including the one representing Allah. Yes, he did away with that part of paganism—yet he retained every other pagan ritual that had long been associated with the Ka’aba; only the idols themselves were no longer present.

In A.D. 622 Muhammad fled to Medina in the Hijrah, from which the Muslim calendar dates. In 628 (A.H. 6)* he returned with some followers seeking to join in the worship at the Ka’aba. The Meccans, who at the time were stronger than he, would not allow it. Out of that encounter came the Hudaybiya Treaty, a ceasefire for ten years, which remains the rule for Muslims to this day. No permanent “peace” can end the perpetual jihad between dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb (non-Muslims). Only if the Muslims are not strong enough to continue their attack is a ceasefire (temporary cessation of jihad) allowed, and then for no longer than ten years. It can be broken at any time that the Muslims have regained the power to do so. (This fact of Islamic law makes a joke of any “peace” documents Arafat or anyone else may sign with Israel pursuant to Oslo or the current “Road Map to Peace.”)

As part of the Hudaybiya Treaty, Muhammad and his followers (the Muslims of Medina) were allowed to make their hajj to Mecca the following year. This they did, joining pagan Arabs in ceremonies which had been associated with the Ka’aba for centuries. The next year (A.H. 8) Muhammad captured Mecca and with it the Ka’aba. Thereafter, Muslims continued to mingle with pagan Arabs in the hajj.

Eventually, however, the Prophet gave the pagans four months in which to convert to the new religion or be killed. Thereafter, only Muslims were allowed to approach the Ka’aba, now purged of its idols—a restriction which holds to this day. In A.H. 10, the year of his death by poisoning, Muhammad led his followers in the traditional pagan ceremony, making it part of Islam. Thus Muslims continue today in the same rituals practiced by their pagan ancestors for centuries before Muhammad was born.

These pagan practices associated with the Ka’aba were sanitized by identifying them with Abraham, David and the prophets. Because Islam falsely claims to be the original and only true religion, all of the early Bible characters from Adam to Jesus are wrongly portrayed in the Qur’an as Muslims. (Allegedly, the Bible has been corrupted, or it would read just like the Qur’an today.) That would mean that the Israelites who conquered Canaan were Muslims and therefore all of so-called Palestine and Jerusalem have a Muslim history, belonged to Muslims in the beginning and belong to Muslims today! (Yet the Qur’an itself says in Surah 5:3 that Islam began with Muhammad.)

The elaborate ritual which pagans practiced to aid in their salvation is still continued by Muslims for the same purpose. While on the hajj, upon approaching Mecca, one must prepare oneself several miles outside the city through purification rituals. Only then may one proceed to the sacred mosque al-Masjid al-Haram and kiss the sacred Black Stone embedded in the eastern corner of the Ka’aba within the mosque’s interior courtyard. One then goes around the Ka’aba three times at a run and four times at a slow pace, each time touching the Yamani corner, where another sacred stone rests, and kissing the Black Stone again. Muhammad said the latter came down from heaven “as white as milk, but was made black by the sins of the children of Adam.”

The pilgrim then goes to Maqam Ibrahim where Abraham supposedly prayed toward the Ka’aba, repeats two prayers, returns and kisses the Black Stone again. He must then drink from the sacred well of Zem Zem from which, supposedly, Hagar and Ishmael drank. Leaving the mosque by one of its 24 gates, he climbs the nearby Mt. as-Safa while reciting from the Qur’an. From there he runs back and forth seven times to the summit of as-Marwah, commemorating Hagar’s search for water. It is now the evening of the sixth day and he returns to Mecca, circumambulates the Ka’aba again and remains in Mecca. On the seventh day he attends a sermon in the Great Mosque, and on the eighth proceeds to Wadi Mina to another ritual and spends the night. On the ninth day he climbs Mount Arafat for the rite of “standing” (wuquf) where Adam and Eve supposedly met after being expelled from the Garden. Prayers are recited and a sermon on repentance attended before he hurries to Muzdalifah, a place between Mina and Arafat, in time for sunset prayer.

The next day prayers are recited again at Muzdalifah, and then the pilgrims proceed to Wadi Mina, where they throw seven stones at each of three pillars representing Satan, while reciting “In the name of Allah, the Almighty, I do this in hatred of the devil and his shame.” Then follows the sacrifice of a goat or lamb in commemoration of Abraham’s sacrifice of Ishmael (not Isaac) according to Islam.

Is this paganism? Of course it is, yet it remains the holiest part of Islam, and Muslims who have participated in the hajj (required at least once in a lifetime) testify to the transforming spiritual experience of this pagan ritual. Polygamy, easy divorce, and slavery are only some of the other pagan practices retained in Islam along with numerous superstitions. One of the latter was Muhammad’s warning, “If any of you wakens up from sleep, let him blow his nose three times. For the devil spends the night in a man’s nostrils.”

Posted by: Daniels Aug 16 2006, 05:03 AM

coverdws, I am honored that you would get my name mixed up with the venerated Sanders.

With regard to your point about Christ's reaction to being on the cross, Sanders. mah main man, I'll repost some info about how Baha'is perceive the 6 levels that all "stuff" can be categorized into. The first 5 levels are "created", the 6th level (not mentioned in this list) is God Himself.

Baha'is view all creation as occupying different "kingdoms".

The mineral kingdom has the power of cohesion.
The plant kingdom includes the power of the mineral but adds the power of augmentation -- growth.
The animal kingdom includes the powers of those kingdoms below it and adds the power of the senses.
The human kingdom has the power of cohesion, growth, the senses and adds the power of the intellect -- which gives us our great inventions and arts.
The next Kingdom is that of the holy Manifestations (Prophets). We cannot know Their power because They occupy a Kingdom above us. Just as the plant cannot comprehend the power of the animal, the Manifestations of God are exalted beyond our comprehension.

To a Baha'i, Adam, Noah, Moses, Krishna, Christ, Buddha, Muhammad, the Bab, Baha'u'llah, all belong to that Plane of existence. All are exalted, holy, venerated and cherished for Their great sacrifices in bringing to humankind the life-giving teachings of God.

This pic is not in English but it should convey the basic idea:

-------------------


The problem with us trying to understand how Jesus would react is a bit like a dog trying to figure out how we behave. The dog will always see us as funny-looking dogs. We will always see the holy Prophets as humans, unless our spiritual eye is open, then we will see Them as human plus "something else".

This is why it is often the poor and lowly who are the first to recognize the holy Prophet at the outset of the religion. Those who occupy places of power and prestige often lack the "spiritual" perception of the poor, the destitute, the lowly.

From a Baha'i perspective, Christ could never have doubted the Will of God. And Christ knew the future, so He would have known that the cross thing was going to happen, and he would have been honored to lay down His life in the path of the Unknowable Essence and His design for humankind.
---------------------


It's hard to say the reason for the king ceding to the will of the pope. In those times the pope could incite a bloodlust that would be the equivalent of a nuclear strike. One word from that dude and the masses would shred your town and everyone in it. "Religious fanaticism and hatred are a world-devouring fire, whose violence none can quench."
---------------------



I think that once our physics knowledge is perfected that we will simplify that duality to a single property. Physicists know a lot of stuff, but they don't factor ether into their workings. Once they get over that hurdle I feel that all the pieces will slot into place.

Posted by: pr0mythius Aug 16 2006, 07:09 AM

(nothing to do with discussion) hope some of you are listening to coast to coast tonight. very fascinating stuff regarding religious history.

Posted by: coverdws Aug 16 2006, 02:36 PM



First off, you need to understand the difference between muslim and Islam: They do not have the same meaning. A muslim is someone who submitts to GOD. That is why ALL the prophets (Moses and Jesus included) are refered to as Muslim. Islam is the religion conveyed through Prophet Mohammed.

Secondly: Islam teaches that GOD instructed Abraham and Ishmael to constuct the Kaaba upon the foundation of a structure originally built by Adam. The sole purpose of this building was the worship of ONE God: "And from among His Signs are the night and day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate not to the sun nor to the moon, but prostrate to God who has created them, if you really worship Him" (surah 41:37) HOWEVER, the Idols present during his childhood were in a temple in Babylonia, NOT as you would have us incorrectly believe in the Kaaba. Abraham had not travelled to Mecca with Hagar and Ishmael yet.


This is another lie. ALL the claims in Islam are that the Kaaba was originally built by Adam and then rebuilt for the sake of God alone. As Abraham and Ishmael were completing the task of the Kaaba they were both saying "O our Lord! Accept (this service) from us, verily, You are the All-Hearer, the All-Knower" (Surah 2:127) Another proof is the following: "Verily, Abraham was an Ummah (a leader having all the good righteous qualities, or a nation), obedient to God, Hanifan (to worship none but God), and he was not one of those who were Al-Mushrikeen (polytheists,idolaters, disbelievers in the oneness of God , and those who joined partners with God). He was thankful for His graces. He (God) chose him and guided him to a Straight Path. And We gave him good in this world, and in the Hereafter he shall be of the righteous. Then, We have inspired you (O Mohammed saying): "Follow the religion of Abraham Hanifan (To worship none but God) and he was not of the Mushrikeen (polytheists, pagans, idolaters)"" (Surah 16 119-123)

Lastly, there is a specific story regarding those who added idols to the Kaaba AFTER Abraham's death. I will find the source so I can quote it for you without error.

Your final ascertation that all of Hajj is paganism is simply unfounded and without merit. The rituals of making tawaf (circling the Kaaba) and sayee (going bewtween Safa and Marwah) are actaully referred to as Ummrah. While it is commonly done in conjunction with Hajj, it is not Hajj. Hajj begins in Mina then runs the course to Arafat and back to Muzdalifa, then back to Mina for the Stoning of the Jamarah (a recreation of Abraham's encounter with satan in which he was told by Gabriel to pelt the devil on three separate occassions. The last right is the sacrafice which is sybolic of Abrahams near sacrafice of Ishmael (as God ordered) "And when he (his son) was old enough to walk with him. he said:'O my son! I have seen in a dream that I am slaughtering you (offer you in sacrifice to God), so look what do you think!' He said 'O my Father! Do that which you are commanded, If God wills, you shall find me of the patient'. Then when they had both submitted themselves (to the will of God) and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (or on the side of the forehead for slaughtering); and We called out to him 'O Abraham! You have fulfilled the dream (vision)!' Verily! Thus do We reward those who perform good deeds totally for God's sake only. Verily, that indeed was a manifest trial - and we left for him (a goodly remembrance) among generations (to come) in later times. 'Peace be upon Abraham!' Thus indeed do we reward the Muhsineen (good-doers). Verily, he was one of Our believing slaves" (Surah 37:99-111)

Posted by: coverdws Aug 16 2006, 05:32 PM

I think we need to do a reset on this thread. It was my understanding that Sanders started this as an objective look into religious history to see how the Abrahamic faiths dealt with various events. I have noticed, with only a couple minor exceptions, that people have been respectful. However, if you are going to start down the path that the Jews are to blame for everything before Christ and the Muslims are to blame for everything after him, then this forum will quickly deteriorate.

