PDA

View Full Version : A historical question.



BML
12-29-2015, 12:24 PM
The first book I found described the development and some of the history of Islam and within it I read that when Muhammad died his position, if that's the correct term to use, was followed by what were described by four "rightly guided “caliphs whose rule covered the period 632 to 661. I then read that three of these were assassinated which appeared to me to be rather savage bringing Islam into disrepute. Is it possible to say why, how this happened?

I apologise if anything I have written above offends anyone and if it does please explain to me why.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
greenhill
12-29-2015, 12:48 PM
From my vague understanding, it was due to other tribes, not of Medina, wanted to rule....

:peace:
Reply

BML
12-29-2015, 11:10 PM
I wonder if I may move into the 21st century and pose the following questions:

Why have the many acts that have been described as terrorism been carried out. By that I mean the Twin Towers in America and the latest the killings in Paris?

What justification can be offered for such acts?

What started this program of violence?

What books does one need to obtain a balanced view of the events that led to the acts I referred to?
Reply

Scimitar
12-30-2015, 12:04 AM
Do you believe that Muslims were responsible for 911?

Scimi
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Zafran
12-30-2015, 01:39 AM
Originally Posted by BML
The first book I found described the development and some of the history of Islam and within it I read that when Muhammad died his position, if that's the correct term to use, was followed by what were described by four "rightly guided “caliphs whose rule covered the period 632 to 661. I then read that three of these were assassinated which appeared to me to be rather savage bringing Islam into disrepute. Is it possible to say why, how this happened?

I apologise if anything I have written above offends anyone and if it does please explain to me why.
Many great saints and people have been assassinated or killed through out history. Look no further then the christian version of the death of Christ, or John the baptist pbuh. Does that appear savage to you as well? Does that put Christianity in disrepute?
Reply

Zafran
12-30-2015, 01:44 AM
Originally Posted by BML
I wonder if I may move into the 21st century and pose the following questions:

Why have the many acts that have been described as terrorism been carried out. By that I mean the Twin Towers in America and the latest the killings in Paris?

What justification can be offered for such acts?

What started this program of violence?

What books does one need to obtain a balanced view of the events that led to the acts I referred to?
While you are at it maybe you should also look at the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan and Kuwait as well or does your inquiry only focus on a few countries on the west. If so why? Are there lives more important?
Reply

BML
12-30-2015, 01:12 PM
  1. I attempted to reply to the above but the following came up. You are not allowed to post any kinds of links, images or videos until you post a few times.
Reply

BML
12-30-2015, 01:14 PM
Scimi asks, Do you believe that Muslims were responsible for 911?
I am obliged to reply, “Most certainly not!” I’m not even certain that asking, who was responsible gets us anywhere?” Maybe the question I should have asked was; Did whoever was responsible for destroying the Twin Towers believe that they had a valid reason for carrying out its destruction with all of the people that were in it and if so what was that reason?

Zafran stated; Many great saints and people have been assassinated or killed throughout history. Look no further then the Christian version of the death of Christ, or John the Baptist. Does that appear savage to you as well? Does that put Christianity in disrepute?
Well, it certainly was savage but without wishing to be pedantic it was not the Christians that put either of those two to death.

The Muslim states; The teachings of Islam can fail under no circumstances. With all our systems of culture and civilization, we cannot go beyond Islam and, as a matter of fact, no human mind can go beyond the Qur'an.
That statement has nothing to do with the questions that I raised and it appears to be very much like many such statements one can find in the Bible.

Zafran asks; “While you are at it maybe you should also look at the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan and Kuwait as well or does your inquiry only focus on a few countries on the west. If so why? Are there lives more important?”
I regret that Zafran appears to be introducing an adversarial form of argument to what I had hoped would have been on my part a search for truth.
The very thought of anyone dying as a result of violence brings pain to any civilised person. People in the west had a view, which was often confused, regarding the destruction of the Twin Towers. However, most people in the west are utterly unable to understand why such atrocities as the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan and Kuwait should occur.

