The Islamic history is meaningless?
-
Slam All,
my question are
1.If the Prophet Muhammad is sinless, why we always say " peace be upon him "?
2.Why do Muslims used the conjunction, and, to testify that " There is no God, but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God?
3.Why does the Islamic knowledge brought by Islamic scholars is influenced more than qur-an, and cannot be rooted out?
4.What the meaning of God do as he wills, in many verses of Qur-an?
5.Who was the father and the Mother of Adam if we try to seek the father of Jesus?
6.If the Qur-an was not interpreted by Prophet, so who would be
interpreter?Wassalam
-
Peace and greetings,
my question are
1.If the Prophet Muhammad is sinless, why we always say " peace be upon him "?
2.Why do Muslims used the conjunction, and, to testify that " There is no God, but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God?
3.Why does the Islamic knowledge brought by Islamic scholars is influenced more than qur-an, and cannot be rooted out?
3356
that God and His angels enjoin sal?t (blessings, mercy) on the prophet O you who believe call for God?s sal?t (blessings) on him and great greetings.Surah 48 Al-Fath (The Victory) beginning and last verse?
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lej5F8hG304.What the meaning of God do as he wills, in many verses of Qur-an?
5.Who was the father and the Mother of Adam if we try to seek the father of Jesus?
that God does what He wills.
6.If the Qur-an was not interpreted by Prophet, so who would be
interpreter?Al Rahman ? Surah 55 (The Most Gracious)
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiRKjuM1uoM -
Slam Sarah,
I would like to ask you. Is the Islamic history meaningless? If not? Could you tell me who was or is the real Islamic historian?
I need to know, because many say that there is no real reference book. After prophet was passed away - the Islamic history is confused.Wassalam
-
Slam All,
salaam
my question are
1.If the Prophet Muhammad is sinless, why we always say " peace be upon him "?
because we love him more than anything in this world after God of course.
2.Why do Muslims used the conjunction, and, to testify that " There is no God, but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God?
thats the most truthful statement! "There is no god but God and Muhammad PBUH is the messenger of Allah"
3.Why does the Islamic knowledge brought by Islamic scholars is influenced more than qur-an, and cannot be rooted out?
our religion, islam, is entirely based on quran and nothing else.
4.What the meaning of God do as he wills, in many verses of Qur-an?
it means God does as he will.
5.Who was the father and the Mother of Adam if we try to seek the father of Jesus?
fortunately or unfortunately Adam did not have any parents. Jesus was fatherless.
6.If the Qur-an was not interpreted by Prophet, so who would be
interpreter?it was explained, practiced by the prophet and all of his deeds were recorded by Bukhari PBUH and others.
Wassalam
thanks
-
Slam Sarah,
I would like to ask you. Is the Islamic history meaningless? If not? Could you tell me who was or is the real Islamic historian?
I need to know, because many say that there is no real reference book. After prophet was passed away - the Islamic history is confused.Wassalam
Sorry what kind of question is that, who is the real historian for Christian history? or Jews or Buddhist or airplanes or anatomy or how light works or ancient Egyptian history or ancient cities or the number system or anything else in life?? the answer is not one individual.
History is what the people write, the truth of it is subjective. you're part of free-minds history. maybe in 500 years you will be remembered!
No real reference book? people say alot of things, what you choose for reference is your choice. you see when you try to make an argument about history it's good to see the source and why it is considered valid and weigh it up with other evidence.
Also why so adamant? what part of history do you so need that you need to know the answer? after the prophets death the history wasn't all that confused, how do you mean? just because people broke up into sects it doesn't mean history was confused, it means that was part of history.
your question doesn't have a clear cut answer.
Does Quran say "this book is for an interpreter?"
Salam
-
Does Quran say "this book is for an interpreter?"
Salam
http//www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/Surat39_files/39_18.gif
Those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding.
-
Peace,
Respectfully.I'd say that islamic history is not 100% meaningless, there is some Truth and there is some stuff that needs to be verified, God willing, afterall, humans can corrupt so much and they already have.
For example, the history of the Turkish people from the Ottoman time until 1992, some say that Muslims from that time and place invaded the Balcans and spread Islam by sword and converted many Christians orthodox into Islam by force. I cannot believe that to be true, afterall, Islam spread elsewhere peacfully, right?
If anyone has any information how Islam spread from Turkey into today's Bosnia, let me know, PM me or send me email, i'm doing a large research that might become a script, God knows best. Many Serbs today accuse sunnis in Bosnia that their ancestors killed so many of their forefathers and that is the reason for war in Bosnia in 1992 - revenge for the Ottoman time and their actions.
My parents are from Bosnia and my ancestors are Turkish.
God knows best.