In-fact the litmus test we all should be using (those who believe in GOD, the creator of Adam) is contained in the lessons of the story of Adam and several of the other prophets:

"And remember when your Lord said to the angels: 'Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth' They said: 'Will you place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks ( Exalted be you above all that they associate with You as partners) and sanctify You.' He (God) said:' I know that which you do not know" ...And remember when He said to the angels: 'Prostrate yourselves before Adam.' and they prostrated except Iblis (Satan), he refused and was proud and was one of the disbelievers (disobedient to God)'

And we said: 'O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the Paradise and eat both of you freely with pleasure and delightof things therein as wherever you will, but come not near this tree or you will both be of the Zlimeen (wrong-doers)'

Then Satan made them slip therefrom, and got them out from that which they were. We said: ' Get you down, all, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be a dwelling place for and an enjoyment for a time'

Then Adam recieved from his Lord words. And his Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily, He is the one who forgives (accepts repentance), the Most Mericful.

We said: ' Get down all of you from this place (the Paradise), then whenever there comes to you Guidance from Me, and whoever follows My Guidance, there shall be no fear on them, nor shall they grieve. But those who disbelieve and belie Our Ayat (Proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc) such are the dwellers of the Fire, they shall abide therein forever'" (Surah 2: 30-39)

And in a separate verse:
"And surely, we created you (your father Adam) and then gave you shape (the noble shape of a human being); then We told the angles, 'Prostrate yourselves to Adam', and they prostrated themselves except Iblis (Satan), he refused to be of those who prostrated themselves.

God said: 'what prevented you (o Iblis) that you did not prostrate yourself, when I Commanded you?' Iblis (Satan) said: 'I am better than him (Adam), You created me from fire, and him You created from clay'

God said: '(o Iblis) get down from this (Paradise), it is not for you to be arrogant here. Get out, for you are of those humiliated and disgraced.'

Iblis said: 'Allow me respite till the Day they are raised up (The Day of Resurrection)'

God said:'you are of those respited'

Iblis said: 'Because You have sent me astray, surely I will sit in wait against them (human being) on Your Straight Path. Then I will come to them from before them and behind them, from their right and from their left, and You will not find most of them as thankful ones'

God sadi to Iblis: 'Get out from this (Paradise), disgraced and expelled. Whoever of them (mankind) will follow you, then surely I will fill Hell with you all'" (Surah 7:11-18)

Just for the record, surah 7 continues into the Garden of Eden incident in which Satan does ionfact manage to pursuade Adam and Eve into error. However, after sincere repentance to God, they are forgiven and given a place on earth, where Satan is free to corrupt those who will follow him.

The lesson from the above is obvious. There is One God. He created man. He created Satan, who by the way was given permission to mess with us until the Day of Ressurection just to test us.

Many of the prophets have specifically been sent to deal with corruption and worse idolatry (Making partners with God). Abraham had to deal with it, Moses had to deal with it, even after he led the poeple of Isreal out of Egyot ( See the golden cafe episode) and Prophet Mohammed had to deal with it.

There is only one sin which God says he will not forgive: Idolatry (Associating partners with Him). It is said (I am paraphrasing) that if man comes to me wil sins piled as high as heaven and he repents, I will forgive him. ( and yes, if someone requests it, I will go dig up the source)

The last point I will make about all three of the Abrahamic Faiths ( Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is that as I mentioned before there was a Hadith concerning the fact that the Jews would separate into 71 sects, and the Christians would separate into 72, and Islam into 73. Only one group from each will enter Paradise without touching the Fire.

This mean that as we stand today, the above mentioned has come to pass. So who are we to believe? Logic alone would dictate that we need to go back to sources as close as possible to each Prophet. And even then we should examine the credibility of that source. This is the only shot I'm going to take at Christianity (for the record, I was raised as a Christian and its one of the problems which got me looking for truth in the first place): We got this guy Paul of Tarsus. He wasn't one of the disciples, in fact he was vehemently opposed to Jesus' teachings while Jesus was alive. Yet, he claims to have a vision or something and next thing you know he's on the team. But wait, while out touring with Barnabus (who was an apostle and did keep written account of his time with Jesus) they get into an argument and part ways. What may you ask was the argument about? Paul thought that the Jewish Laws were to strict for the Romans who were pagans. He felt that they should be relaxed to attract more people (what's that, it has already become a popularity contest). Since when were any of the prophets concerned about changing the message to attract more followers... NEVER.

Next thing you know, circumcision is not required, pig is back on the menu, Christmas and Easter are conveniently added as overlays to pagan holidays, not to mention others... why? thats right, to attract more followers and to help the emporer of Rome get better control over his subjects.

The fact of the matter is that, none of us are guaranteed Heaven. Even with good deeds, we can only get there through the Mercy of God, and genuine repentance for our sins. If more people were concerned with fixing their actions and remembering that there is no compulsion in religion, the whole world would be better off. But none of us should forget that Iblis' sole stated mission is to make sure that that doesn't happen. He will be working hard to put us off the right track until the Day of Judgement. (Comment intended for Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike)

I am really sorry for the extensive post and the spelling mistakes which I'm sure I missed. I'll get off my soapbox now.

Posted by: Sanders Aug 16 2006, 05:55 PM


Get back on your soapbox, that was a good post B)


Gee, I was looking forward to bashing the Christians too -

No actually, when this thread has run it's course I think it will be clear that power-seekers have used Religion consistently throughout history to bash the everyday man and woman.

I still don't understand what the Kaaba rites are all about, though I know how to spell it now. The meaning just doesn't sink into my brain when the story is told with (translated) quotes from the Qu'ran - I love Shakespear, that is he wrote great stories... almost every great movie plot ever written is a re-work of one of Shakespear's works. But I can't read Shakespear in the language of his day. Can someone give a quick, easy to understand, paraphrased, everyday language explanation (if that's not blasphemous) of the Kaaba rites, what they originally were for, what changed when Mohammed and his followers went to Mecca etc.?

Sorry to be a pest...

Posted by: Sinewy Aug 16 2006, 11:08 PM


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...opic=9020&st=90

Your earlier cow dung was refuted there. This is nothing different. I don't want to waste my time on this again.

Now, if you want to take it to the next level and make it more polemical such as an "us versus them", by all means I am for it. I will link Christianity with everything from Hypocrisy, Paganism, Historical Forgery, Myth, Satanism, etc.

LAST WARNING

Posted by: Sinewy Aug 17 2006, 12:19 AM


That hadith is weak, and it is an abomination I believe to evaluate religion on that.

There are various riwaya (narrations) of this hadith along with different chains of transmission (silsilah). In one of the matn"s" (texts), Nasara (Christians) is omitted. Only Jews and Muhammad's community (Ummah) are mentioned, and specifically, one of the 73 Islamic sects will achieve salvation (no mention of Jews achieving it).

The rough wording of the hadith, that you paraphrased cover, follows:

The Prophet said "The Jews split into 71 groups; one will enter Paradise and 70 will enter Hell. The Christians split into 72 groups; 71 will enter Hell and one will enter Paradise. By Him in Whose Power is the life of Muhammad, without doubt, my Ummah will be divided into 73 groups. Only one will enter Paradise and 72 will enter Hell."

When asked which group will be on the right path, the Prophet replied, "The main (al-Jama'ah) body of the Muslims." (`Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Fitan).


`Ibn Hazm and Ibn al-Wazîr and others were of the few who did not grade the similar hadiths as hasan (fairly sound; good) or sahih (authentic). They graded them Da`if (weak). Also, these hadith are not found in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, and amongst the Sunnis these latter works are the 2 most sound collections of hadith where there is almost unanimity in acceptance.

That is why I have a problem with certain hadith (such as this), and specifically the Ahlus Sunnah wal jam`ah hardly critique the matn (context) of the hadith. They specialize and focus mostly in `ilm al rijal of the `ilm of al hadith. The chain of narrators is the target. If the chain of transmission is agreed upon to be sound and verifiably authentic, then the hadith scholar would accept the hadith. This at times causes contradictions with the Qur`an because the hadith's context is not in par with the Qur`an. The early community, especially Imam Abu Hanifa and scholars of Kufa, applied strict conditions in the acceptance of hadith.

These days if a Sunni questions hadith, specifically rejecting Bukhari and Muslim hadith, then by the community, especially by the Wahabis/Salafis, they are seen as "hadith rejectors", apostates, you name it.

The Salafis/Wahabis are the instigators in the hadith propagation of today. They have infiltrated many political movements, youth activists, traditionalists, ideologies, paraphernalia, literature, mainstream media by them spending millions and millions of dollars in safeguarding their ideology through propagation of such claims as this: "Each hadith in Bukhari and Muslim is authentic" or "Imam Abu Hanifa (early islamic jurist) was weak in hadith" or stating "shirk" (polytheism) to certain activities or "bid`ah" (innovation). Such semantics have truly perversed Islam and rotted the mind. They want to abrogate the 4 traditional schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam and its adherence to those schools.

More importance should be relied upon the Qur`an and the early traditions and schools of thought of Islam. The closer the generation to Muhammad, the more likely authenticity would follow suit. The further the generation and resources, the greater the likelihood of forgeries, manipulations, proliferations of literature (especially hadith), etc.