I would still welcome answers to the questions I put and in conclusion I wish to thank you for pointing me towards the Siege of Uthman.
Many years ago before television during the 1940s the BBC used to broadcast a program called, “The Brains Trust” which answered all sorts of questions from the audience. When the turn came for CEM Joad an English philosopher, to put his view he always started his answer by saying, “It all depends on what you mean by.” He followed that by setting out what he thought the question meant.
Reply

M.I.A.
12-30-2015, 02:43 PM
BML, there is actual documentation with regards to planning for America.

And any agencies that were involved were well aware of how to change the feeling within the American population.

It is not a conspiracy theory, Americas main rival..russia also has such programs that speculate on how to affect the working age population.

I would assume that when one gives so much time to entertaining such thoughts...

One could achieve David blain levels of slight of hand..

There is no doubt in the involvement of America in 9/11..

They had close ties to bin laden.

What you or i can't answer is if it was deliberate.

So what's the point of a speculative agency who does not have the best interest of the country at heart?

Not sure, soothsayers to kings are something I can't imagine.. Or am comfortable even talking about.


Here's an old one from an unreliable source, sometimes I think I should save things but..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Reply

BlueOwl358
12-30-2015, 04:31 PM
The questions asked to not really strike me as very accurate and they seem a bit open ended. They are based more upon Psychology than anything else I can see.

Originally Posted by BML
Why have the many acts that have been described as terrorism been carried out. By that I mean the Twin Towers in America and the latest the killings in Paris?
The same reason any form of terrorism occurs. Terrorism is the overwhelmingly desperate and fanatical attempt at a very highly believed cause that is carried out regardless of intention, which could according to whom you ask, can range from religion to politics. Of course anyone who does anything mostly believes it as a rightful cause. So as I said, terrorism is forced psychological attempts at a belief. As to the specific reason to why these attacks were carried out, I believe that to be linked to who did it, which would just result in more controversy.

Originally Posted by BML
What justification can be offered for such acts?
As I said above, you should ask whoever did it, since I am not here to justify any such terrorism.

Originally Posted by BML
What started this program of violence?
The want of specific power, just like any other piece of violence. The Middle Eastern situation is particularly due to the release of extremist ideas and groups by governments in charge that hold intents of spreading these ideas to their own ends. The creation of ISIS and Al-Qaeda can be linked to national funding by specific nations.

Originally Posted by BML
What books does one need to obtain a balanced view of the events that led to the acts I referred to?
I do not believe a book can cover everything of these events, historical events would serve as a better latching point for a clear point of perspective.

-----

If your questions can be a bit more specific, that would help, as questions such as the causes of terrorism are debates more than questions. Peace
Reply

BML
12-30-2015, 05:13 PM
With the utmost respect I am obliged to say that the above three comments appear to be somewhat confused and incoherent.
Reply

M.I.A.
12-30-2015, 05:42 PM
I just got carried away on a tangent, very barely kept it relevant..

Although it's not bad considering my normal.
Reply

Search
12-30-2015, 06:01 PM
:bism:

Hey, welcome to the board, bro! And hope you have a great experience here. I'll leave your first question for some other fellow on IB and begin to answer the questions in your second post God-willing to the best of my ability.

Originally Posted by BML
I wonder if I may move into the 21st century and pose the following questions:

Why have the many acts that have been described as terrorism been carried out. By that I mean the Twin Towers in America and the latest the killings in Paris?

Well, I dislike terrorism and feel there is absolutely zero justification for terrorism, no matter the terrorists' religion, creed, ethnicity, political ambition, race, etc.

However, that said, from what I have read and researched and discovered, terrorists in this specific context as you enumerated say that they are only taking revenge on world governments who carried out mass killings of Muslims in other countries or because of unwavering support of Israel which continues to commit many human rights violations against the people of Palestine with its illegal occupation.


What justification can be offered for such acts?