Peace. -
Peace,
Respectfully.I'd say that islamic history is not 100% meaningless, there is some Truth and there is some stuff that needs to be verified, God willing, afterall, humans can corrupt so much and they already have.
For example, the history of the Turkish people from the Ottoman time until 1992, some say that Muslims from that time and place invaded the Balcans and spread Islam by sword and converted many Christians orthodox into Islam by force. I cannot believe that to be true, afterall, Islam spread elsewhere peacfully, right?
If anyone has any information how Islam spread from Turkey into today's Bosnia, let me know, PM me or send me email, i'm doing a large research that might become a script, God knows best. Many Serbs today accuse sunnis in Bosnia that their ancestors killed so many of their forefathers and that is the reason for war in Bosnia in 1992 - revenge for the Ottoman time and their actions.
My parents are from Bosnia and my ancestors are Turkish.
God knows best.
Peace.Thats a lie pure and simple. I will give you an answer they cannot refuse. I will tell how all the Europeans and the other people of the world converted to Islam. You want to really know what happened buy a book by the name of T.W.Arnold "The preaching of Islam". The book tells us about how all the people of the world who are muslims today converted to Islam and how they were converted, and i must say it is a befitting response to anyone who claims that Islam converted people by the sword. On top of that it is written by a Christian, i would really love to see their jaws drop when you tell them. Anyway about Bosnians, well your ancestors were Bogomiles. It was kinda christian sect but it rejected the crucifixion of the Christ and many of the christian beliefs and for that they were being vehemently persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church. When Islam came on the scene they converted seeing as to how many similarities were there between Islam and the Bogomiles. All the information you need you can find in T.W.Arnold "The preaching of Islam". The most astounding conversion to Islam was the people of Kirghizistan, how they converted to Islam, can you believe it was the Russians themselves who converted them to Islam, you really have to read the book to find out.
I am painstakingly copying a paragraph from the book for you
Page 198 T.W.Arnold "The preaching of Islam"
To pass now to Bosnia- In this country the religious and social conditions of the people, before the Turkish conquest, merits especial attention. The majority of the population belonged to heretical sect called Bogomiles who from the thirteenth century had been exposed to the persecution of the Roman Catholics and against whom Popes hand on several occasions preached a crusade. In 1325 Pope John XXII wrote thus to the king of Bosnia
"To our beloved son and nobleman, Stephen Prince of Bosnia......knowing that thou art a faithful son of the church, we therefore charge thee to exterminate the heretics in any dominion and to render aid and assistance to Fabian our Inquisitor for as much as a large multitude of heretics from many and divers parts collected hath flowed together into the principality of Bosnia trusting there to sow their obscene errors and dwell there in safety. These men imbued with the cunning of the Old Fiend and armed with the venom of their falseness corrupt the minds of Catholics by outward show of simplicity and sham assumption of the name of Christians. Their speech crawleth like a crab and they creep in with humility but in secret they kill and are wolves in sheep's clothing covering their bestial fury as means to deceive the simple sheep of Christ".
In the fifteenth century the sufferings of the Bogomiles became so intolerable that they appealed to the Turks to deliver them from their unhappy condition, for the king of Bosnia and their priests were pushing the persecution of the Bogomiles to an extreme which perhaps it had never reached before, as many as forty thousand of them fled from Bosnia and took refuge in neighboring countries, others who did not succeed in making their escape were sent in chains to Rome. But even those violent measures did little to diminish the strength of the bogomiles in Bosnia, as in 1462 we are told that the heresy was so powerful as ever in this country. The following year when Bosnia was invaded by Muhammad II the Catholic King himself deserted by his subjects, the keys of the principal fortress the royal city of Bobovatz were handed over to the Turks by the Bogomile governor. The other fortresses and towns hastened to follow this example and within a week seventy cities passed into the hands of the sultan and Muhammed II added Bosnia to the number of his numerous conquests.(I cant write/copy the whole thing but here are some interesting lines)
.................................We may rather find the reason for the willingness of the Bogomiles to allow themselves to be merged in the general mass of Musalman believers in the numerous points of likeness between their peculiar beliefs and the tenets of Islam. They rejected the worship of virgin mary, the institution of Baptism and every form of priesthood. They hated the cross as a religious symbol and considered it idolatry to bow down before religious pictures and images and relics of the saints. Their houses of prayer were very simple and unadorned in contrast to the gaudily decorated roman catholic churches and shared the Muslim dislike of bells which they styled the 'devils trumpets'. They belived that christ was not himself crucified but some phantom was substituted in his place; in this respect agreeing partially with the teaching of the Quran. Their condemnation of wine and the general austerity of their mode of life and the stern severity of their outward demeanor would serve as further links to bind them to Islam.......................................................