Posted by: coverdws Aug 17 2006, 01:03 AM

Sinewy,

Thanks for that ellaboration And I agree that in practice, you need to focus on Quran and Sunnah provided by the most reliable (strong) early sources. I used that Hadith knowing it might be weak because I was trying to illustrate exactly what you mentioned. If only one group is going, you can bet it would be the ones following the appropriate Prophet. The farther from the Prophets death, the less accurate the message, unless you have the original source material to reference (Quran).

And a weak Hadith is just that.. Weak in the line of verification, it does not acutally mean that it is false.

But having said that, I am not a scholar of Hadith so any mistake resulting from my reasoning is my own and I welcome clarification by those who have more knowledge.

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Aug 17 2006, 08:30 AM


Are you implying that Sunnis follow ahadith that contradict with the Qur'an?

Posted by: nike2422 Posted: Aug 17 2006, 11:39 AM


How do you consider these three religions coming from a common origin that never happened? Adam and Eve were not the beginning of all humanity. If you read the bible, you will find that there are two creations: Genesis 1 describes the creation of the earth and heavens by the Elohim, a word this is PLURAL, so should be properly read as THE GODS created heaven and earth. These are the people the Elohim told to populate the earth.

Then in Genesis 2 you have one god called Jehovah who for whatever reason had a little mini-creation of his own and made the garden of eden and Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve ate from a tree that Jehovah said would kill them the same day they ate from it, but a serpent told them no it would open their eyes and they would become aware like the Elohim. They ate the fruit, they didn't die but instead their eyes were opened just like the serpent said they would. Adam lived to be nine hundred years old, despite Jehovah's claim he would die the day he ate the fruit, so - who really lied, the serpent, or Jehovah?

Another clue that Jehovah wasn't the only god around: God finds Abel's sacrifice pleasing but not Cain's, so Cain kills Abel in a fit of jealousy and God punishes him by putting a mark on him and forcing him to leave his presence. Cain goes to the land of Nod where he meets a woman and marries her. Now if Adam and Eve gave birth to everyone, where did woman in the land of Nod come from?

The bible is metaphor and allegory, but NOT history.

I'm aware that the Knights were not saints, they were men who despite claiming to be poor servants of Christianity were in fact a very rich and powerful group that had great control of Europe. The problem with being on top is someone is always waiting for their moment to knock you down.

Posted by: coverdws Aug 17 2006, 03:11 PM

You are referring to the plarality of Majesty. "The inference that "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26) refers to the plurality of God is refuted by the subsequent verse, which relates the creation of man to a singular God, "And God created man in His image" (Genesis 1:27). In this verse the Hebrew verb "created" appears in the singular form. If "let us make man" indicates a numerical plurality, it would be followed in the next verse by, "And they created man in their image." Obviously, the plural form is used in the same way as in the divine appellation 'Elohim, to indicate the all- inclusiveness of God's attributes of authority and power, the plurality of majesty. It is customary for one in authority to speak of himself as if he were a plurality. Hence, Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give your counsel what we shall do" (2 Samuel 16:20). The context shows that he was seeking advice for himself' yet he refers to himself as "we" (see also Ezra 4:16-19)."

I also agree that the Bible cannot be used as a Historical text, but from the standpoint that: It has suffered numerous translation from language to language at the hands of men (who are prone to error) Additionally, men have seen fit to specifically change the texts as needed for various reasons, beginning with the destruction of many of the original gospels which did not support the Pauline doctrine.

With regard to Cain and Abel... the Islamic version follows: Eve had two sets of twins (other children followed later). First was Cain and his twin sister, followed by Abel and his twin sister. The brothers were instructed to marry the others twin. This also fueled Cain's envy, as he felt that Abels twin was not as beautiful as his own. The outcome between the brothers is the same. (and no marrying your sister is not permitted in subsequent generations)

God knows what we do not, and any mistake in my relation of the story is my own.

Posted by: Sanders Aug 17 2006, 07:42 PM

These are all really great posts.

So forgive me for trying to steer this thread...

Not to take anything away from the free discussion going on, but in my honest opinion, the Muslims here are missing an opportunity. I have no idea who is reading this thread, but the more everyone talks about the technicalities of Islam, whether a Hadith is weak or not etc., the non-Muslim readership loses interest, I'll betya. Most non-Muslims don't even know what a hadith is. I wouldn't have known if I hadn't asked...

(Wikipedia: Hadith: traditions relating to the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammed. Hadith collections are regarded as important tools for determining the Sunnah, or Muslim way of life, by all traditional schools of jurisprudence.)

Most of us non-Muslims don't know ANYTHING about Islam. Where was Mohammed born, when, was he married, what did he do in his life - how did Islam get started? No one seems to want to supply this information. Is it blasphemous to to tell the story of Mohammed in layman's terms, that non-Muslims can understand? I'm wondering if maybe it is... ??? The Muslim posters were patient while we plowed through 2 thousand years of Judaeic and Christian history, now is your chance to educate all of us. I'm getting the impression though that 'reverence' for the story of Islamic religion among Muslims is getting in the way of their expressing to others what it is. (??? If that's the case, maybe that is the root of the reason why Islam has been the victim of mediocre PR in the world all these centuries??)

I'm not being critical, I'm making an observation and asking a, mmm, how should I put it, a probing question...

Posted by: Sinewy Aug 17 2006, 09:09 PM


In terms of matn, the literal acceptance of certain hadith discredit the employing of logic and reason mentioned in the Qur`an. This is different from groups that reject hadith altogether. Hence these minority groups are the people on submission.org or Qur`an only, or dubbed as Hadith rejecters.

Hence, you still will be labeled an innovator if you reject "ahadith" from Bukhari and Muslim by the traditionalists. They got these notions from the Wahabis I believe. It has permeated into the traditionalists writings from the Arabian peninsula to the Far East.

If all the ahadith in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim were authentic, then why not the abrogation of the schools of jurisprudence? It may be that `usul al fiqh (Methods of Jurisprudence) can be learned from the 4 sunni schools only because no such systematic method can be obtained from hadith only. If that were true, then why keep rulings from the Imams of the schools (who also relied on hadith and different criteria) with regards to the Prophet or Islam since such reports differ from the ones in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (claimed to be the most authentic)? The only answer to that is that the traditionalists reject the Wahabi/Salafi methodology and formation, but would not give up the traditional Islamic fiqh history. It still doesn't reconcile the ambiguity and favortism.

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Aug 17 2006, 09:16 PM


I don't believe that all of the ahadith of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are authentic, but I believe they should be the most trusted collection of ahadith. I don't believe they hold any hadith that goes against the Qur'an. To me, the Qur'an comes first, and then the Sunnah. Through that, I'm being a Sunni Muslim. Shias follow the Qur'an, then follow the Sunnah (but throught Ahlulbayt) and they have caused many innovations.

Posted by: Sinewy Aug 17 2006, 09:29 PM


No Sunni Muslim traditionalist scholar or even the renowned Hanbali scholar which the Salafi or Wahabis affiliate with, `ibn Taymiyah, have stated that they are disbelievers. They are Muslims, but innovation is not only restricted to the Shi`a. Innovations are seen in the Sunnis as well. The Wahabi and Salafi as well as some of the Tariqat amongst the Tassawwuf exemplify it. Thus the masses are left confused.

Posted by: Sinewy Aug 17 2006, 09:35 PM



First I was not even finished with Christianity and its permeation. I don't know if we can go back on it.

Faatimah quoted selections from the Sirah (biographical narrative) of Muhammad.

What aspects specifically do you wish to know in "layman's terms"?

Posted by: Sanders Aug 17 2006, 09:59 PM


Of course anyone can go back - I just thought it would be best to go chronologically - the real permutations of the Christian religion come a little later - don't worry, I for one am not done with Christianity by a long shot.

It's just that Muslims are talking to each other about the fine points of Islam, which is fine - it's all good - but I don't understand a lot of what you are talking about, and I imagine other non-Muslims don't either.

For example, "but innovation is not only restricted to the Shi`a. Innovations are seen in the Sunnis as well. The Wahabi and Salafi as well as some of the Tariqat amongst the Tassawwuf exemplify it. Thus the masses are left confused."

Left confused is an understatement, hehe. I know about Shi'as and Sunnis, but I don't know what the differences are between them, religiously speaking. I know the Wahabi sect is prominent in Saudi Arabia, but I don't know how it got started or how it differs from other sects. I have no idea what or who Salafi, Tariqat, or Tassawwuf are. But you probably couldn't explain it to me if I didn't already have a basic understanding of what Islam is - . I don't want to change the subject, you guys seem to be having a good discussion, but some of us don't know what you are talking about, and someone should take the opportunity to explain it to us non-Muslims (starting with Mohammed) So we can follow along. That's all I'm saying ... (imagine I know almost nothing about Islam).

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Aug 17 2006, 10:15 PM


I never said that they were not Muslims. I do believe they are Muslims as well. As for the rest of what you are saying, I guess that's what we have the coming of the Mahdi for. To stop all of this Sunni, Shiite, Sufi, Wahabi, stuff. By the way, might I add that you shouldn't call them Salafis. Calling them Salafis is actually a compliment. A Salafi is one who follows direct followers of the Prophet's (pbuh) teachings. They obviously don't do that and the only reason they are called "Salafis" is because they changed their name to that to become popular. They are not Salafis. They are Wahabis. Don't call them Salafis. Call them Wahabis. There are no real groups called Salafis. Only God knows who is a Salafi and everyone in the world should try their best to be a Salafi. That means every Muslim should try their best to follow the Prophet's (pbuh) teachings as accurate as possible. Wahabis obviously haven't done that.

Posted by: Daniels Aug 17 2006, 10:21 PM

Open up your nutshell:

After Muhammad ascended there were two schools of thought as to how He wished His followers to go about implementing the religion of Islam.

The Shi’ahs (Shiites) believed that Muhammad’s lineal descendents were to be the leaders of His religion – the Imams.

The Sunnis believed that an elected or appointed leader was what Muhammad had wanted – the Caliphs.

So Islam, very early on in its development, branched into two major arms – the Shi’ah and the Sunni.

The Shi’ah became confined to Persia (Iran) and the countries in the immediate vicinity.

The Sunni spread through Arabia, Palestine, north Africa, into Spain, into the Far East (I think), etc.

With the Sunni, the Caliphate was applicable to the whole of Sunni Islam (similar to the Pope I guess).

