Print Page | Close Window

Worst mistake in the islamic history?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Post-Classical Middle East
Forum Discription: SW Asia, the Middle East and Islamic civilizations from 600s - 1900 AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4198
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 10:07
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Worst mistake in the islamic history?
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Subject: Worst mistake in the islamic history?
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 09:37
What do you think?a  mistake that had not been made,the fate of islamic societies could have been much different in many ways.

-------------
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!




Replies:
Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 14:15

The battle of Ankara 1402.

The Muslim Tamerlane's Army and Muslim Ottomans fought for nothing.

If this battle wouldnt have happened,Ottomans would have captured Constantinople almost 50 years earlier and Tamerlane would have invaded China.



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


Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 08:08
Simply the best.

-------------
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."

Albert Einstein


Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 12:21
Originally posted by Jagatai Khan

The battle of Ankara 1402.

The Muslim Tamerlane's Army and Muslim Ottomans fought for nothing.

If this battle wouldnt have happened,Ottomans would have captured Constantinople almost 50 years earlier and Tamerlane would have invaded China.

Jagatai, no need to add words... Its the simplest answer.

This is the worst mistake in all our Turkish History also...



Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2005 at 15:11
ruled of Muaawia  bin bi sufian the father of all muslim terrorits he was one of the badest thing in islam

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2005 at 18:24

 

well that wouldn't hve happened if alkhawarj ( the first shias) who came from egypt assasinated Caliph Uthman.

 

 



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


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2005 at 23:09

The worst mistake of Islam?

To rely on the incorporation of church and state, and to not secularize before the west.



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2005 at 12:49

azimuth they are not first shia and khwarij if you know khwarij appered after seffin and what is your problem with shia

dont forget uthman put a men from his family  in ranks they did not deseve it he was not a leader he was  ring in his family hand like Marwan bin alhakam ,ibn abi sarh,almughera bin shubaa he desroyed islam by his hand and made struglles inside our great religion

dont make me laugh by your post above firs shia it is fake 



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2005 at 12:52
if you consider he ruled after uthman death you are wrong he became a fake caliph after ALI BIN ABI TALIB (pbuh) death

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2005 at 18:15

The betrayel of Arabs against Ottoman Empire.

 



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


Posted By: erci
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2005 at 18:42
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

The betrayel of Arabs against Ottoman Empire.

 



I second that


Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2005 at 08:29

I thought again and I saw that the biggest fault of Muslims were not to realize the technological and wealthy developments in Europe after Renaissance and New World Discoveries.

The second one should be the Battle of Ankara.

The betrayel of Arabs in WWI was a great shame for them,but Ottomans would surely have been defeated in WWI even with the support of Arabs



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


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 01:43
The increasingly theocratic evolution of much of Islamic society as it progressed into the late middle ages. As ultra-conservatives who were promoted purely on the basis of their enormous Koranic memory took power they often repressed many secular areas of life. The once vibrant intellectual world of Islam saw itself repressed by its own elite officials, while the West underwent an intellectual transformation.

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


Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 23:22

Worst enemy of Muslims are Themselves

Their biggest mistakes were their own fault.

Ofcourse all Muslims are tought that if a Muslim and a Muslim are out to kill one another, both will go to hell.  (Because even the one who survived would have surely killed the other if he had the chance).

Theres a collective problem throughout the Islamic world.

Eastern Europeans (Muslim or otherwise) have a problem with Turks, Arabs have a problem with Turks,  Turks have a problem with Persians, Persians have a problem with Afghans, Afghans have a problem with Pakistanis, Pakistanis have problems with Indians.  Same goes in the CAR's, Uzbekistan hates Tajikistan, Tajikistan hates Qyrghizstan, etc.  All these nations have had problems with each other, and within their own societies.  Muslims have killed Muslims for as long as their has been Islam because the societies have been corrupted by greed, power, and ignorance.

From the time the imperialist nations knew there was a divide they could manipulate, they took full advantage of it.  Lots of despotic rulers in the Middle East are there today because of indirect or direct intervention by foreign powers.  Its the Muslim country's own fault, they put their own personal interests ahead of their own constituents.  Their hatred consumed them and thats what we have today.  An Islamic world that isn't based on Islam, but ethnocentrism, despotism, nepotism, and corruption.

The Islamic World (or lack there of) is ripe for the picking.

 



-------------
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 05:24
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

azimuth they are not first shia and khwarij if you know khwarij appered after seffin and what is your problem with shia

dont forget uthman put a men from his family  in ranks they did not deseve it he was not a leader he was  ring in his family hand like Marwan bin alhakam ,ibn abi sarh,almughera bin shubaa he desroyed islam by his hand and made struglles inside our great religion

dont make me laugh by your post above firs shia it is fake 

well then what do you call the people who came from egypt and assisnated the Caliph?

and he did put some of his relatives in high positions and he can do that coz he is the Caliph.

also that does not justify his assisnation does it?

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

if you consider he ruled after uthman death you are wrong he became a fake caliph after ALI BIN ABI TALIB (pbuh) death

i didnt say that, he was governer of Syria and didnt accep Ali Bin AbiTalb and then made himself Caliph.

also it really depend on what you mean by fak caliph, you may mean that he is not suppose to be caliph,  but the fact that he was and he is known as the founder of the Umayyad Caliphate.

Originally posted by Oguzoglu

The betrayel of Arabs against Ottoman Empire.

oh Oguzoglu

its alway about Turkey and the Worst mistak in Islamic History would be off course about Arabs "Betrayel" and Ottoman fight with Timur.

it was more like independence than Betrayel since Ottoman at that stage didnt act like muslims and treated people like humans.

so if you love to talk about this alot you and some others of the Turkish forumer , do it somewhere else not in a subject talking about Islamic mistakes, it is better to be in Turkish mistakes since it had nothing to do with islam.

Originally posted by Constantine XI

The increasingly theocratic evolution of much of Islamic society as it progressed into the late middle ages. As ultra-conservatives who were promoted purely on the basis of their enormous Koranic memory took power they often repressed many secular areas of life. The once vibrant intellectual world of Islam saw itself repressed by its own elite officials, while the West underwent an intellectual transformation.

if you dont mind

give us some examples

 



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


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 09:44
Worst mistake in Islamic history is ignorance. We could blame the past like a bunch of sissy's or realize that ignorance continues to this day. Enlightenment comes from stable relationships, economy and the ability to educate oneself.

