Islam : the true history and false beliefs
-
Well, I must say, I was perturbed by the 'greatest man', 'greatest moment in history' type of stuff. But lets not attribute that to his background , Truth. Muhammad ibn Abdullah is simply a historical figure people of a certain psychological persuasion appropriate in order to satiate thier needs. He's no different from Jesus, Guru Nanak, Kuan Kong etc etc.
-
Salaam Alleikum MQuran
I certainly will read Dr. Shabbir book.
Salaam Alleikum /JM/
The problem with Dr. Shabbir Ahmed and the people asscociated with him that they believe Dr. Shabbir is free of all errors. They believe that QXP is the only translation. The other problem with Dr. Shabbir Ahmed is that he can't tolerate any crticism. There you have to agree with everything Dr. Shabbir write.
Peace
and yet one does not have the impression that it imposes its ideas
when one read his introduction of which here an extractLike all other humble works of mine, this book is based on research by a lifelong,
fallible student, Shabbir Ahmed. It has taken much time and labor as the
discerning readers and writers can tell. While the author assures the readers of
his intellectual honesty, he is always liable to make mistakes and projects no
claims whatsoever. The reader may not agree with any part(s) of this book or
even in its entirety. The strength of this work may indeed dwell in the fact that it
leaves plenty of room for the reader's own rationale and judgment to accept or
dismiss any statements made by this author or the ancient "authorities". Criticism
from any quarters will always be welcome and appreciated and any errors will be
corrected in the second edition with sincere gratitude.Peace
-
I think free-minds people will prefer the part about false beliefs, starting at page 125. (about salat, stoning, hijab, 5 pilars, and so on...)
-
Bilal
Words nothing but empty words. I am finding it difficult to continue reading Dr. Shabbir book because it look like a Islamic History book written for primary classes. I just browsed very quickly after reading about 20 pages and my analysis is that Dr. Shabbir has included one of his previous work Karbala Fact or Fiction to fill up the pages. The book is very much boring did not create any interest. I am sure that all the people who are associated with his forum must be under unwritten obiligation to buy this very boring book.
There is an very interesting article about Kaba written by Ayman. Ayman has more knowledge about the ancient history than Dr. Shabbir Ahmed.
Can Dr. Shabbir post this criticism on his forum? I don't think so.
-
Like all other humble works of mine, this book is based on research by a lifelong,
fallible student, Shabbir Ahmed. It has taken much time and labor as the
discerning readers and writers can tell. While the author assures the readers of
his intellectual honesty, he is always liable to make mistakes and projects no
claims whatsoever. The reader may not agree with any part(s) of this book or
even in its entirety. The strength of this work may indeed dwell in the fact that it
leaves plenty of room for the reader's own rationale and judgment to accept or
dismiss any statements made by this author or the ancient "authorities". Criticism
from any quarters will always be welcome and appreciated and any errors will be
corrected in the second edition with sincere gratitude.Good, but why the need for The most revolutionary book ever on Islam.
Dr Shabbir loves hyperbole and for some people its a put off.
-
Everybody here at FM will say "Islam has been corrupted throughout times"...
But, when we are asked "How and when did it occur ?", nobody is able to give an answer...
This is very true. There was a thread about this topic a few months back which proposed different ideas on this subject.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3834&highlight=
-
That's not the point of al-islaam OR al-quraan, to be used as a tool to analyse history. The questions you asked necessitated use of other information, like hadith and seerah.
May I ask , why are you concerned with how Islam was corrupted? It's corrupted now, that's the existential fact. So we analyse that and try to understand al-islaam from its source. Why would you want to use sources which have no verification?
-
Salaam
I would say that it is not bad to study the corruption of the deen over and over. Looking at history will give some useful clues.
But the main criterion that tells us how humans act carelessly towards All?h's message and the d?n will always be the qur'?n. The qur'?n alone is needed to see how corrupted e.g. Sunnism is. And isn?t the qur'?n the best had?th (story)??
We should not care too much where Sunni salaat came from. What matters is that it is not commanded in the qur'?n and that we already know without any history studies.Still, religious histroy interests me a lot. It is a fascinating issue. Some Christian theologian once said "I can proof that God exists, through the history of religions".
What he meant basically is that this history is a witness to a constant struggle of humanity with their inner knowledge of the Divine. It`s like an love affair in which one part always betrays and cheats on the other despite better knowledge while the other is always giving one chance after another, is forgiving, tries to make understand, threatens with consequences. To read about that is more exciting than watching a soap opera or telenovela. winkI?ve found some of Dr. Shabbir
s thoughts interesting. But I have seen a couple of times how his "proof" is just conjecture because his methodology is not really solid. See, e.g. he claims that todays Sunni salaat is a copy of Persian Zoroastrian salaat. He gives some good and interesting clues for it and he may even be right. But then he also gives totally unfounded "clues". When describing Zoroastrian salaat he largely uses roughly contemporary sources, presenting a Zoroastrian ritual that is practiced long after the Sunnis (and later Shiis) conquered Persia. Actually, it may well be possible that the Zoroastrians partly borrowed this ritual from the Sunnis and not vice versa. In fact, there are good indications that it happened this way and not Dr. Shabbirs.
Older religions frequently borrow from newer ones.