The Imamate of the Shi’ahs ended when the twelfth Imam went into hiding to avoid assassination. He was never seen again. Shi’ahs believe that the Promised One will be the Return of that Twelfth Imam.

(Muslims: forgive me if I’m mistaken in this. It is my broad understanding of Islam.)

[Edit: typo]

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Aug 17 2006, 10:41 PM



Alright, here goes:
First of all, Muslims believe him to have been God's final prophet, to whom the Qur'an was divinely revealed.

The name Muhammad etymologically means "the praised one" in Arabic. Within Islam, Muhammad is known as "The Prophet" and "The Messenger". The Qur'an (33:40) also refers to him as the "Seal of the Prophets". In verse 61:6 he is referred to as Ahmad, which in Arabic means 'more praiseworthy'.

Anyways, here is the important information:
Muhammad traced his genealogy as follows:

Muhammad was born into the Quresh tribe. He is the son of Abd Allah, who is son of Abd al-Muttalib (Shaiba) son of Hashim (Amr) ibn Abd Manaf (al-Mughira) son of Qusai (Zaid) ibn Kilab ibn Murra son of Ka`b ibn Lu'ay son of Ghalib ibn Fahr (Quraish) son of Malik ibn an-Nadr (Qais) the son of Kinana son of Khuzaimah son of Mudrikah (Amir) son of Ilyas son of Mudar son of Nizar son of Ma`ad ibn Adnan, whom the northern Arabs believed to be their common ancestor. Adnan in turn is said to have been a descendant of Ishmael, son of Abraham, though the exact genealogy is disputed. (ibn means "son of" in Arabic; alternate names of people with two names are given in parentheses.)

He was also called Abu-Qaasim (meaning "father of Qaasim") by some, after his short-lived first son.

Childhood
Muhammad was born into a well-to-do family settled in the northern Arabian town of Mecca. Some calculate his birthdate as having been 20 April 570, while Shi'a Muslims believe it to have been 26 April 570. Other sources calculate the year of his birth to have been 571; tradition places it in the Year of the Elephant. Muhammad's father, Abdullah, had died almost six months before he was born and the young boy was brought up by his paternal grandfather Abd al-Muttalib, of the Banu Hashim clan of the Quresh (Quraish) tribe. At the age of six, Muhammad lost his mother Amina. When he was eight years of age, his grandfather Abd al-Muttalib, who had become his guardian, also died. Muhammad now came under the care of his uncle Abu Talib, the new leader of the Hashim clan of the Quraish tribe, the most powerful in Mecca.

Mecca was a thriving commercial centre, due in great part to a stone temple (now called the Kaaba) that housed many different cult figures (idols). Merchants from various tribes would visit Mecca during the pilgrimage season, when all inter-tribal warfare was forbidden and they could trade in safety. While still in his teens, Muhammad began accompanying his uncle on trading journeys to Syria. He thus became well-travelled and knowledgeable as to foreign ways.

Middle years
Muhammad became a merchant. One of his employers was Khadijah, a forty-year-old widow. She was impressed with Muhammad's character and intelligence, and proposed to him in the year 595. Muhammad consented to the marriage, which by all accounts was a happy one.

Ibn Ishaq records that Khadijah bore Muhammad six children: two sons named Al Qasem and Abdullah (who is also called Al Tayeb and Al Taher) and four daughters. All of Khadija's children were born before Muhammad received his first revelation. His son Qasim died at the age of two. The four daughters are said to be Zainab, Ruqayyah, Umm Kulthum, and Fatima.

The Shi'a say that Muhammad had only the one daughter, Fatima, and that the other daughters were either children of Khadijah by her previous marriage, or children of her sister.

The first revelations
Muhammad had a reflective turn of mind and routinely spent nights in a cave (Hira) near Mecca in meditation and thought. Muslims believe that around the year 610, while meditating, Muhammad was visited by the Angel Gabriel.

His wife Khadijah and her Christian cousin Waraqah ibn Nawfal were the first to believe that Muhammad was a prophet. They were soon followed by Muhammad's ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, close friend Abu Bakr and adopted son Zaid bin Haarith.

Until his death, Muhammad reportedly received frequent revelations, although there was a relatively long gap after the first revelation. This silence worried him, until he received surat ad-Dhuha, whose words provided comfort and reassurance.

Around 613, Muhammad began to spread his message amongst the people. Most of those who heard his message ignored it. A few mocked him. Others believed and joined him.

Rejection
As the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city. Their wealth, after all, rested on the Kaaba, the focal point of Meccan religious life. If they threw out their idols due to the preachings of Muhammad, the tribal and city leaders feared, there would be no more pilgrims, no more trade, and no more wealth. Muhammad’s denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba. Muhammad and his followers were persecuted. Some of them fled to the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum and founded a small colony there under the protection of the Christian Ethiopian king (called Al-Negashi, or "The King").

Several suras and parts of suras are said to date from this time, and reflect its circumstances: see for example al-Masadd, al-Humaza, parts of Maryam and al-Anbiya, al-Kafirun, and Abasa.

In 619, both Muhammad's wife Khadijah and his uncle Abu Talib died; it was known as aamul hazn ("the year of sorrows.") Muhammad's own clan withdrew their protection of him. Muslims patiently endured persecution: ostracism, an economic embargo and consequent poverty and hunger, even beatings and death threats.

Isra and Miraj
Some time in 620, Muhammad told his followers that he had experienced the Isra and Miraj, a miraculous journey said to have been accomplished in one night along with Angel Gabriel. In the first part of the journey, the Isra, he is said to have travelled from Mecca to the furthest mosque, in Jerusalem, presently known as Masjid al Aqsa. In the second part, the Miraj, Muhammad is said to have toured Heaven and Hell, and spoken with earlier prophets, such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

Muslims believe that the Dome of the Rock is the site from which Muhammad ascended to Heaven.

Hijra
By 622, life in the small Muslim community of Mecca was becoming not only difficult, but dangerous. Muslim traditions say that there were several attempts to assassinate Muhammad. Muhammad then resolved to emigrate to Medina, then known as Yathrib, a large agricultural oasis where there were a number of Muslim converts. By breaking the link with his own tribe, Muhammad demonstrated that tribal and family loyalties were insignificant compared to the bonds of Islam, a revolutionary idea in the tribal society of Arabia. This Hijra or emigration (traditionally translated into English as "flight") marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar. The Muslim calendar counts dates from the Hijra, which is why Muslim dates have the suffix AH (After Hijra).

Muhammad came to Medina as a mediator, invited to resolve the feud between the Arab factions of Aws and Khazraj. He ultimately did so by absorbing both factions into his Muslim community, forbidding bloodshed among Muslims. However, Medina was also home to a number of Jewish tribes (whether they were ethnically as well as religiously Jewish is an open question, as is the depth of their "Jewishness"). Islamic tradition refers to the conversion to Islam of one of the leaders of the Jews named Ibn Salam. Muhammad had hoped that his conversion would be emulated by the other Jews, and that those others would also recognize him as a prophet, but they did not do so.

Some academic historians attribute the change of qibla, the Muslim direction of prayer, from the site of the former Temple in Jerusalem to the Kaaba in Mecca, which occurred during this period, to Muhammad's abandonment of hope of recruiting Jews as allies or followers. According to Muslims, the change of qibla was seen as a command from God both reflecting the independence of the Muslims as well as a test to discern those who truly followed the revelation and those who were simply opportunistic.

Muhammad and his followers are said to have negotiated an agreement with the other Medinans, a document now known as the Constitution of Medina (date debated), which laid out the terms on which the different factions, specifically the Jews and other "Peoples of the Book" could exist within the new Islamic State.

War
Relations between Mecca and Medina rapidly worsened (see surat al-Baqara). Meccans confiscated all the property that the Muslims had left in Mecca. In Medina, Muhammad signed treaties of alliance and mutual help with neighboring tribes.

Muhammad turned to raiding caravans bound for Mecca. Caravan-raiding was an old Arabian tradition and according to Watt was "a kind of sport rather than war"[8] and that the object of the raids was to take animals and other goods but killing was carefully avoided. [9]; Muslims justified the raids by the Meccans' confiscation of the property they had left at Mecca and the state of war deemed to exist between the Meccans and the Muslims.

In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Meccans successfully defended the caravan and then decided to teach the Medinans a lesson. They sent a small army against Medina. On March 15, 624 near a place called Badr, the Meccans and the Muslims clashed. Though outnumbered more than three times (one thousand to three hundred) in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. This marked the real beginning of Muslim military achievement.

Rule consolidated
To his followers, the victory in Badr apparently seemed a divine authentication of Muhammad's prophethood. Following this victory, the victors expelled a local Jewish clan, the Banu Qainuqa, whom they accused of having broken a treaty by conspiring with the attacking Meccan forces. Muhammad and his followers were now a dominant force in the oasis of Yathrib (Medina).

After Khadija's death, Muhammad had married Aisha, the daughter of his friend Abu Bakr (who would later emerge as the first leader of the Muslims after Muhammad's death). In Medina, he married Hafsah, daughter of Umar (who would eventually become Abu Bakr's successor).

Muhammad's daughter Fatima married Ali, Muhammad's cousin. According to the Sunni, another daughter, Umm Kulthum, married Uthman. Each of these men, in later years, would emerge as successors to Muhammad and political leaders of the Muslims. Thus, all four caliphs were linked to Muhammad by marriage. Sunni Muslims regard these caliphs as the Rashidun, or Rightly Guided. (See Succession to Muhammad for more information on the controversy on the succession to the caliphate).

Continued warfare
In 625 the Meccan general Abu Sufyan marched on Medina with three thousand men. The ensuing Battle of Uhud took place on March 23 and ended in a stalemate. The Meccans claimed victory, but they had lost too many men to pursue the Muslims into Medina.

In April 627, Abu Sufyan led another strong force against Medina. But Muhammad had dug a trench around Medina and successfully defended the city in the Battle of the Trench.

Many of the Muslims believed that Abu Sufyan had been aided by sympathizers among the Medinans, being the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza, with whom the Muslims had a treaty. They attacked and defeated the Banu Qurayza, and subsequently executed hundreds of the adult men of the tribe, after trying them for treason. This execution has been the subject of some controversy.
Following the Muslims' victory at the Battle of the Trench, the Muslims were able, through conversion and conquest, to extend their rule to many of the neighboring cities and tribes.