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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 10:45

so if you love to talk about this alot you and some others of the Turkish forumer , do it somewhere else not in a subject talking about Islamic mistakes, it is better to be in Turkish mistakes since it had nothing to do with islam.

Sorry Azimuth, I did a mistake. I should have said the betrayel of some Arabs, not all (so no national generalizations) against Ottoman authority. That mistake had nothing to do with Islam, I second that, but it was a mistake in Islamic world, so I have choosen that one. It is for northern and western Arabs, not the whole Arab nation.

I dont like repeating the same things too. But the question of the topic is about that, what could I do? I think you understand my concerns.



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


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 12:55

OK Azimuth but in your opinion you said he was a caliph and this his right but that is false he must choose the best for people islam said that if you dont mind brother.

About the fake caliph i want to know your opinion about him nd what is his idea when he fought his imam and the prince of the faithfulls.

notice yes i belive  he   he is not suppose to be caliph i guess you share me in the last idea.



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 19:42
Originally posted by azimuth

Originally posted by Constantine XI

The increasingly theocratic evolution of much of Islamic society as it progressed into the late middle ages. As ultra-conservatives who were promoted purely on the basis of their enormous Koranic memory took power they often repressed many secular areas of life. The once vibrant intellectual world of Islam saw itself repressed by its own elite officials, while the West underwent an intellectual transformation.

if you dont mind

give us some examples

 

Certainly sir, I have a good academic article at home I found very interesting on this topic. Shall post its theory when I am back at my place.



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


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 22:33
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

OK Azimuth but in your opinion you said he was a caliph and this his right but that is false he must choose the best for people islam said that if you dont mind brother.

About the fake caliph i want to know your opinion about him nd what is his idea when he fought his imam and the prince of the faithfulls.

notice yes i belive  he   he is not suppose to be caliph i guess you share me in the last idea.

well he "Muawyah" became Caliph and that is Fact wheather you accept it or not. so he was Caliph.

but anyway as far as i know Shiiti has different opinions about this so they have different set of Caliphs who didnt in Fact became Caliphs.

anyway what do i think about Muwayah fighting with Ali, i didnt do much reading about this  but as far as i know Muaweyah didnt want to accepet Ali as a Caliph if Ali didnt give him the people who assasinated Caliph Uthman.

since Muaweyah was a governor of syria he had an Authority over there and didnt join Caliph Ali. which made Caliph Ali as a Caliphate over Arabia and Iraq only i think.

i think it all went wrong and the name Caliph is not really represent what it actully meant at the begining.

 



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


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 06:58
Originally posted by azimuth

[QUOTE=Ahmed The Fighter]

 

i think it all went wrong and the name Caliph is not really represent what it actully meant at the begining.

 

what you mean by it all went wrong explain.

you must explin whose right nd whose wrong nd you didn't anwer me about Uthman family and thier ranks in islamic socity how they trered people



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 04:34
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

[

what you mean by it all went wrong explain.

you must explin whose right nd whose wrong nd you didn't anwer me about Uthman family and thier ranks in islamic socity how they trered people

well i meant by "all went wrong" that many misunderstandings happened at that time, Ali didnt want to get those khawarj angry coz they were powerfull and Muaweyah wanted those murderers otherwise he wont accept Ali as the Next Caliph after Uthman.

then there was an attempt from those Khawarj to assasinate both Ali and Muaweyah, muaweyah survived but Ali was injured and died from the injery.

so as you can see all Went wrong from misunderstanding and the Truth is that Umayyad should not have taken the rule and changed the Caliphat to a Kingdom like government you know father dies his son or one of his relatives rule next.

and about Uthman Familly, you didnt ask any Questions about them did you?

why you ask that? 

are you saying that Caliph Uthman's assasination was the right thing to do?

i think your answer would be yes otherwise you wont be Shiie



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


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 04:35
Originally posted by Constantine XI

Certainly sir, I have a good academic article at home I found very interesting on this topic. Shall post its theory when I am back at my place.

still not back at your place?

 



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


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 13:54

No i didn't say it  was the right thing to do but we must face the truth Uthmn made a lot of mitake in his rule taht is fact.

 i think you know about it .

you must know the real intention of Muaawya he want the throne all muslim know that but he took Uthman shirt as a reason as we all knowed

and Ali was the right caliph at that time but Muaawya did not see the truth because he had a dream to establish Umayyad dynasty(kingdom).

 



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 05:02
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

you must know the real intention of Muaawya he want the throne all muslim know that but he took Uthman shirt as a reason as we all knowed

and Ali was the right caliph at that time but Muaawya did not see the truth because he had a dream to establish Umayyad dynasty(kingdom).

well Muaawya wouldn't have done that if Caliph Uthaman was not murdered.

so the reasons for the Umayyad to rise is mostly the Murder of the 3rd Caliph.

and yes Ali is the right Caliph. but the difference is that we consider him as the Fourth Caliph after Abu Baker and Omar and Uthman.

those we call "Al Khulafa Al Rashedeen"



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


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 01:27
Fine that is good the topics end here my friend nice to talk with you Azimuth

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 03:03

 

nice talking to you too

 

 



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


Posted By: Cengiz Kagan
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 20:57
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

The betrayel of Arabs against Ottoman Empire.

 



1000% TRUE.

Betrayel is in their nature. They can't help it


-------------
TANRI TURKU KORUSUN


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 03:18
Originally posted by Cengiz Kagan

Originally posted by Oguzoglu

The betrayel of Arabs against Ottoman Empire.

 



1000% TRUE.

Betrayel is in their nature. They can't help it

OMG

you are the 2nd Hulaguhan of this forum

just try to post something different at each thread, but it seems that you dont have much to add

 

 



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


Posted By: Arabian Falcon
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 06:54
Originally posted by azimuth

well that wouldn't hve happened if alkhawarj ( the first shias) who came from egypt assasinated Caliph Uthman.

Totally agree with you ..

On the other hand, I think that the worst mistake in Islamic History was when the muslims crossed Gibraltar and conquered Andalusia without thinking about its harsh stratigic position their (The Catholic kingdoms from North and the Muslims Back was only the sea) ...



Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2005 at 21:00

Well I got home only to discover I could not find that book of articles. I honestly thought I had retained it, but I must have thrown it out with the end of 2004. Basically the article, written by a Syrian academic, explores the rise of Islam as secular ideas and the spread of knowledge is encouraged after the early conquests. This is also coupled with the usage of paper, compared to Europe which is still stuck with using parchment and papyrus. The author explores political and military developments in the Islamic world, including the Crusades, and notes how the states in control increasingly became insular and extended state control over many areas of learning. The restrictions imposed by the often warlike Islamic governments (e.g. Mamluke Egypt, Gazi leaders in Anatolia), who often sought to unite their followers via a militaristic Islamic message to combat the militaristic Christian foe, led to a neglect of many areas of secular learning.

Anyway my apologies on not having that article, it expressed my point quite well.



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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Jul-2005 at 16:50

well that wouldn't hve happened if alkhawarj ( the first shias) who came from egypt assasinated Caliph Uthman.

 

 

I Totally Agree!!!!!!



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


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 01:28

They were not first shia.

you wrong wahabi man



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Tughrul_Beg
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 02:12
TURKS , invading  albania  

-------------
Albans are the poo-poo of the mountains , their only positive thing is labour force, grand vizier and master of ibn fadl of turkish court , IBN ERTUGHRUL / NICLOS PAPPAS


Posted By: Murtaza
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 07:27

Uh

First Turks attacked albania

Second Albanians attacked Turks

They have more ruler (except Patisah) than Turks



Posted By: Peace
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2005 at 14:48
I think that the worst mistake was in the battle of Vienna were muslims under the leadership of Grand Visier Ibrahim Pasha went to conquer Vienna (without the permission of the sultan who didn't want to let Europe unite against the ottoman empire which was the only muslim country in the world), but due to betrayal of Murad Pasha and Ibrahim Pasha (who deserted with his whole part of the army (al-maymana) ) mulims were defeated, after which europeans restored thier self-confidence and they got the feeling that the ottoman empire can be defeated, and ever since the muslims kept on pulling back and lost their abilty of dynamically moving in Europe, which led to the catastrophic eventual fall of ottoman empire. 


Posted By: Al Bedawi
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2005 at 21:13
The shia revolved from


The original shia

Then there was a break where the Khawarji assinated ali

they then Broke into the shia and the khawarji and then later the

Imamite 12 (jafaari) Alawi 3 (not to be confused with alevi of turk) and Ismaili (aga khanis 5)  Khawarji are originaly shia


-------------
An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep.


Posted By: Al Bedawi
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2005 at 21:15
allowing the Turks into Islam.

It becomes corrupted, with sufi ideas and a corrupt beauracracy


-------------
An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep.


Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2005 at 21:46

Well it was Turks who forced you to allow Turks into Islam.

Bedawi, check my new thread.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4735&PN=1&TPN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4735& ;PN=1&TPN=1

I am sure you' ll like it.



Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 02:23
Bedwi your are wong Alkhawarij weren't the first shia.

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Moustafa Pasha
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 21:08

Caliph Osman Ibn Affan was killed by mutineers in 656 AD and a strugle for the succssession ensued between Ali Ibn Abu Talib the cousin and son in-law of Prohet Mohamed,peace be upon him and Muawiya Ibn Abu Suffian Governor Of Damascus.In the meantime Caliph Ali Was eleced In Mecca.

In 658 Caliph Ali's forces met Muawiya's and after a short fight Muawiya suggested arbitration to choose who will be Caliph.

Most of Ali's army agreed to arbitration while others in his army regarded this as a betrayal and a group of 12000 men repudiated his cause leaving both sides to fight it out.They became known as Khawarij.

Caliph Ali was assassinated in his new Capital Kufain 661 by a Kharijite zealot.That was the start of the Shia branch of Islam,who venerate him a second only to the prophet.

After Ali's death Muawiya subdued Iraq and then formally established himself as caliph and,transferred the capital of the Moslem Empire at Dmascus.

Muawiya made the mistake of emulating Byzantine hereditary royal tradition and annouced that his son will be the next caliph.

I consider this as the biggest mistake of Islam, which started by electing democratically its Leaders and ended by having a heditary system of leadership wich was copied from a corrupt Byzantine State.

 



Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 06:21
The worst Mistake is Salman Al Farsi, Father of Islam.


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 07:11

Maybe It is you worst  mistake of Islam,  created by your  family.

 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 16:42

allowing the Turks into Islam.

No, maybe allowing your kind of Arabs exist. We had to power to erase them from the face of earth you know.

The worst mistake in Islam is later Ottomans trying to get rid of all Alevis and being enemies with its Turkmen population. But whatever, I love Ottoman Empire...



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


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 16:48

Oguzoglu

well they are supporting Shah of Iran. or I am wrong?

 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 17:19
Well, considering that the builders of the Safavid Empire were these exiled Alevis, yes, they were supporting themselves against Ottoman authority.

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


Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 14:01
Salman al Farsi was a traitor, he created Islam for his own revenge against zoroastrism . Islam has the same bases of zoroastrism: adam and eve, after life, paradise/evil...


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 22:03

Originally posted by magavan

Salman al Farsi was a traitor, he created Islam for his own revenge against zoroastrism . Islam has the same bases of zoroastrism: adam and eve, after life, paradise/evil...

oh magavan

you are desperate  about this 

anyway if you remember you've been warned before and admin and other mods are not seeing any improvements in your posts so just becarefull

about salam alfarisi , you keep puting this subject in most of the threads i dont know is it because you dont know much or you want a discussion about it?!

i dont know what this has to do with islamic mistakes and what it has to do with king fahd? !!

since iam bord and have some spare time i will offer you a deal,  you open a new thread and call it something like  "salman alfarisi father of islam" and put your argument there and i will discuss it with you just for fun, and please keep up with forum policy and dont start accusing people of being ignorant without any proofs of that.so far many has prooved that you are ignorat, but well if you care about posting in this forum avoid insulting others.

and this is a site which you may get help from since its your dream site

http://www.geocities.com/no_islam2000/ - http://www.geocities.com/no_islam2000/

and if you want to make other posts about Taj Mahal was a Hindo Temple and was converted by shahjahan feel free with new thread and not breaching forum rules.

so do we have a deal magavan khatoon?

 

 



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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 07:59

I dont think he would make positive comments about Shah Jehan, maybe because he was a Turk...

Anyway, all religions have these same elements, so calling all of them thecreation of the holy Zoroastrian race would be just funny. We had the Egyptian religion, and the earlier Mesopotamian religions with the same beliefs and symbolisms long before Zoroastrianism.