I also see a slight problem he has with Persians. To him Persians seem to be the root of the problem and without Persian influence under the Abbassides Isl?m would have had a good cause. This is slightly racist, I would say. Some few Zoroastrian teachings are much closer to the qur'?n then Sunnism is, I would opine. And furthermore, Arab nationalism is at least as much a problem within Sunnism as ancient Persian influence.
So, I see some of Dr. Shabbir's historical claims as obviously pretty baseless.Bye,
Leyle
-
LeylaI would say that it is not bad to study the corruption of the deen over and over. Looking at history will give some useful clues.
I like Ignaz Goldziher's approach where he says that Islamic literature is nothing more than the Arab mind of the time (Goldziher , Muslim Studies). That's as far as I would take it.
I?ve found some of Dr. Shabbir`s thoughts interesting. But I have seen a couple of times how his "proof" is just conjecture because his methodology is not really solid.
Using history to counter history. I'd also like to question the necessity of defending the honour of Abu Bakr, Ali et al. Are these people necessary to our engagement with ad-deen ? I don't know if these guys existed and if I read of their behaviour as a lesson, it should be inside the bounds of al-quraan.
See, e.g. he claims that todays Sunni salaat is a copy of Persian Zoroastrian salaat. He gives some good and interesting clues for it and he may even be right. But then he also gives totally unfounded "clues". When describing Zoroastrian salaat he largely uses roughly contemporary sources, presenting a Zoroastrian ritual that is practiced long after the Sunnis (and later Shiis) conquered Persia.
Actually, it may well be possible that the Zoroastrians partly borrowed this ritual from the Sunnis and not vice versa. In fact, there are good indications that it happened this way and not Dr. Shabbir`s.You should write him and tell him this. I'd be interested to know his response.
I also see a slight problem he has with Persians. To him Persians seem to be the root of the problem and without Persian influence under the Abbassides Isl?m would have had a good cause. This is slightly racist, I would say. Some few Zoroastrian teachings are much closer to the qur'?n then Sunnism is, I would opine. And furthermore, Arab nationalism is at least as much a problem within Sunnism as ancient Persian influence.
This is a trend in Toluislam thought. Using Persian thought as the evil other to 'pure Arabic Islam' .No Quranic basis, in my opinion.
-
mquran I like Ignaz Goldziher's approach where he says that Islamic literature is nothing more than the Arab mind of the time (Goldziher , Muslim Studies). That's as far as I would take it.
Oh gosh, you like Goldziher? Were you paid by the Zionists or what? wink wink wink
I generally agree with Goldziher here. But still I see at least as much worth in history as in every other social science. I would not say that it does not tell us anything. It tells us really a lot. And like every other kind of wisdom this wisdom may also be used to work for the d?n.
The problem is when people start to treat this wisdom as decisive wisdom for the d?n. There is only one wisdom decisive for the d?n.
As I like t say, the furq?n does not necessarily disqualify wisdom but it always qualifies it.You should write him and tell him this. I'd be interested to know his response.
Actually, yes, I should. It?s always better to talk to a person than to talk about a person. I should get my three letters up and approach him. Until now the problem for me just simply was that I have seen people telling Dr. Shabbir about a lot of similar problematics in his work and I?ve also seen how he responds ..... .
This is a trend in Toluislam thought. Using Persian thought as the evil other to 'pure Arabic Islam' .No Quranic basis, in my opinion.
I think this goes back to Iqb?l who coined the idea of a bad ajami isl?m opposing a true muhammadi isl?m, something like that.
I don?t get Iqb?l here. I admire a large part of his work but he?s so contradictory sometimes.
Yep, no quranic basis. -
Oh gosh, you like Goldziher? Were you paid by the Zionists or what?
I think they'd reject me as I've also read Roger Garaudy and Norman G. Finklestein!
I generally agree with Goldziher here. But still I see at least as much worth in history as in every other social science. I would not say that it does not tell us anything. It tells us really a lot. And like every other kind of wisdom this wisdom may also be used to work for the d?n
As an applicational wisdom, it can act as a stimulus, in my view.
The problem is when people start to treat this wisdom as decisive wisdom for the d?n. There is only one wisdom decisive for the d?n.
As I like t say, the furq?n does not necessarily disqualify wisdom but it always qualifies it.Right, in al-quraan, this is known as 'al-hukm' which I take to mean God's permenant laws. There's no escaping these laws as they are part of our existence in the universe. However, there are things which have been given freedom such as 'wajh, manhaj and sharia' (see 5/4 and this is where individual expression comes in.
Actually, yes, I should. It?s always better to talk to a person than to talk about a person. I should get my three letters up and approach him. Until now the problem for me just simply was that I have seen people telling Dr. Shabbir about a lot of similar problematics in his work and I?ve also seen how he responds ..... .
That's why i've stopped corresponding. I wrote in his forum (before the pre-posting moderation came into effect) that al-quraan opposes his view that the Prophet had only one wife at a time. The posting was removed and if im not mistaken, the assertion went into 'the most revolutionary book on islam'. So good luck to you!
I think this goes back to Iqb?l who coined the idea of a bad ajami isl?m opposing a true muhammadi isl?m, something like that.
I don?t get Iqb?l here. I admire a large part of his work but he?s so contradictory sometimes.Certainly right about Iqbal. He was like a composite of different personalities if we go by his writings.