The truce of Hudaybiyya
Although revelation (2:196-2:210) about the performing of Hajj had already come, Muhammad and Muslims did not do it due to the enmity of the Quraish. It was the month of Shawwal 6 A.H. when Muhammad saw in a vision that he was shaving his head after the Haj. Muhammad therefore decided to perform the Haj in the following month. Hence around the 13th of March, 628 with 1400 Companions he went towards Medina without the least intention of giving a battle. But the Quraish were determined to offer resistance to Muslims and they posted themselves outside Mecca, closing all access to the city. In order to settle the dispute peacefully Muhammad halted at a placed called Hudaybiyya. Hence after series of talks a treaty was signed. The main points of treaty were the following.

They have agreed to lay down the burden of war for ten years
Muhammad, should not perform Hajj this year
They may come next year to perform Haj (unarmed) but shall not stay in Mecca for more than three days
Any Muslim living in Mecca cannot settle in Medina but Medina Muslim may come and join Meccans (and will not be returned).
Many of Muslims were not satisfied with the terms the treaty is made. However, on the way to Madina, God revealed the Prophet a new chapter of Quran named "Al-Fath" (The victory) 48:1-48:29. The new Revelation left no doubt in Muslims' minds that the expedition from which they were now returning must be considered as vitorious one. With the passage of time it become more and more apparent why the Koran had declared the truce a victory. The men of Mecca and Medina could now meet in peace and discuss Islam hence during the following two years the community of Islam was more than doubled.

Muhammad letters to the Heads-of-State
"Muhammad Original Letter to Heraclius".After the agreement-of-Hudaybiyya Muhammad decided to send letters to many rulers of the world, inviting them to Islam Hence he sent messengers (with letters) to Heraclius of the Byzantine Empire (The eastern Roman Empire), Chosroes of Persia, the chief of Yeman and to some others.

The Battle of Khaybar
The followers of Muhammad were disgruntled at the inconclusive result of the Hudaybiyya truce, and to deflect the growing opposition, Muhammad needed a new military victory. In these circumstances, Muhammad launched an expedition against Khaybar, an oasis of near Medina. Khaybar was inhabited by several Jewish tribes including the members of the Banu Nadir, a tribe that Muhammad had previously expelled from Medina. In June 628, the Muslims captured Khaybar after a siege and, as some scholars hold, killed all Banu Nadir men present. Most sources do not mention any such execution, so this particular issue remains contentious. After the Khaybar victory, Muhammad married Safiyya bint Huyayy, daughter of the Banu Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab and widow of the Banu Nadir treasurer Kinana ibn al-Rabi. Other Jews of Khaybar were allowed to remain in the oasis on condition of paying tribute, equal to one half of the annual produce.

The conquest of Mecca
The truce of Hudaybiyya had been in force since two years. The tribe of Khuz'aah was in friendly relationship with Muhammad, while on the other hand their enemies, Banu Bakr had aliance with Meccans. A clan of Bakr made a night raid against Khuz'aah, killing few of them. Meccans helped their allies (i.e. Banu Bakr) with weapons and according to some sources few Meccans also took part in the fighting. After the fighting Muhammad offered Meccans following three conditions.

The Meccans were to pay blood-money for those slain among Khuza'ah tribe. Or
They should have nothing to do with Banu Bakr. Or
They should declare the truce of Hudaybiyya null.
The Meccan replied that they would accept only the third condition. However, soon they realized their mistake and sent Abu Safyan to renew the Hudaybiyya treaty, but now his request was declined by Muhammad. Muhammad began to prepare for a campaign.

In 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with an enormous force, said to number more than ten thousand men. After some scattered skirmishes, in which only twenty-four Meccans were killed, the Muslims seized Mecca. Muhammad promised a general amnesty to all but a few of the Meccans. Most Meccans converted to Islam, and Muhammad destroyed the idols in the Kaaba. Henceforth the pilgrimage would be a Muslim pilgrimage and the shrine a Muslim shrine.

Unification of Arabia
The capitulation of Mecca and the defeat of an alliance of enemy tribes at Hunayn effectively brought the greater part of the Arabian peninsula under Muhammad's authority. However, this authority was not enforced by a regular government, as Muhammad chose instead to rule through personal relationships and tribal treaties. The Muslims were clearly the dominant force in Arabia, and most of the remaining tribes and states hastened to convert to Islam.

Muhammad the reformer
According to scholars such as William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad was both a social and moral reformer in his day and generation. He claims Muhammad created a "new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men."

Bernard Lewis believes the advent of Islam in a sense was a revolution which only partially succeeded after long struggles due to tensions between the new religion and very old societies in the countries that the Muslims conquered. He thinks that one such area of tension was a consequence of what he sees as the egalitarian nature of Islamic doctrine. Lewis believes that "the equality of Islam is limited to free adult male Muslims," but according to him "even this represented a very considerable advance on the practice of both the Greco-Roman and the ancient Iranian world. Islam from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents."

John Esposito sees Muhammad as a reformer who did away with many of the terrible practices of the pagan Arabs. He states that Muhammad's "insistence that each person was personally accountable not to tribal customary law but to an overriding divine law shook the very foundations of Arabian society... Muhammad proclaimed a sweeping program of religious and social reform that affected religious belief and practices, business contracts and practices, male-female and family relations."

Watt believes that Islam is still, in many ways, a man’s religion however states that Muhammad, in the historical context of his time, can be seen as a figure who testified on behalf of women’s rights and improved things quite a lot. Watt explains the historical context of the situation women at the time of Muhammad: "it appears that in some parts of Arabia, notably in Mecca, a matrilineal system was in the process of being replaced by a patrilineal one at the time of Muhammad. Growing prosperity caused by a shifting of trade routes was accompanied by a growth in individualism. Men were amassing considerable personal wealth and wanted to be sure that this would be inherited by their own actual sons, and not simply by an extended family of their sisters’ sons. This led to a deterioration in the rights of women. At the time Islam began, the conditions of women were terrible - they had no right to own property, were supposed to be the property of the man, and if the man died everything went to his sons." Muhammad however by "instituting rights of property ownership, inheritance, education and divorce, gave women certain basic safeguards."

Muhammad as a military leader
For most of the sixty-three years of his life, Muhammad was a merchant, then a religious leader. He took up the sword late in his life. He was an active military leader for ten years.

Critics claim that Muhammad expanded his realm and imposed his religion by force. Muslim commentators, however, argue that he fought only to defend his community against the Meccans, and that he insisted on humane rules of warfare. The rules stated that women are not to be harmed or molested, children are not to be harmed. No non combatent is to be fought and if the enemy does not wish to fight you then escort him to a place of security. In reference to the Quran "fight those who fight you and do not commit aggression for God does not like those who commit aggression" (2:190-191)

Family life
From 595 to 619, Muhammad had only one wife, Khadijah. After her death, it was suggested to Muhammad by Khawla bint Hakim, that he should marry Sawda bint Zama, a Muslim widow, or Aisha. 'Muhammad said to have asked her to arrange for him to marry both. It had already been agreed that Aisha should marry another man, whose father, though still pagan, was friendly to the Muslims. By common consent, however, this agreement was set aside and Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad.' Later Muhammad married more wives, to make for a total of eleven, of whom nine or ten were living at the time of his death. The status of Maria al-Qibtiyya is disputed; she may have been a slave, a freed slave, or a wife. Watt in Encyclopedia of Islam states that 'Muhammad had a political aim in nearly all his marriages' and for example Muhammad in his marriage to Aisha 'must have seen ... a means of strengthening the ties between himself and Abu Bakr, his chief follower.' Watt believes Aisha 'cannot have been more than ten years old when marriage was consummated'

Muhammad had children by only two of these unions. Khadijah is said to have borne him four daughters and a son; only one daughter, Fatima, survived her father. Shi'a Muslims dispute the number of Muhammad's children, claiming that he had only one daughter, and that the other "daughters" were step-daughters. Maria al-Qibtiyya bore him a son, but the child died when he was ten months old.

Muhammad's marriages have been the subject of some criticism. Some consider it wrong that he had more wives than the four generally allowed by the Qur'an (although one Qur'anic verse makes an exception for Muhammad). They question the circumstances of some of his marriages, such as those to Zaynab bint Jahsh, his adopted son's ex-wife, and to Aisha, who according to hadith was nine years old when the marriage was consummated. (though there is reason to believe that she was in fact older and that the hadiths that state she was nine are weak).

Home life was characterized by compassion and mercy, as he once cut off his sleeve rather than wake a cat which was sleeping on it.

Companions
The term Sahaba (companion) refers to anyone who met three criteria. First, he must have been a contemporary of Muhammad. Second, he must have seen or heard Muhammad speak on at least one occasion. Third, he must have converted to Islam. Companions are considered the ultimate sources for the oral traditions, or hadith, on which much of Muslim law and practice are based. There were many other companions in addition to the ones listed here.

List in alphabetic order:

Abdullah ibn Abbas
Abu Bakr
Abu Dharr
Ali ibn Abi Talib
Ammar
Bilal
Hamza
Al-Miqdad
Sa'd
Zayd
Salman the Persian
Talha
Umar
Uthman
Zubair

Death
One day, upon returning from a visit to a cemetery, Muhammad became very ill. He suffered for several days with head pain and weakness. Muhammad finally succumbed to his malady around noon on Monday, June 8, 632, in the city of Madina, at the age of sixty-three. He is buried in the Mosque of the Prophet in Madina.

According to Shi'a Islam, Muhammad had appointed his son-in-law Ali as his successor in a public sermon at Ghadir Khumm. Shi'a believe that Muhammad's companions Abu Bakr and Umar conspired to oust Ali and make Abu Bakr the leader or caliph. Sunni Muslims dispute this, and say that the leaders of the community conferred and freely chose Abu Bakr, who was pre-eminent among the followers of Muhammad. The matter is further discussed in the article Succession to Muhammad.

Abu Bakr spent much of his short reign suppressing rebellious tribes in the Ridda Wars. With unity restored in Arabia, the Muslims looked outward and commenced the conquests that would eventually unite the Middle East under the caliphs.