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


Posted By: derjagger
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 08:54
uh as far as i understand we have no hope,some of us trying to continue old religon fights, some of us are annoncing a nation as a traitor, We are really idiot.
For me Worst Mistakes:
1)Closing the door of Ýslamic ictihadt by Ýmam-ý Gazali
2)Seyh-ul Ýslams fetva Ýn 1536 Ýn Ottoman
about finishing experiments and observation in science
3)Rebellion of 1917
Unfortunately it caused founding of Ýsrael and maybe itt will crush Ýslamic nations and will be our end


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 10:13
Originally posted by Arabian Falcon

I think that the worst mistake in Islamic History was when the muslims crossed Gibraltar and conquered Andalusia without thinking about its harsh stratigic position their (The Catholic kingdoms from North and the Muslims Back was only the sea) ...


I don't fully agree. I believe that if Muslims would have stopped around the Pyrenees (which are impassable but at the extremes) and signed alliance with Basques, we would have glandly helped to defend their northern border in exchange of protection against the Franks and the last remnants of the Goths... but they thought that they had the divine right to conquer everything... and obviously it didn't work.

Still, the Caliphate of Cordoba was very solid until it simply disintegrated in 1031. The new fanatics that came from Africa later (Almoravids and Almohads) didn't have any chance.



Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 15:06
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

Anyway, all religions have these same elements, so calling all of them thecreation of the holy Zoroastrian race would be just funny. We had the Egyptian religion, and the earlier Mesopotamian religions with the same beliefs and symbolisms long before Zoroastrianism.

 

I am glad you know so much about this

I give you a few example of fundamental concepts that are similar between Zoroatranism and Islam:


Monotheistic creator

Devil or the evil sprit

Heaven and Hell

Judgment day with detailed level of process on how the people are judged with angeles holding scales

Angels

People going in circle around “house of god”

Some unique elements like the bridge that connects heaven and hell and changes in size depending on the faith of the person

Praying to god 5 times a day

having Friday as the sabbath

etc ..........................


 

Now can you give us some examples of ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamian core beliefs that are similar to Islam

 

 



Posted By: Al Bedawi
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 16:05
Miller I dont think anyone has informed you but.

Islam was not created by Muhammed, Nor was it revealed by an Angel to Muhammed.

Islam began with Adam.

Submission to the One God 


If Islam is simmilar to Zoastrianism, Then that is because  we Muslims are told that to every people we sent a messenger and to every people clear signs.

The Egyptians chose to worship stones and then the sun and then their kings as his sons.


Babylonians (sumerians) were the earliest people to record their faith in their Enumma Elish, and in the place of Gods they began to diefy Planetary bodies, they then created a creation epic

the Zoeastrians had a God of Both Light , and One of Dark this is not monotheism, they did elaborate cleansing rituals, to include bowing towards firey altars.


Now in reference to Zoastrian links to earlier religion.

From the babylonian/sumerian creation epic the enuma elish.

a battle in heaven between the ancient gods and the old gods.

(from the bible a battle in heaven between Lucifer and St Micheal)

(the enuma elish talks about a great flood

Primitive man
apsu and adam
towers built high

(tower of babel)


-------------
An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep.


Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 16:45

Originally posted by Al Bedawi

Miller I dont think anyone has informed you but.

Islam was not created by Muhammed, Nor was it revealed by an Angel to Muhammed.

Islam began with Adam.

Submission to the One God


If Islam is simmilar to Zoastrianism, Then that is because we Muslims are told that to every people we sent a messenger and to every people clear signs.


I think you got me wrong. I just said that there are detailed level and conceptual similarities that cannot be purely coincidental. I didn't mention anything about what the cause of these common elements were or if that means discrediting divinely of Islam. I have not found the answer yet but it seems you have found yours





Originally posted by Al Bedawi


the Zoeastrians had a God of Both Light , and One of Dark this is not monotheism, they did elaborate cleansing rituals, to include bowing towards firey altars.


That is myth mainly created by religious fundamentalist that get nervous each time this subject comes up. The the concept of God and Devil in Zrorastrnism is very similar to Islam/Christianity in detailed level. The only difference is that god is not the creator of evil, but god still is the supreme creator


Originally posted by Al Bedawi

The Egyptians chose to worship stones and then the sun and then their kings as his sons.


Yes, there is a big contrast isn't there

Originally posted by Al Bedawi


From the babylonian/sumerian creation epic the enuma elish.

a battle in heaven between the ancient gods and the old gods.


This exactly in contrast to Islam and Christianity with the concepts of multiple gods and heaven in yor statement is not the same as heaven in Islam and Christianity it referes to sky were gods lived



Originally posted by Al Bedawi

Primitive man
apsu and adam
towers built high


what is unique here?





Posted By: Al Bedawi
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 22:43
not really as Eloha (God) and Elohim (sons of God a Plural for God) are the hebrew words used.

Zoastrianism Like all Non Islamic Faiths was corrupted by man.

the Root of Zoastrianism is Islam which was submission to the One True God

Much later man changed it , It is only Todays Islam with an Infalible book which is pure.


and please dont say such things as youve found your anwser what about mine, Im a native english speaker, I cant make this any simpler for you.


-------------
An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep.


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2005 at 23:30

 

guys this thread is about Islamic mistaks not about Zoroatranism and its relation to Islam.

if you are intrested enough open a new thread about it and i'll be happy to join.

 



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


Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2005 at 00:18
 

OK , I won't continue the discussion


Oguzoglu made an statement, but it seems that he could not substantiate what he said and had to run away anyhow...

 



Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2005 at 07:01

 

well you can continue on a new thread  if you want

but anyway i may dig up an old thread and start this again and i think you will be there as usual

 



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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2005 at 09:05

Oguzoglu made an statement, but it seems that he could not substantiate what he said and had to run away anyhow...

Dont worry buddy, I am getting ready to open a topic about that...



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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 09:20
Turkey betrayed  the Armenian Nation !!


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 09:36
well we think It otherway, but this is between you(Armenians) and (turks)us.It  has no relation with Islam. 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 09:53
Mortaza, dont...

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


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2005 at 09:56


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 23:16
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

They were not first shia.

you wrong wahabi man

I understand some of you might carry deep inside them some feeling of guilts and betrayel of 1400 years ago, but please show some respect and stop calling others by disrespectful names. If he said they were the first shia, can you prove the opposite or just set down and type an insult?



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 03:44
Originally posted by çok geç

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

They were not first shia.

you wrong wahabi man

I understand some of you might carry deep inside them some feeling of guilts and betrayel of 1400 years ago, but please show some respect and stop calling others by disrespectful names. If he said they were the first shia, can you prove the opposite or just set down and type an insult?