Hope it helps
-
Peace,
Respectfully.I'd say that islamic history is not 100% meaningless, there is some Truth and there is some stuff that needs to be verified, God willing, afterall, humans can corrupt so much and they already have.
For example, the history of the Turkish people from the Ottoman time until 1992, some say that Muslims from that time and place invaded the Balcans and spread Islam by sword and converted many Christians orthodox into Islam by force. I cannot believe that to be true, afterall, Islam spread elsewhere peacfully, right?
If anyone has any information how Islam spread from Turkey into today's Bosnia, let me know, PM me or send me email, i'm doing a large research that might become a script, God knows best. Many Serbs today accuse sunnis in Bosnia that their ancestors killed so many of their forefathers and that is the reason for war in Bosnia in 1992 - revenge for the Ottoman time and their actions.
My parents are from Bosnia and my ancestors are Turkish.
God knows best.
Peace.Serbs accusing Bosnians?!?!?!?!!?
They're the ones who mass-murdered the Bosnians Muslims and are still proud of it! elektroConcerning the issue of how the Bosnians became Muslims...
(from wiki)Islam was brought to this region by the Ottomans. Turks gained control of most of Bosnia in 1463, and seized Herzegovina in the 1480s. In the centuries after the invasion, a large number of South Slavs converted to Islam. Bosnia and Herzegovina remained provinces of the Ottoman Empire until the 1878 Congress of Berlin gave temporary control of the region to Austria-Hungary. In 1908, Austria-Hungary formally annexed the region.
Bosnia, along with Albania, were the only parts of Ottoman Europe where large numbers of Christians converted to Islam.
Under Turkish rule, much of what used to be central, eastern, and southern Yugoslavia took on a distinctly Islamic character.
It's an interesting Question. I'll have to look into that a bit further.
Peace
-
Peace,
Respectfully.Thank you very much for the info, some of it i already have but i will God willing look for the book as well, God willing, because i've checked some books here at the local library and it seems to me that it was written by people who accused Turks coming to the Balcans and killing left and right, even building houses with Christian skulls. They have provided photos but i gotta get more information to confirm.
All i was hearing throughout my childhood is that my ancestors were Christian orthodox - Serbs, that my great, great, great and so on parents were Serbs who were later forced into acceptance of Islam but this always, always seemed and still is, hard to accept.
Islam was being accepted by the means of peace and people still acept Islam regardless of 9_11 and 7/7 London and all the "terrorim" stuff. So someone has been corupting history in the Balcans and i think even more. This is something to think about, history was always important to me because i always wanted to discover the origins of a human being and even my own ancestors.
Anyways, thanks for the info and God bless you.
Peace. -
Slam All,
my question are
1.If the Prophet Muhammad is sinless, why we always say " peace be upon him "?
2.Why do Muslims used the conjunction, and, to testify that " There is no God, but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God?
3.Why does the Islamic knowledge brought by Islamic scholars is influenced more than qur-an, and cannot be rooted out?
4.What the meaning of God do as he wills, in many verses of Qur-an?
5.Who was the father and the Mother of Adam if we try to seek the father of Jesus?
6.If the Qur-an was not interpreted by Prophet, so who would be
interpreter?Wassalam
To your original question. Islam has a very rich history. If you want to read about the contribution of Islam over the centuries I recommend a book by the name of 'Islamic Jurisprudence' by C.G. Weeramantry. It was after reading this book that i started to see religion as a positive force rather than a negative one. It kinda changed my worldview if you know what i mean.
-
Slam zees,
Thanks for your kindness about the book, but on the other hand there are many Muslims on this blog rejected all the saying of the Prophet Muhammad. Because of Islamic history is consisted of Islamic faith, so we cannot deny the practiced of the Prophet wrote in hadith. One said that " Who guarantees Bukhari, Muslim and others " and I also got the information that even the Prophet cannot guarantee any person. could you clarify this point?
Wassalam
-
Slam zees,
Thanks for your kindness about the book, but on the other hand there are many Muslims on this blog rejected all the saying of the Prophet Muhammad. Because of Islamic history is consisted of Islamic faith, so we cannot deny the practiced of the Prophet wrote in hadith. One said that " Who guarantees Bukhari, Muslim and others " and I also got the information that even the Prophet cannot guarantee any person. could you clarify this point?
Wassalam
The book that i recommend to you is definitely a good read and it will answer many of your questions. Anyway as per your questions about the hadith i would like to qoute something from history itself,
"The emerging Hadith-movement, however, saw their task as reporting, with the purpose of promoting legal fixity and permanence. In the extant works of the second century, most of the legal and moral traditions are not from the Prophet but are traced back to the Companions; however as the decades passed these traditions came to be ascribed to the Prophet himself, perhaps inwardly propelled by their definition of authenticity.The nature of the emerging Hadith-movement can be proven by one well-known fact, undisputed even by the most orthodox of Muslims. The classical traditionalists themselves argued that ?moral maxims and edifying statements and aphorisms may be attributed to the Prophet irrespective of whether this attribution is strictly historical or not".