I'll post some more later like him and his followers in Medina, but here are the basics:
Born to ‘Abdu’llah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib, Muhammad initially adopted the occupation of a merchant, He was renowned amongst all tribes as being "sadaq" and "ameen", meaning honest and truthful. He often retreated to a cave on a mountain outside Mecca called Hira, for contemplation. Muslims believe that in the year 610, when Muhammad was about forty, he was visited in the cave by the Angel Gabriel who commanded him to recite verses sent by God. These first verses started:"READ, in the name of thy Sustainer, who has created man out of a germ-cell" and continued through the end of Prophet's life. The Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad over a period of about twenty-three years, until his death.

He expanded his mission as a prophet, publicly preaching strict monotheism and warning of a Day of Judgment when all humans shall be held responsible for their deeds. He did not reject Judaism and Christianity, two other monotheistic faiths known to the Arabs, but said that he had been sent by God in order to complete and perfect those teachings.

Many in Mecca resented his preaching and persecuted him and his followers. Eventually, in 622, he was forced to move out of Mecca in a journey known to Muslims as the Hijra (the Migration). He settled in the area of Yathrib (now known as Medina) with his followers, where he was the leader of the first avowedly Muslim community.

The Meccans started attacking Medina to destroy the Islamic state. Even though the attacking armies were several times stronger in numbers and in weaponry, Muslims defeated these invaders every time they attacked. Muslims finally attacked Mecca under the leadership of Muhammad after eight years of Hijra and took control of the city. The Muslims subsequently removed all idols from the Kaaba. Most of the townspeople accepted Islam. Deputations began to come in from other Arabian tribes. The conditions for their adherence were: the acceptance of Islam, the destruction of idols, and the payment of the 'zakat' (tax) for the support of the poor community. In March 632, Muhammad led the pilgrimage, the Hajj. On returning to Medina he fell ill and died after a few days, on June 8.

Under the caliphs who assumed authority after his death, the Islamic empire expanded into Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, North Africa, much of the Iberian Peninsula, and Anatolia. Later conquests, commercial contact between Muslims and non-Muslims, and missionary activity spread Islam over much of the Eastern Hemisphere, including China and Southeast Asia.

Posted by: Sinewy Aug 17 2006, 10:44 PM


I am not saying you referred the Shi`a as non-Muslims. Please re-read. I wanted to clarify some issues generally.

There are groups such as the Salafis of today (Wahabis) who deem innovators as disbelievers, and hence the Shi`a. That is so perverse. Bid`ah (innovation) by the scholar `Izz addin `Abdis Salam was refined to broad categories and acceptable forms.

Of course the title Salaf or Salafi is relevant to the first 3 generations of Muslims. Scholars of Islam, particularily the Sunnis, include the Companions of the Muhammad, the Successors of the Companions, and the Successors to the Successors of the Companions. The Wahabis do not want to bear the title Wahabi (due to them stating that it was an English labeling theory), but Salafi is a better title because it gives them credence and piety.

Sanders- I will do buddy. Give me some time.

Daniels, everything you stated has veracity and to clarify this subtle point:



There is no indicative text that states Sunnis forming this form of leadership and governance from any explicit issuance of Muhammad. The whole Muslim nation was lost and it needed a central authority. Many Muslims (companions of the Prophet encircled at the time) including `Umar bin Khattab suggested Abu Bakr. Muslim now days, particularily the Sunni branch, use references from the traditions of Muhammad as clues to indicate that Abu Bakr As Siddique was the most noteworthy to become the leader (Caliph).

The Shi`a had a difference of opinion in this matter and believe `Ali was more entitled to be the Amir ul Mu`mineen (Leader of the believers) of the Muslims after the Muhammad's death immediately, and not Abu Bakr. Both the Sunni and Shi`a have differences in the portrayal of `Ali and his descendants. There is much conjecture due to manipulation and forgery of texts due to favoritism on each side.

Posted by: Micahyah Aug 17 2006, 10:58 PM

From an evangelical perspective,
www.watchmanreport.com

Watchman Comment: The events of 9-11 are actually one of the keys to endtime Bible prophecy. However, the prophecies state that the leadership of the country would be complicit in the deed. This immediately would also partially fulfill the prophecies regarding lying wonders, as 9-11 was a lying wonder indeed, which lie is still being vehemently maintained and propagated by the mainstream media and a U.S. Constitutionally treasonous executive branch of the government (the false prophet and the beast), even without a shred of legitimate evidence to corroborate the lie, including the 9-11 commission's recent confession that what they wrote in the report were indeed lies, omissions and half truths (Theologian, David Ray Griffin stated this long ago, even wrote a book on it and was called a conspiracy theory nutcase - now the 9-11 Commission themselves have validated his statements).

The BIG LIE, called the transgression of desolation in the book of Daniel 8:13, will fall apart, according to the Word. What I am saying is not at all politically correct, but since when is God concerned about being politically correct, particularly when being so, one must believe and propagate the lies of silly, incomprehensible, physically impossible and implausible story telling?

Well how do they explain a prophecy, written nearly 3000 years ago, about the events and exploits of a future world leader, hidden and sealed in the prophecy of Daniel 8:9-11? And you wonder why it was sealed? Look at the verse numbers and tell me there is no such thing as God! This is merely a fragment of the unsealed prophecy of Daniel - Oh yes, there is more, much more! Hidden within meanings that one would think pertain to spiritual things are the essence of what is happening in the political, physical realm of the endtimes - this is how it was sealed!



Don't rest easy, thinking that it will be a big relief to finally get at the truth of what really happened on 9-11. As it states in the last few verses of the eleventh chapter of Daniel, the perpetrators of the transgression of desolation will be found out and shall fall without hand, but then, the twelfth chapter of Daniel is the start of the tribulation period!

Here's Paul Craig Roberts...

I received a number of intelligent responses from readers of my August 14 column, “Gullible Americans,” The letters deserve a reply. Moreover, some contain important points that should be shared with a wider audience. Pundits such as myself are not the only people who have interesting things to say. Considering the number of letters and the time it would require to respond individually, I am replying instead in this column.

Most readers from whom I heard understand the difference between loyalty to country and loyalty to a government. They understand that to support a political party or a government that is destroying the US Constitution and America’s reputation in the world is, in fact, an act of treason. Therefore, I did not have to read the usual drivel about how doubting “our government” is un-American.

[...]

The Watchman Report

Posted by: Sanders Aug 19 2006, 07:51 PM


Appreciate your effort to tie this into 9/11. Bush and many of his supporters buy into an armegeddon mentality that scares the crap out of me. It's why they don't care about global warming. Many are saying that they (Christian fundamentalist far-right) welcome the end of the world, there are even video games coming out lately (true believers fighting against satan's armies after armegeddon etc...).
I personally don't put much faith in any biblical text that can be dug up and connected to current events, to me it's kind of like a T-shirt I saw recently, "North American Paper-Scissors-Rock Champion" that made me laugh. But I do care about what people that are running the US think, and it seems they aren't thinking rationally.

GM10, Thanks! You covered all the bases I wanted covered, very informative. Great

Tonight I went to the Budoukan in Tokyo to watch TM Revolution (popular Japanese band). The stage was layed out like an Italian Renaissance parlor, with greek style columns, very elaborate. The singer (Nishikawa) was decked out in furs and leather, a big sparkly cross around his neck. Great performance, if you like TM Revolution, they are pros. Smoke and pyrotechnics and videos going on behind the performers and great sound, everything you'd want from a concert. I had never been to Budoukan - great acoustics. The crowd went absolutely nuts - like Nishikawa was a god or something. And it made me think about Idolatry.

And then it hit me. There is no problem between the 3 faiths of the world. The problem is between Western Culture and Islam. The Islamic peoples have the audacity to try to practice what the Bible/Qu'ran preaches. Western culture is really about idolatry - having nice things, living in a big sparkly city, working in a big office tower with a pretty courtyard and a Starbucks and a Subway attached, having a cool car and driving it to the mall to buy the stuff you see people wear on TV... (Not saying it's bad, and I know there are no absolutes when talking about "peoples" ...I am liberally generalizing to explain this viewpoint)

I was trying to explain what I was thinking (I live in Japan and I spend a lot of energy trying to understand the japanese and why they emulate the West so much) to my friend who I went to the concert with and I didn't know the Japanese word for Idolatry so I looked it up on a web dictionary from my state of the art cell-phone...

And when the meaning came up she saw it and laughed and knew immediately what I was talking about. "That's Japan!" she said.

Which is really why Japan and the US, despite the fact that America is basically a monetheistic Christian country and Japan is sort of half-hearted Buddism combined with pagaism that we fought a terrible war with, are close allies... while the Islamic world (BTW I have no idea what I am talking about, I've never been to an Islamic country, I'm just throwing these thoughts out there as fodder) more or less rejects idolatry. (Don't get me wrong, I think the Burka thing is twisted too.) But that may be the real reason why the Bush administration is succeeding in their effort to villify Muslims - not because Islam is so different from Christianity, but because it is so different from IDOLATRY, which is the real religion of the Western world.

Japan however, knows how to be the best friend of the US. Rent out the Budoukan, set up an elaborately decorated stage, have a rock star with prance around in leather hot pants and furs with pyrotechnics going off and pink and blue lights glancing of the giant glimmering cross around his neck and film it and put it on TV. Cause that's the American way. Idolatry. (The only thing missing was a golden calf in the middle of the stage!)

Posted by: Sinewy Aug 19 2006, 09:03 PM



Hey, What's up man? I think GM10's post was a good skeletal outline. If you want any details regarding the Sirah (life) of Muhammad, let me know. Don't hesitate.



I will get back with you on that one, for sure.



Yes, sorry about that. I wanted to clarify some issues and points with GM10.




Tariqa: It means an order, particularily related to the Sufi branch of Islam. Examples of orders are the Qadiriya (named after `Abdul Qadir Gilani), Naqshbandiya, Shadhili, etc.

Tasawwuf: `Arabic meaning Sufism or those that practice it. Sufism is often translated as mysticism. In a nutshell, the main objective is to elevate one's spirtuality to an ecstatic state. It is purification of the soul along with loving and encroachment to God. It requires the following and implementation of objectives. It is more technical than that, but I just wanted to give you a glimpse of what it is about.