Ok,But as all muslims knows the Khwarij were not the first Shia what is the relation between Khwarij and Shia they are totaly different,Khwarijs were against Imam Ali(PBUH) and Shia are his companion,followers and supporterthen he must check before he talked about event he didn't know about it,About the deep feeling it is honor to us,All inlegal Goverment tried to destroy us but we survived by the power of God,In addition he is Wahhabi because that is his name if you consider it unrespectful name I don't.

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 05:19

Well, I grew knowing that Im hanbali, a sunni school of thought you know. To call someone Wahabi is not better than calling a Muslim Muhammedian. Muslim never worship Muhammed Peace Be Upon Him, and no Saudi worship Muhammed bin Abdul Wahab. I don't know why people are called by names others than what they chose to be called by?

P.S: I checked his profile too, his name is not Wahabi. Do you have your glasses nearby?



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 05:55

 I called him Wahhab because he is it is clear I concluded that from his mind.

Don't compare between the great prophet(Pbuh) with bin abid alwahab .

 



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 06:11
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

 I called him Wahhab because he is it is clear I concluded that from his mind.

Don't compare between the great prophet(Pbuh) with bin abid alwahab .

Don't Assume next time. I otherwise, we have a forum of assumptions then. How about if I assumed you are of Failaqh Bader the fanatics because of your mind.  See? Assuming shall be kept personally inside.

Who said I compared between the Prophet PBUH and Ibn Abdul Wahab? All what I compared was the process of naming due to the lack of intellegence and cohesive understading of the true nature of things. Again and follow me this time:

Mohammedian> named for Muslims (Wrong Name, no one worship the prophet)

Wahabis> Named for Saudis (Wrong Name, no one worship Ibn Abudl Wahab).

   Understand now? Let us end it here...thank you



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 08:13

Originally posted by Al Bedawi

not really as Eloha (God) and Elohim (sons of God a Plural for God) are the hebrew words used.

Zoastrianism Like all Non Islamic Faiths was corrupted by man.

the Root of Zoastrianism is Islam which was submission to the One True God

Much later man changed it , It is only Todays Islam with an Infalible book which is pure.


and please dont say such things as youve found your anwser what about mine, Im a native english speaker, I cant make this any simpler for you.

How can the Qur'an at the same time promote equality but then tell you how your slave should be treated?

The Qur'an, I am sorry to say is just a tool of Arab imperialism, and how can Zaroastrianism possibly be based on the Qur'An? it was conceived at least 1500 years before Muhammad was even born!!!



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


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 09:38

Ok brother but  I have nothing with you but he started it,otherwise you are Hanbli but what about other whom proud about Bin Abid Alwahab as a REFORMER OF RELIGION.

My behaivour is not fanatics and the Wahhabi is not a name for all Saudis people.

Saudi people are good people as all Iraqis know unless wahhabies.



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 13:42
Originally posted by Zagros

How can the Qur'an at the same time promote equality but then tell you how your slave should be treated?

The Qur'an, I am sorry to say is just a tool of Arab imperialism, and how can Zaroastrianism possibly be based on the Qur'An? it was conceived at least 1500 years before Muhammad was even born!!!

Well Zagros two points:

1- Slavery existed before Quran and so it is natural to see verses that instruct you how to treat them. You should concentrate more on also other verses that encourages & sometimes obligate you to free them for many reasons. No other religion obligated you to do so. If you swear with lie intentionally, if you break your fast in Ramadan...etc your first repentance is to free a slave if you have. As Quran gives you tons of reasons to free slaves, it also limits slavery. You cannot, if you truly follow the verse, conquest a city and take their people slaves. There is only a room for War slavery and 15 other rooms for freeing slavery.

2- If C has similarities with B, and B came from A, you can say eitehr that C came from B, or both C & B came from the same source which is A. Understand? Islam similarities to Judaism & Christianity and even Zaroastrianism does not mean necessary it coppied them. We Muslims believe that many prophets came before Islam and so, they will instruct teachings similar to each others because their source is one, God. Was Islam an Arab tool for Imperialism? As far I remember, Arab didn't force anyone to be Musilm in Persia and in fact, trom the 16th to 18th century Zoroastrians like Jews and Christians suffered greatly at the hands of Safavid rulers and Abbas shah the great who transformed Iran from multi-religious and sects to shism. 

Originally posted by Ahmed the fighter

but what about other whom proud about Bin Abid Alwahab as a REFORMER OF RELIGION.

Well, I love so much Iraq, the land of civilization and diversity. However, assuming you like Ibn Abdul Wahab as a reformer why should you be called Wahabi? If you like El Sestani can I call you Sestanian? No of course, that is wrong.



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 02:30

 Cok don't mix the answers,I didn't call them wahhabies they called themselfs.

 



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 04:15

 

well the name Wahhabies is not an insult,

and Ibn Abd Alwahab is considered a Reformer, note that Reformer here doesn't mean that he invented new system or anything, he just called for muslims to return to the Quran and Prophet's Hadiths as the main sources of the religion,

and there are only 4 sectors in Sunni branch of Islam they are Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi and Shafei there are no Wahhabies.

What is Called Wahhabi is actully Hanbali from Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanibal teachings , and one of most of important Scholars of Hanbali sector is Shiekh al islam  Ibn Taymeyah. Ibn Abd Alwahab is juat a follower of this Sector and called a reformer because this branch of islam was abandoned by the Ottomans and Ibn Abd Alwahab just brought it back in control.

 

by the way many Arabs calls Shea "Rawafedh" and "Rafedhi" which means roughly the one who reject or refuse.

 

 

 



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


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 06:19
Ahmed, no one here calls himself Wahabi. I only heard that term travelling abroad. But anyhow, to get back to the topic, yeah unity is important . What was the topic again?

-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 06:54

OK,I respect all branch of islam,but I consider Ibn Taymyah and Abd alwahab one of the worst thing happened to islam,this worst things came from these men.

As you said unity is important but how and by which rules. 



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 12:21

Well, that is your opinion. But just to let you know Ibn Taymyah was not only a scholar setting his ass and giving fatwas left and right. He was a scholar, a man of wisdom, and a warrior who fought in various battles the Mongols after invading Syria. Just that reason is enough to respect him at least.

