Harun Yahya?
-
Correct. Which is why I'm looking for the article.
Oh, here's one http//www.mukto-mona.com/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
It protrays him as a Dajal.
Still, I wouldn't take anybody's word for it - they could be, or rather, most likely, are slandering him, but it really makes me watch out.
I think this person is really controversial in Turkey. Here's an article that paints him as a Jesus.
http//www.islamherald.com/asp/interesting_articles/who_is_harun_yahya.asp
Like you say, I would not buy information so easily. Slanders are spread against people who do good pretty easily - this is according to the Qur'an. I do not dismiss the posibility of it albeit very small, but we must not uphold such accusations when the accused shows signs of a real believer (as HY does through his works).
This is based on the following Verse of the Qur'an
"When you heard , why did believing men and believing women not think well of their own people and declare, 'This is obviously a lie?'"
Which comes after a believing women was falsely acused of indecency . The above Verse tells us that we should think well of believers in the face of accusations.
We must not spread about these accusation/s made against believers (those who display attributes of believers), this is indicated by 2415.
peace.
-
Peace to all,
I actually like reading from his sight, I have learned alot and felt that his articles have explained many things that I was questioning at the time, I dont agree with everything of course but lets give the guy a little credit for trying,, and lets not talk bad about him.
Kurt
-
I agree with you. "Modernising" Islam sounds to me like a make up for the "others", not for muslims..
There is only Gamal Banna who believes in the historicity of the Quran. He must be feeling lonely. Why is it so hard for Muslims? What is it about history that we are so unacceptable of?
-
There is only Gamal Banna who believes in the historicity of the Quran. He must be feeling lonely. Why is it so hard for Muslims? What is it about history that we are so unacceptable of?
How is al-Banna "the only one who believes in the historicity of the qur'aan"? How is this related to my quote?
-
How is al-Banna "the only one who believes in the historicity of the qur'aan"? How is this related to my quote?
There is a tendency by most muslims to believe that looking at the Quran with appreciation of the 7th century community it was initially revealed to as nothing but a modernization attempt. And this modernization attempt is done for the sole purpose of "adapting" to Western norms. Indeed there is nothing called Western norms. This is 21st century norms. And Muslims do not live in the 7th century even though they think they should. Its a rejection of the historicity of Quranic legalism but ist only possible in theory and concept. the reality is something else, since we can not live in a vacuum. So Muslims are always saying one thing but doing something else. When people look at the Taliban, they do not see anything Islamic but what they see is medieval. Even non Muslim societies of the past practiced a similar legal system. This is becauise the Quran laid out a communal legal framework for the propet's community in Medina with 7th century norms and standards.
I have rarely seen that explicitly talked about except by Gamal Banna and a few others. Even Subhi Mansour does not see it that way. He still sees Islam as a legal framework.
-
Bigmo,
So are you suggesting Taliban were following the Qur'an? The way you said it, it seems like you believe they were following the Qur'an.
They were not following the Qur'an, but traditions that are not supported by the Qur'an.
Yes they were following hadiths also, but if the Taliban were to cut the hand of a thief, people would see this as medieval since medieval societies, Muslims or non Muslims, used to practice limb cutting as punishments. What I am trying to say, is that the legal framework in the Quran was structured in conformity with the accepted legal and penal norms and standards of the 7th century. These norms and penal systems were similar to how many 7th century societies including pagan Arabia ran their communities. So much so that of all the disapproval the pagans had about the prophet, they did not mind those legal and penal systems as they saw it as normal and similar to their communal structure. However that God is one and resurrection and faith in satan and so on was considered a heresy and they fought the prophet over it.
Do you see my point? Most of the objections the pagan had mentioned in the Quran was based on theology and Islamic rituals like halal meat and so on which they saw as an innovation and outside their cultural norms. the penal system was in conformity with theirs for the most part except women and slaves were given better status then they were used to under tribal law.
Today most societies would not have a problem with the theology or rituals of the Quran but they find the legal and penal system as something that was for societies of the past. The legal and penal system in Europe in the past had crucifictions, stoning, limb cutting, burning, beheading and flogging.
This is what I meant that Muslims have yet to embrace the historicity of the Quran and identify or rather seperate the religous issues like morals, ethics, rituals and theology from the legal and penal issues which must be understood in its historic context.