Innovations: `Arabic translation of it is bid`ah. Bid`ah can either be hasanat (good) or bad according to classical scholarship. In the modern era, the Wahabis, have used that terminology to mean only innovations in the negative sense where such action are seen as abominable.



Both Sunnis and Shi`as (12ers/Jafaris and Zaydis) generally believe in the Oneness of God and Muhammad's prophethood/messengership. Daniels outlined the differences in a summarized fashion. Sunnis was a term invented centuries later and technically Shi`a was one of the oldest sects due to the strife that occurred with `Ali (his followers were known as Shi`a `Ali) and other companions of Muhammad such as Mu`awiya and his followers. Sunnis believe in Caliphate whilst Shi`as believe in the Imamate (direct lineage from the Muhammad's family; notably through `Ali who was a son-in-law and cousin of Muhammad and Fatimah who was Muhammad's daughter and `Ali's wife) as having the rights to lead the Muslim state. There are very keen differences and many sects arose from both "Major" groups throughout Islamic history. I would go further if you wish.



Wahabism started from Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahab actually with his close ties with the Saud family and sponsorship of the British. Ibn `Abdul Wahab was from the Hijaz area, primarily Najd of what can be located in today's Saudia `Arabia. Ibn `Abdul Wahab believed that the Muslims, under the Ottoman authority at the time, were innovators and stated that they were nonbelievers. He formed an `ijtihad (reasoning by analogy) based on a misinterpretation of the Qur`anic texts and verses. He used the verses in the Qur`an which characterized non-Muslims and imposed these traits on the Muslims of the time (primarily these Muslims were of the Sufi orders; that is why Wahabis/Salafis till this day oppose Sufism and believe they are innovators and non-Muslims). The British with Saud (wanted pan-`Arabism and `Arab authority over Muslims rather than non-`Arab authority such as the Ottoman Sultans) sponsored Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab and hence they called for a Jihad against the Ottoman Caliphate. `Abdul Wahab and his followers killed so many Muslims before that came on Pilgrimages from distant lands due to this gross interpretation of the Qur`an. They believed that those Muslims women were made permissible to keep as kanis (slaves). So the Jihad against the Ottoman Caliphate took place. Ottomans defeated the Wahabis of the time, and Ibn`Abdul Wahab was eventually killed, but the movement still had sponsorship by the British. Eventually when the Ottoman Empire weakened, the Saudi state formed and Wahabism permeated around the `Arabian peninsula. Interesting to point out was that both Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahab's dad and brother (the dad was a scholar of Islam) were against ibn `Abdul Wahab's ideologies and stated he was in manifest error. The Wahabis of today are labeled, or better yet label themselves as Salafis (name for the early muslims of the first 3 generations). They are under the guise of the Hanbali madhab (school of thought) but they are not of the `Athari (early Hanbali belief), only the Salafi aqidah (belief). They are Puritanical and follow strict and literal interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith literature. The people that despise them refer to them as the modern day "Khawarij" (a group of people in the early period of Islam who called `Ali an unbeliever and other Muslims). The "Salafis/Wahabis" don't do taqlid (follow a particular school of thought/jurisprudence). They are open to ijtihad (reasoning aby analogy) on issues that were already solved centuries before. To me personally, they are very weak in fiqh (jurisprudence). They have no classical training in them. The Salafis today are found mostly in Saudia `Arabia and the Gulf states. Their ideology has permeated to India, Pakistan, and somewhat in Afghanistan and they are known there basically as Ahlel hadith (People of hadith) (although all these 3 countries mentioned are of traditional thought). The Salafis and Wahabis in Saudia `Arabia are heavily funded by the government and princes. It is basically a reactionary movement.

I hope that helps. That is just summarized for you only.

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Aug 21 2006, 03:24 AM

Do you have any more questions about Islam, Sanders?

Posted by: Sinewy Aug 21 2006, 03:29 AM



Fiqh: Shafi`i/Hanafi

`Aqidah: `Ashari/Maturidi

Posted by: Sanders Aug 21 2006, 10:30 PM



No, but I don't think the message about the conguering of Mecca and the change that happened with regard to the Ka'aba rites, Mohammed and his followers calling out to God/Allah for the first time from the roof of the Ka'aba and the subsequent tradition of facing Mecca and it's real meaning --- I don't think it's been adequately explained. I think it's a beautiful story.

(not totally sure about my facts - I'm hoping it will come out)

Posted by: Sanders Aug 21 2006, 10:53 PM

While you digest that, ---- the Barbarians. The Christians that invaded the middle east in the 12th century weren't Romans, they were barbarians. They were the descendants of Germanic hoards who conquered Europe 500 years earlier. Franks, Ostragoths, Visogoths etc. Did these Scandanavian tribes conduct a frontal assault on the Roman troops and kick their @ss? No. The Roman Empire was huge, too huge. Their troops in Europe were comprised not of actual Romans, but of a mix of Romans and barbarians. Rome hired germanic troops, soldiers became generals, Rome utilized Franks to fight Visogoths, Visogoths to fight Ostrogoths. Soon, the "barbarians" were the most powerful people in their own provinces. It was a victory from "within". It is not well understood simply because it didn't happen overnight, it happened over a couple of hundred years.

Conversion to Christianity (see my precious post about Clovis), intermarraige into established Roman families, accellerated this process. Rome didn't die in a crash, it died in a slow whimper. What we were left with was a barbaric, pagan, backward people who at some point desired to become more civilized, to mimic the grandeur of the previous Roman empire and Byzantinium, from which they got their hands on objects of exquisite quality. The Christian Church was the window for them toward that end.

Posted by: Daniels Aug 22 2006, 03:10 AM

My view:

Rome died from within, much like contemporary Western Society is crumbling from within today.

Romans were elitist. Anyone who wasn't a Roman was considered barbarian. These supposed barbarians had their civilization, their schools of learning, customs, etc. Though not a match for the heights of engineering of Rome, they weren't the savages that we impute to the babarian tag.

I guess that a few centuries down the track our descendents will view the US in a similar light to how we view the Rome of 1500 years ago. Is it not true that the US is the center of the world today? English is the defacto international language. That for no other reason than the US (and to a lesser extent the other Western nations) speaks it. All roads lead to the US. Anyone who wants to work at the cutting edge of technology migrates to the US.

When the barbarians invaded Rome they were simply delivering the death knell to a decrepit, failing system. When WWIII happens, it too will do the same to our Western system.

Civilizations are built on more than technology. It would be true to say the reverse: that technology is built on the civilizing influence of the holy Prophets.

This concept is illustrated by observing Islam. When the light of Christianity had dimmed, it was replaced in 622 AD by the light of Islam. Muhammad worked the base clay of the Arabians into the dazzling glory of Medieval Islam with its paved and illuminated streets, its innoculation and surgery, its astronomy, mathematics (algebra is a corruption of an Arabic word because those dudes invented that branch of math), its agriculture and farming, its metalurgy (Toledo steel was prized for the temper of its swords), and its universities and libraries. It was not technology that built Islam, but Islam that built technology.

Now the light of Islam has dimmed. It has lost its place of preeminence in fields of learning and endeavor.

Western society, which has been built predominantly on the Islamic influence that created the Renaisannce around 1400 AD, is now creaking with age. Its institutions have been tested against the requirements of the modern world and have been found wanting. The laws, the institutions, the civic organization of past ages are unable to solve the vexing issues of the modern age. Every solution is followed by a hundred fresh problems. Every titanic attempt to work the bilge pumps and save its passengers is accompanied by a hundred new flooding leaks.

We desperately look to technology to save us, unaware of this truth, that technology, shorn of Inspiration, is impotent. Worse, that technology without the civilizing influence of the holy Prophets becomes a magnifier of our barbarism.

"I swear by God! The promised day is come, the day when tormenting trials will have surged above your heads, and beneath your feet, saying: 'Taste ye what your hands have wrought!'"

Posted by: pr0mythius Aug 22 2006, 08:56 AM

i think the main thing that caused rome to fall was when those living in areas outside of rome, migrated and started working. now i'm not saying immigration was the downfall of rome and that it will be the downfall of the US. i'm saying that a big reason i believe that rome fell was because of its poor handling of this new situation ... much like the one the US is facing now. Its a big toss up to the politicians. they're not thinking the good of the nation .. they're thinking the good of themselves .. thier families and friends .. and thats it. those directly around them. but that doesnt work in these circumstances. treating immigrants like second class citizens is just asking for trouble.

much like the muslim faith seems to follow. isnt it true that muslims .. give others a choice ... first to convert to islam ... if they dont .. then for them to adhere to the muslim society(making them second class citizens) .. or if not that either .. then they become an enemy and must die. this is pretty much what it says right?

Posted by: Daniels Aug 22 2006, 09:15 AM



I don't know about contemporary Islam but early Islam defended the rights of minorities.

Well, I do know about some of modern Islam because Baha'is are considered non-citizens in Iran. They are not recognized by the Iranian constitution and were put to death in the 1800s and throughout the 20th century.

But early Islam had principles of protection enshrined within it. Muslims were forbidden by Muhammad to convert Christians, whereras Christians forcibly converted entire populations in Europe.

Muslims had to help rebuild Christian churches if they fell into disrepair, and a Christian wife of a Muslim man could not be prevented from going to church.

Muhammad loved the Christians. Much like Baha'u'llah, the Founder of the Baha'i Faith. His call to the Christians to recognize Him as the Return of Christ, Baha'u'llah titled, "The Most Holy Tablet".Pretty good endorsement I should think.

Posted by: Sinewy Aug 22 2006, 07:05 PM


No.

If Muslims are the ruling authority, then they should follow this principle: "La ikraha fid din" (translating into "There is no compulsion in religion"). The people under the subjugation of the Muslim rule are allowed to openly practice their religion or ideology. There is a jizyah system which is a tax levied on non-Muslims. It is thus paid to ensure their religious freedoms and absolves them from participating in the Muslim military. The Muslim state thus defends them and gives this encompassing protection for them.

None of the other 2 abrahamic faiths have devised such a state plan. In actuality, the system of religious freedom today was imitated from Muslim state courts.

Posted by: Daniels Aug 23 2006, 02:56 PM



Sinewy, in the Golden Age of Islam this was true. But sadly, today it has taken a turn for the worse.