Regarding Ibn Abdul Wahab. He just called for directing worships to God directly without the need of Mullahs, trees, stones, crying and begging dead people. So, he called for fundamental reform. He is not the one who called for woman not to drive, for Cinemas not to be built and ...etc.

Those all came as a wrong interpretation of his book. He was only concerned that you go today, set and pray to your god without looking for an intermediate connector. Isn't this the basic core of Islam already?

About unity, I got confused about the original topic here..there is another thread of this topic



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 15:23

Ibn Taymyah was not a peace man he is the godfather of all extremer religion and terrorists ,Ibn abd Alwhab as he said obey your boss but he is the first who revolted against Ottoman empire in the arabia.

His stupid opinion about other branches of islam open the door to everyone to be MUFTI and give Fatwa.

Who one need the trees to be a way to the great God you outage your point here.

If he REFORMER where is his conclusion and fruitfull results.



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 16:19

Who needs trees for blessings? Ask the guys of Sidr tree in Asir? they existed buddy. Im glad Ibn Abdul Wahab existed reviving the hanbli school of thought too. If you don't like him, I understand that, no need to distribute insults.

Now Ibn Taymiyah is the godfather of all exterimist & terrorist? Can you show that to us?

Finally, Ibn Abdul Wahab again fought Ottomans. So? The man died before the war with Ottomans. His ally Saud got in conflict with Mehmet Ali Pasha of Egypt after cupturing Mecca in 1807 AD, and a war of 7 years errupted. 

His achievement were only to explain to people wrong & wright and to open the door again for all people to interpret and do Ijtihad. You should not be concerned that "everybody gives fatwa", but you should be concern who gives fatwa. If I did, what are my credentials? that is better than closing the door of various interpretation and sticking to one Imam, or Mullah, or whatever his name will be.

Maybe I can tell you a little bit about exterimism. Extremism is when you massacre and force 4 million Zoroastrians to convert to Shia by Abbas Shah of Safavid. While the Ottomans conquesting Europe and under seiging Vienna, our beloved Safavids decided to attack the Ottomans from their back, causing the withdraw of troops from Vienna seige. More? fanaticism is when you think you get revelation from God and you are his representative on earth. Yes, in Saudi we have Imams who give authoritative fatwas but government ignores them sometimes, conflict with them, and every person recognize the seperation of religion and state here. I can tell him you are wrong mr. Imam for that reason, and that reason. That is unfortunately does not exist in the theology of most shiites. No wonder over one million people died in the Iraq-Iran war, not only because of Saddam stupidity to attack Iran, but also the Ayatuallah fanatic vision that he is directed by god and refusing Iraq truce and peace talk in 1982 to end the war with one statement "I don't stop till we reach Baghad", That is FANATICISM. Thank you

Let us close this subject as we go back & forth. Im happy if you want to open a new thread for that topic, but I don't know where it should fit as a category.

 



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2005 at 07:11

As you sad this is policy don't connect it with religion.And I ask you who attacked Najaf and Kerblaa and burned the cities these cities in that time under Ottoman control,The Ottoman were not angles to defended thhem like that in seliem I the grim reign he gathered all shia in his empire and killed them  Abd alwahb and his hate aganst shia and his followers from saudi family and ealse,dont give him more than his mnority size.

About Ibn Taymyah THIS IS FROM SUNNI SOURCES :

We are putting this treatise in the hands of the reader to clarify the case of Ibn Taymiyah to whoever does not know about it and to refute some of his numerous sayings in which he deviated from the belief and Ijma^ [The ^Ijma^, one source of Islamic teachings

Ibn Taymiyah's Deviations from the Muslims

Know that, although Ibn Taymiyah had many writings and a fame, he is as the Muhaddith, Hafiz, Faqih, Waliyy-ud-Din al-^Iraqiyy, the son of the Shaykh of Huffaz, Zayn-ud-Din al-^Iraqiyy, in his book "al-'Ajwibat-ul-Mardiyyah" said about him: His knowledge is bigger than his mind.  He also said: He infringed the Ijma^ in many issues, which was said to be sixty issues, some of which are in the Usul and others in the Furu^ [Al-'Usul is ^Ilm-ut-Tawhid, the Science of the belief in Allah and His Messenger. Al-Furu^ deals with the Islamic matters other than those of belief (Usul), such as Salah, Siyam, and dealings.] After the Ijma^ has settled upon those issues, he violated it. Some lay people and others followed him in this violation.  The scholars of his time hastened to refute him and charged him of bringing bid^ah [Bid^ah is innovation; something which is new some of which are Islamically acceptable and others are rejected. Here it refers to the prohibited innovation.]  Among those was Imam, Hafiz, Taqiyy-ud-Din ^Aliyy Ibn ^Abd-il-Kafi as-Subkiyy.  In "ad-Durrat-ul-Mudiyyah", he said what means: Ibn Taymiyah innovated the foul things in the Usul of belief and infringed the foundations of al-'Islam.



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 01:53

 

common Ahmad dont start this, you know there are many sites on the web are doing these things already by giving us some misunderstood transilations and other untrusted sources you think you'll convence us that Ibn Taymeyah was far from being a muslim!!

iam not into these debates really otherwise there are tons of stuff against your " aayaatullahs" and your Imams .

 



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


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 02:02
And I ask you who attacked Najaf and Kerblaa and burned
the cities these cities in that time

Please Please Please, I would say again the same thing.
Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahab died in 1792 before the attack of
Karbalaa and Najaf. Najaf and Karbalaa attack was in 1802.
Plus, they destroyed the Husayn tomb, not burned the cities.
Please do not exaggerate in history. Here is a link that proves
that (It is even anti-Wahabi)
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/wahhabi_movement.htm
Let me help you in your arguement. Instead of pointing out
what the man's supporter did, point out to his teaching. There is
no correlation necessary between what a follower do and what
his teacher had taught.
For example, Bin Ladin says he follows right Islam and
committed massacres, does it mean Islam teachings are bad?
not necessary. Ibn Abdul Wahab followers also entered Taif in
September 1926 and massacred 15,000. Does it mean that
must be Ibn Abdul Wahab teachings? not necessary. You need
to point out on his teachings and not what his followers claim to
be his teachings.
About Ibn Taymyah THIS IS FROM SUNNI SOURCES
Please tell me you forgot the link? I don't see any source here.
No link, no book with pages numbers. Nothing. Please provide
a credible source so I can assess it and criticize it. Im not going
to comment of course on unproved statements.