The above statement is testament to the fact that interpretations of different people that spanned about 300 years were attributed to the prophet irrespective of the fact that the prophet himself said it or not. In other words interpretations by different people that spanned about 300 years were given a divine stamp by attributing them to the prophet. The architect of this design was Imam Shafi, one may very well call him the founder of the hadith movement. For interpretations to be valid they have to be in line with the Quran and the changing times. This is not so in many of the cases. In the earliest days of Islam with all the sectarian tensions, political intrigue and people vying for power deviations occurred to serve the personal agenda of some people and as a result of which they deviated from the teaching of the Quran and those deviations were preserved for all times for everyone to follow when the Hadiths received divine sanction. To put it in another way the interpretations of the earliest generations of Islam were made mandatory for everyone to follow. Interpretation is a human activity and naturally errors will be made whether deliberately or innocently. To claim that interpretations, in this case the earliest interpretations(Hadith) are to be followed without question is wrong pure and simple. So here is my question can a particular set of interpretations explain all there is that is in a divine book. Hence Quran is everything the rest is just interpretations. The next time when you hold the book of Hadith in your hand remember that it is not a divine book but that it contains the interpretations(Ijtihad and Ijma) of the earliest scholars of Islam.
"Most of the Hadith corpus is, in fact, the Sunnah-Ijtihad of the first generations which after a serious struggle received the sanction of ijma?, or the adherence of the majority of the Community".
-
Peace,
Respectfully.We must be aware and acknolwedge that most of the hadith narrated by all those men are not from the messenger/prophet Muhammad but rather attributed to him. Back then, a person would say i heard my grandpa say this and that from the prophet Muhammad and the story/line/sentence/word was immediately taken as The Truth, without checking.
This is where they've failed, unfortunetaly.
May God guides us all.
Peace. -
The book that i recommend to you is definitely a good read and it will answer many of your questions. Anyway as per your questions about the hadith i would like to qoute something from history itself,
"The emerging Hadith-movement, however, saw their task as reporting, with the purpose of promoting legal fixity and permanence. In the extant works of the second century, most of the legal and moral traditions are not from the Prophet but are traced back to the Companions; however as the decades passed these traditions came to be ascribed to the Prophet himself, perhaps inwardly propelled by their definition of authenticity.The nature of the emerging Hadith-movement can be proven by one well-known fact, undisputed even by the most orthodox of Muslims. The classical traditionalists themselves argued that ?moral maxims and edifying statements and aphorisms may be attributed to the Prophet irrespective of whether this attribution is strictly historical or not".
The above statement is testament to the fact that interpretations of different people that spanned about 300 years were attributed to the prophet irrespective of the fact that the prophet himself said it or not. In other words interpretations by different people that spanned about 300 years were given a divine stamp by attributing them to the prophet. The architect of this design was Imam Shafi, one may very well call him the founder of the hadith movement. For interpretations to be valid they have to be in line with the Quran and the changing times. This is not so in many of the cases. In the earliest days of Islam with all the sectarian tensions, political intrigue and people vying for power deviations occurred to serve the personal agenda of some people and as a result of which they deviated from the teaching of the Quran and those deviations were preserved for all times for everyone to follow when the Hadiths received divine sanction. To put it in another way the interpretations of the earliest generations of Islam were made mandatory for everyone to follow. Interpretation is a human activity and naturally errors will be made whether deliberately or innocently. To claim that interpretations, in this case the earliest interpretations(Hadith) are to be followed without question is wrong pure and simple. So here is my question can a particular set of interpretations explain all there is that is in a divine book. Hence Quran is everything the rest is just interpretations. The next time when you hold the book of Hadith in your hand remember that it is not a divine book but that it contains the interpretations(Ijtihad and Ijma) of the earliest scholars of Islam.
"Most of the Hadith corpus is, in fact, the Sunnah-Ijtihad of the first generations which after a serious struggle received the sanction of ijma?, or the adherence of the majority of the Community".
Slam
Thanks a lot regarding your informations.
-
I'm skeptical of Islamic history as a whole. If Christian and Jewish tradition are to be viewed with suspicion, I don't see why Islamic tradition should be exempt. I'm a cynic though and can live with that. And I'm not an arab so it does nothing to effect my national, or ethnic identity.
-
I'm skeptical of Islamic history as a whole. If Christian and Jewish tradition are to be viewed with suspicion, I don't see why Islamic tradition should be exempt. I'm a cynic though and can live with that. And I'm not an arab so it does nothing to effect my national, or ethnic identity.
You have a good point there