In 1844 the Bab declared His mission as the Herald of One greater than Him. He was executed by a firing squad regiment of 750 rifles in 1850 in Tabriz, Persia (now Iran). This after being jailed, exiled, tortured and beaten by His countrymen.

Over 20,000 of His followers, the Babis, were set upon. They were butchered in the most barbaric ways imaginable.

Baha'u'llah was spared only because of His renown among notables of the capital. It was the threat of great retribution on Persia by Russia that led to Baha'u'llah being exiled rather than executed.

The early Babis became Baha'is when Baha'u'llah declared in 1863 that He was the One foretold by the Bab.

The persecution of the Baha'is continued througout the 20th century with sporadic periods of intensity puncuating a general mileau of oppression.

Ten women, the youngest just 16, were killed in Shiraz in 1983 for no crime but being practicing Baha'is.

To this day Baha'is are considered non-citizens in their own country. They are denied higher education, pensions and other ordinary civil rights.

One of 3 points of pilgrimage for the Baha'is, the House of the Bab in Shiraz, has been demolished, totally razed to the ground in the 1980s by fanatics urged on by Islamic authorities. The second point of pilgrimage, the House of Baha'u'llah in Baghdad, has been denied to the Baha'is for decades. I personally have no knowledge of this precious Spot and the condition that It is in.

Islam is the relgion of God, Sinewy. But, like Medieval Christianity, many evils have been done in its name.

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Aug 24 2006, 06:14 PM



Is this topic dead yet?

Posted by: Sanders Aug 24 2006, 07:22 PM


Sorry, been really busy.

Ka'aba rites? I've read about this before. I'm just too busy to go googling to refresh my memory. Please, someone, explain this? From what I remember, Mohammed was actually born in Mecca but fled to Medina, not far away. He and his followers, centered in Medina, formed a truce by where they could visit Mecca, to perform the Ka'aba rites, the Meccains and Mohammed's people got into flourishes, finally in a battle Mohammed and his followers kicked the Meccains' @sses, they called for a truce, then there's stuff I don't remember, the end of the story is Mohammed and his followers praying from the roof tops of the Ka'aba, which gave rise to the tradition of all Muslims facing Mecca when they pray. (Am I off my rocker? Help me out guys... fill in the blanks, correct my incomplete understanding - I am sorely ignorant of all this...)

This is relatively important I think. Get past that, and I'll take some time and dive into the crusades (woohoo!).

Posted by: Sinewy Aug 26 2006, 09:00 PM

Let me revive your thread!



Muhammad was born in Makkah. After 10 years of living in persecution, along with his followers, he emigrated to Madinah. He was welcomed by the newly indigenous converts of Madinah. They were called the Ansars (Helpers). Muhammad's followers who came from Makkah were referred to as the Muhajireen (immigrants). Both the Ansar and Muhajirs were told to form brotherly bondships with each other by Muhammad.

All the rituals performed at the Kab`ah, even before the advent of Islam, were taken from the practices of Abraham and his wife Hagar. Abraham is known to have settled there with his wife Hagar and son Ishma`el (the Adnani `Arab tribe resonates from him and is the one which Muhammad stems from). Abraham is also known in the Qur'an as Hanifan. He is known as an upright Muslim (one who submits his will to God). Therefore all the rituals that were performed by Abraham, according to Islam, are legitimate. Muhammad through traditions states that such rituals originally were from Abraham. Bear in mind that Muhammad also stated, to paraphrase, "that every innovation is in manifest error, and every error is in the hellfire." Muhammad would not perform a ritual that was polytheistic in nature or had no Abrahamic roots. This is what the statement actually states. As well, not to get polemical, but if Muhammad performed the Hajj rituals and if they were polytheistic rites and rituals originally, then this would have been disputed by the Makkan polytheistic tribes. There are no reports of this. Hence the Hajj rites were respected by polytheistic `Arabs of Makkah. These same people would cater to the notion that Abraham performed them due to their belief that Abraham built the Kab`ah, and that they descended from his son Ishma`el.



There were many battles. All were done as retaliation, either due to broken covenants with people or they wanted freedom and independency from oppressive regimes and people. Never did Muhammad and his followers initiate war. That is important to remember. The orientalists and Christian apologists love to distort history. All of their opinions have been debunked by Muslim scholars of the past, medieval, and modern history.

Now of relevance is the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. This was a truce between the Muslims and the Quraish of Makkah. Unfortunately, the Quraish broke the peace treaty by killing a tribe referred to as the Bani Khuza`a (Children of Khuza'a; They had embraced Islam). Muhammad was informed of this treacherous action of the polytheist `Arab Makkans. Therefore the military expedition began. Once, Muhammad reached Makkah, there were no skirmishes. The Quraish and other polytheists in Makkah were not assaulted. Muhammad stepped into Makkah peacefully. No war broke out. Muhammad and the Muslims became the victors. As a result, Muhammad forgave all those that oppressed him in Makkah.

Sanders, also, the Qiblah (direction of prayer) change did not take place at the conquest of Makkah. The Qiblah change from Jerusalem to the Kab`ah of Makkah came from a Qur`anic revelation to Muhammad and his followers at the Qiblatain mosque in Madinah. This was way before al Fath (Conquest of Makkah).

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Aug 28 2006, 05:01 AM

[quote=Sinewy @ Aug 26 2006, 05:00 PM[/quote]These same people would cater to the notion that Abraham performed them due to their belief that Abraham built the Kab`ah, and that they descended from his son Ishma`el.[/quote]
I really liked what you wrote, except I was not sure about this one sentence. I've read countless other reports that it was Prophet Adam (pbuh) who built the Kab`ah. Is this true, or was it Prophet Abraham (pbuh)? Or did Prophet Abraham (pbuh) rebuild it?

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Aug 31 2006, 04:23 PM




An answer would be nice.

Posted by: Daniels Sep 1 2006, 01:43 AM

I can't tell you Who actually built the Ka'aba but I can tell you something interesting about just why it is the Point of Adoration for Muslims...

"Do men think when they say 'We believe' they shall be let alone and not be put to proof?"
Qur'án 29:2

"And likewise, reflect upon the revealed verse concerning the "Qiblih." [The direction toward which the face must be turned when praying.] When Muhammad, the Sun of Prophethood, had fled from the dayspring of Batha [Mecca] unto Yathrib, [Medina] He continued to turn His face, while praying, unto Jerusalem, the holy city, until the time when the Jews began to utter unseemly words against Him -- words which if mentioned would ill befit these pages and would weary the reader. Muhammad strongly resented these words. Whilst, wrapt in meditation and wonder, He was gazing toward heaven, He heard the kindly Voice of Gabriel, saying: "We behold Thee from above, turning Thy face to heaven; but We will have Thee turn to a Qiblih [Point of Adoration] which shall please Thee." [Quran 2:144] On a subsequent day, when the Prophet, together with His companions, was offering the noontide prayer, and had already performed two of the prescribed Rik'ats, [prostrations] the Voice of Gabriel was heard again: "Turn Thou Thy face towards the sacred Mosque." [at Mecca], [Quran 2:149] In the midst of that same prayer, Muhammad suddenly turned His face away from Jerusalem and faced the Ka'bih. Whereupon, a profound dismay seized suddenly the companions of the Prophet. Their faith was shaken severely. So great was their alarm, that many of them, discontinuing their prayer, apostatized their faith. Verily, God caused not this turmoil but to test and prove His servants. Otherwise, He, the ideal King, could easily have left the Qiblih unchanged, and could have caused Jerusalem to remain the Point of Adoration unto His Dispensation, thereby withholding not from that holy city the distinction of acceptance which had been conferred upon it."


Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan [The Book of Certitude], p. 49

Posted by: JerryB9105 Sep 1 2006, 06:30 PM

The religious message comes at the end of this video -- wait for it:
(Video - United We Stand - 2 min:27 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3xqx8PR_TI...ror%20political

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Sep 1 2006, 06:16 PM


bump

Posted by: Sanders Sep 1 2006, 07:08 PM

Since you bumped...

The first Crusade

A quick note about the mentality of people in Europe in the late 11th century. The church was a huge part of people's lives. The center of any hamlet was the church. Every facet of life was moderated by the Church. (Even sex - it was banned on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, Sundays and religious holidays, if you can believe it.) Life was dreary, life after death was the focus. Monesteric orders were gaining converts. Nobles spent their money building churches and monestaries to atone for their sins, the trade in religious relics boomed - to touch something that a saint or a disciple had touched, or better yet to get your hands on some bones of one of them brought a person closer to God. (An "Iconoclastic movement" , which tried to do away with paganistic icon worship (images of Christ or saints) was started by the Byzantine Emperor Leo the Isaurian, but it ended in the ninth century when a new momevent forwarded the idea that the contemplation of icons would actually help people assend from the material to the immaterial... and the icon craze was on for good). This period is known as the "High Middle Ages", and the center of it's culture was the Catholic Church.

That was the state of Europe when the Seljuk Turks invaded and conquered Anatolia, the eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire (modern Turkey).

So Pope Urban II called on the Franks and Goths to stop fighting each other and take up arms and march into Byzantium and wrest Anatolia from the "infidels"... And while they were at it that they should try and take Jeruselem as well.

It's been estimated that somewhere around 150,000 people answered the call - and that was a lot of people back then. The princess of Constantinople, Anna Comnena, remarked that it was as if "the whole West...was bursting forth into Asia in a solid mass, with all its belongings."


P.S. @Jerry - that Mathew guy was pretty smart

Posted by: Sanders Sep 1 2006, 07:55 PM


My August was crazy, but things have calmed down, I thought I'd push on to the Crusades already. If anyone wants to fill in anything from before that of course go right ahead - I'm actually curious as to who the Seljuk Turks were...

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Sep 2 2006, 03:39 AM



Sorry, no clue.

Posted by: Sinewy Sep 2 2006, 05:00 AM


The Hajar al Aswad (Black stone) is embedded in the lower corner of the Kab`ah and its relevancy was that it fell during the Adam and Eve's time. The Kab`ah was originally built by Adam, then later on rebuilt by Abraham and Ishmael, then during Muhammad's time it was refined even more (absolvement of idols was one part).

Posted by: Sanders Sep 2 2006, 05:06 AM



That helps alot !

Thanks