-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 06:08

http://www.sunna.info/antiwahabies/wahhabies/ - http://www.sunna.info/antiwahabies/wahhabies/  

this is the link from sunna and jamaa.

Azimuth you have tons against ayout allah from their enemy but this site and else from sunna against Ibn Taymyah and Ibn Abdel alwahab.



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 07:18

 

well iam sure there are many Shiea sources and sites have things against Shiea imams and "aayatallah"

but as i said iam not into these stuff, if you are intersted you can search for these sites.

 



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


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 07:43
Fine Azimuth but if you intrested I didn't attack sunnah we live together in my country in peace we mixed together from hundred years but we must be fair and leave the bleive and analyze the fact,Ibn Abd Alwahab was a bad person and his godfather too.

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 09:11

it is nationalization{power and fame!}

 

I read some of the post and I was like "what the...!"

ooofff oofffff

 

you all are the worst mistake in Islam…  it is nationalization!

 

Arab empires{led by Arabs, because it was rather Islamic} were great but it didn't survive because people started fighting for power and having their name as emir elmouamneen... no emeer moumneen for me other than Mohammed (saaws).!

When Turks took over the Arabs.. they killed heaps...Baghdad population went down like never before {how Islamic was that}

Plus, Osmanli never trusted Arabs, and never gave them leadership in their lands, correct me if I was wrong because I’m 80% sure of that!

 At the same time, Arabs in ww1 and instead of helping each other against Europe, they attacked other Muslims, that’s the Ottomans, and look where are we now, thanks to .. you know who...

 And you here are attacking each other... again the same mistake over and over… mashalla!

We won't successes until we take Islam as nationality again.. no shiaa, no sunna , no Turkish, no Arab or whatever… Muslims….

and remember God sais that humans arn't perfect.. we all made/make mistakes...



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


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 09:35
1001nights
try to use normal font size and letters, it is sometimes unreadeble

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 10:45

Originally posted by DayI

1001nights
try to use normal font size and letters, it is sometimes unreadeble

 

kardes... this editing and writing system here, ay it is killing, vallah... lol

how is it now!!! readable!



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


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 11:15
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

http://www.sunna.info/antiwahabies/wahhabies/ - http://www.sunna.info/antiwahabies/wahhabies/  

this is the link from sunna and jamaa.

Ok, Im deeply disappointed that you used this link Ahmed. That was just an insult to your intellegence and our intellegence.

That link Mr. Ahmed that you call a sunni source is not a sunni source. It is clearly a shia source. If you have a spectrum like this:

Qaradawi (liberal)<-------various groups in between------>(conservative)Imam Abdul Wahab

Qaradawi and Ibn Abdul Wahab are completely in a lot of fundentmal desputes, and when you come to insult both side and the middle groups it is clearly that you don't belong to any sunni group, because you would have fell in either side or between the two extreme points in that spectrum. Besides it insults every Sunni Imam from Ibn Taymyah to Qaradawi, it talks about Imam Ja'fer Al sadek quotations. If you know that site was a misleading and you insisted on using the sources -especially that you hesitated first in quoting the soruce, most probably you just treated people here as stupid and with direspect of their intellegence and their time. 

That link uses two or three Sunni imams unrelated quotes, and then goes on and on by pages with Imam Ali only and then Imam Ja'far al Sadek for the rest of the whole arguement!! Since when sunnis use a source called the Qushayrian letter? Let us end this argument here as you have deeply disappointed me. Open another thread Ali as I and others are sick of this non-sense. Do that and I will be happy to overload you with shia sites that criticize shias Imams and leave you to dig their source and waste your time on them. Please!

A sample of what you will most often see in that ¨sunni¨webiste:

æÞÇá ÇáÅãÇã ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÕÇÏÞ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÈÇÞÑ Èä Òíä ÇáÚÇÈÏíä Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓíä ÑÖæÇä Çááå Úáíåã (148 åÜ) ãÇ äÕå : "ãä ÒÚã Ãä Çááå Ýí ÔìÁ¡ Ãæ ãä ÔìÁ¡ Ãæ Úáì ÔìÁ ÝÞÏ ÃÔÑß. ÅÐ áæ ßÇä Úáì ÔìÁ áßÇä ãÍãæáÇ¡ æáæ ßÇä Ýí ÔìÁ áßÇä ãÍÕæÑÇ¡ æáæ ßÇä ãä ÔìÁ áßÇä ãÍÏËÇ- Ãí ãÎáæÞÇ" à åÜ.  [ ÐßÑå ÇáÞÔíÑí Ýí ÑÓÇáÊå ÇáãÚÑæÝÉ ÈÇáÑÓÇáÉ ÇáÞÔíÑíÉ (Õ/ 6) ].

http://www.sunna.info/taw7id1.html - http://www.sunna.info/taw7id1.html

From me to Imam Ja'far Al Sadek, did he really study Quran when he says that God cannot be on something because it means he is carried? Im the ignorant can easily tell him the verse in Quran where Allah himself says he is on "Arsh" a chair carreid by 8 angels. "æíÍãá ÚÑÔ ÑÈß íæãÆÐ ËãÇíäÉ". by the way, Imam Jafar al sadek is a fundemntal source of Shia legislation and theology . Happy now Ahmed?

 

 >>



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 14:29

First of all: wahabis should be ashamed of themselves. It's the most intolerant sect that ever existed on this planet. Wahabism is the worst thing in (out of) Islam They advocate murder on shias, sufis and other muslims who tninks differently. And by the way, all the massmurderers, terrorists and talibans are wahabis. 

Second: And Khwarij are not shias. How could they be? They killed Ali, the first shiite Imam. You know that the word Shia comes from Shiat Ali (Ali's party)?

Third: I have seen alot of discussions between sunnis and shias who are experts. And of what I've seen the shias are more convincing. For example Muhammed actually proclaimed Ali as his successor in front of thousands. And by the the caliphes actually killed Muhammed GRANDCHILDREN. And you can read what Muhammed thought and said about them (he liked them) ...
And maybe most important: The caliphes actually changed Islam. For example, as leader, Uthman banned mutah (sigha). Something the prophet didn't. There are alot more ....

You can actually read these things in sunni hadiths even though they are doing everything to keep these things secret.

Now, don't think that I'm trying to convert you or something. I'm not even religious. I really don't care (don't even know why i'm writing this ). Just wanted to point out what I've seen in previous discussiones.

 



Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 14:53

I know you will do this but this is not a shia site and who are you to wrote (from me) to Imam Jaafar.

note: our fundemental source is Qura'n and the sunnah of the holy prophet.

I think you must search for another reason to beat this argument.



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 01:22

As I said, open a new thread. Thank you



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 07:35

I can't end it here because you are full mistake,I don't know may be you  have more knowledges than Imam Jaafar Alsadiq the grandson of the prophet and his cousin Ali (PBUT).

HOLY PROPHET SAID (I AM THE CITY OF KNOWLEDGE AND ALI IT'S GATE).

Then i chalenge you to remove the accusses from bn Taymyah

scholars of his time accusing him of believing Allah to be a corporeal entity because of what he mentioned in his al-aqida al-Hamawiyya and al-Wasitiyya and other works, such as that Allah's 'hand', 'foot', 'shin' and 'face' are literal (haqiqi) attributes, and that He is upon the Throne in person. The error in this is suggesting such attributes are literal is an innovation and unjustifiable inferance from the Qur'anic and hadith texts that mention them, for the way of early Muslims was mere acceptance of such expressions on faith without saying how they are meant, and without additions, subtractions, or substituting meanings imagined to be synonyms, while acknowledging Allah's absolute transcedence beyond the characteristics of created things, in conformity with the Qur'anic verse "There is nothing whatsoever like unto him" [Qur'an 42:11].

Nevertheless, his idea to humanize Allah is well defined in his publications and the earlier scholar muslims never embody Allah but the describe Him exactly as mention in Holly Quran.And od never describe Himself like some describe Him?



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 07:41

 

well he didnt ask you to end it

he told you to open a new thread about this.

and now iam telling you if you want open a new thread about it and you can discuss what you want there as long as you dont break any roles.

this thead is about worst mistakes in Islamic History,

and i guess that we agreed that the worst mistake was the assasination of Caliph Uthman radyallah anh.

 



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


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 14:14
Ok,Azimuth we agreed but maybe  in different sights.I'll end it to keep unity no less no more but he was the beginer. 

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 15:00

Good, finally we will get a spicific thread for that topic.

HOLY PROPHET SAID (I AM THE CITY OF KNOWLEDGE AND ALI IT'S GATE). Where is Jaafar in this hadith? or knoweledge is inherited too with birth? Mashallah. If you are going to set and just say "but he is the grandson, he must be knoweldgable than us" you just locked your brain. No woder I don't see that many of western covert to shia (if they do exsit).

He was the beginner? I don't recall myself calling others Wahabis and refusing to understand using the term is wrong .

What accusations? I don't see a list of them, I only see the criticize there without listing the reasons. Now, you refusing to understand the verse itself that Allah is on a chair carried by 8 Angles, suggest you may have a new version of Quran maybe .

Im still waiting the new thread....



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Pharoah
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 18:59

hey cok gec,

    We disagreed a lot in the previous thread of Destruction of the historical remenants. Despite you are little agressive too. However, this time I have to agree with you for various points:

1- you are right, most famous convert to Islam are converting to Sunnim because it makes more logical sense.

2-Shia understanding that someone is better because of only his blood is very stupid. No wonder they have always Mullahs of ignroance. If we sunnis followed them, we would have been lost long time ago in our places and no other countries would become Muslim. Don't forget while the shia kingdom of safavid faught other Sunnis, Ummayed, Abbasid, Seljuks, Ottomans....etc faught other real enemy of the religion and they conquered and opened the door for Islam. Imagine of we Sunni followed that heritic concept of glorifying the ahl al bayet without thinking of their characters, then we will have people like the hashemite of Jordan raised up just for that reason, where they are the trash and dirt of this earth. Same thing to Khumayni and other fanatics who think that just because they can claim a descendancy to the prophet PBUH, they are better and more knowelegable. That thinking is only suprior to animal logic.

3- I don't understand both of you Ali and Cok Gec, why cannot one of you open a thread for that discussion instead of being locked arguing here.



-------------
Mother of the whole world is Egypt


Posted By: çok geç
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 19:09

Ok Pharoah, I think you didn't read all the previous posts regarding this subject. Im the one who called for a seperate thread for this because im very fanatic to the idea of sticking to the topic. I dont' like outside deviations.

Now, why didn't I started a thread for that topic by myself? because i believe some arguments are constructive, others are basically a byzantine argument. If Ali does not want to uderstand that I donit and no one does like to be called Wahabi, It is his problem. If he got mad someone calling him Khawarej by mistake, then he should be sensitive knowns too. We are Muslim Hanbil and Ibn Wahab does not owe us anything new but a reformer. I just see that his brain is just stuck, i cannot help it even if I opened the new thread .

No wonder Ibn Taymyah, may Allah be pleased with his soul, said: "You hope for a jew to become a Muslim and not for a Shia to be convinced". I will never accept the idea that someone is better than me just because he can claims he was from the prophet side only, and Ali will not accept the idea that he is stuck on glorifying people without thinking of what they say, like Mr. Jaafar with such mistakes a first year kid in a madrasah can notice. I think a new thread is a waste of time, but i only requested that to save our forumers here from the pain. æßÝí Çááå ÇáãÄãäíä ÔÑ ÇáÞÊÇá

 



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2005 at 01:21
Originally posted by çok geç

I will never accept the idea that someone is better than me just because he can claims he was from the prophet side only

Don't forget that the lovely gentleman in your avatar is where he is because of his connection to the current ruling tribe of your land, so you do believe that people should be privileged based on the blood line and their connection to a certain tribe after all

 



Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2005 at 06:34

Last question do you mean Allah is carried by the throne?sittng on t like human?

Imam Jaafar is a great scholar by the acceptance of his era scholars and after them too except Ibn Taymyah ,and i know the Wahhabi sources it depends on Ibn Taymyah only and his followers like Ibn Qayim Aljawzia.

I think it waste of tim too because you have a foolish godfather.

It is not a blood thing it is knowledge thing if you don't know Imam Jaafar then stay in the darknees of your godfather.



-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2005 at 07:02

Selam every1

Ahmed.. let's say that Ali (raa) wasn't killed... what would have happned to Islam... I mean what would that change today... could you tell me..plz...

you're off topic or  I lost you guys... 

what you guys are talking about isn't really the biggest issue in Islamic world...

Again I would say it is nationalism under other than the Islamic flag, that is the problem and the biggest mistake... which was forced on us, and many muslims seem to have fallen for it, and some were forced to it.... imo



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



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com