As a Muslim, I state categorically that no such justification can ever exist for such acts as they are evil acts and Islam has no place for such extremism or adoption of evil acts. Unfortunately, terrorists do not take into account orthodox Islam's position on acts of terrorism and only keep doing the evil they do because what drives them ultimately is a political agenda and utopian ambition of having a Caliphate.

What started this program of violence?

Hmm, I'd once answered this privately and so will paste what I'd written therein here also with minor changes.

The answer:

Global rise in Wahhabism, a particularly virulent strain of extremism, and Salafism to a lesser extent.

Wahabbism, that is, if you are unfamiliar with the term, is an ideological movement that originated in the 18th and 19th centuries in tribal areas of the Arabian Peninsula and was premised on rejection of traditional Islamic scholarship and practices under the guise of "reviving true Islam" and "protecting monotheism." However, what this purification comprised of is extreme censorship in the form of burning books containing traditional prayers, interpretations of law and commentaries on the Qur'an and ahadith (prophetic traditions), and encouraging Wahabbi followers which diverged also into Salafism movement to interpret Islam on one's own regardless of grounding in fundamental Islamic principles and knowledge. Anyone opposed to this new ideology was considered outside of the realm of Islam - an apostate, disbeliever or idolater, thus paving the way for bloodshed and enabling "permissible" confiscation of their wealth. The Wahhabi ideology is especially antagonistic to non-Muslims, and Salafism is too though to a lesser extent. And in the modern era Wahhabism is witness to the adoption of a militant stance against non-Muslims. "Wahhabi" followers and their offshoots in the Salafi movement have taken up an increasingly confrontational standpoint, attempting to impose their ideology in many regions around the world and is funded by Saudi Arabia under the current regime. Under this modern ideological extremism, Islam's essential principle of tolerance and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims has been abolished and all non-Muslims are believed to be "kuffar" and thereby you and I now are witnessing the attraction some Muslims feel for terrorist organizations like Daesh that are so blithe about their fanaticism.

What books does one need to obtain a balanced view of the events that led to the acts I referred to?

Hmm, to be honest, that's a hard thing to say because the Islamophobic Orientalism phenomena presently seeks to paint Islam and Muslims as the problem responsible for both Twin Towers and Paris Attacks. Of course, Paris Attack is more recent and therefore I'm not even sure what is currently in works in regards to academic scholarship and understanding of this as Daesh is a different organization to Al-Qaeda.
Hopefully, that helps, bro. Take care. Have a great day.

Reply

Scimitar
12-30-2015, 06:31 PM
Originally Posted by BML
Scimi asks, Do you believe that Muslims were responsible for 911?
I am obliged to reply, “Most certainly not!” I’m not even certain that asking, who was responsible gets us anywhere?” Maybe the question I should have asked was; Did whoever was responsible for destroying the Twin Towers believe that they had a valid reason for carrying out its destruction with all of the people that were in it and if so what was that reason?
Given what you've written, the whole premise of this thread has now collapsed.

Look bro, anyone who acts in violence for political purposes is not actually acting in the name of God or religion, remember that.

Twin Towers/911 were politically motivated, not religiously motivated - this is obvious to the whole world now, not just Muslims. And as we can see, it was the middle east, where the Abrahamic traditions are strongest, where the west attacked - under the pretense that this was a war on terror - or Islam, in the modern vernacular these are not mutually exclusive anymore - so when the media you was born into, has been brainwashing you since birth leads you to believe that this was a religiously motivated event, ask yourself one thing - did any religion in this world actually gain anything from this travesty? and you will quickly find that Satanism did.

Islam is the last living bastion against the World Order of Shaytaan, some call it NWO - whilst others call me fruit cakes :D Least my head aint in no cornflakes :D

Scimi
Reply

Futuwwa
12-30-2015, 06:58 PM
Originally Posted by BML
Why have the many acts that have been described as terrorism been carried out. By that I mean the Twin Towers in America and the latest the killings in Paris?
I'd say it's mainly because of various grievances, and being denied effective legitimate ways of obtaining redress. Something those complaining the loudest about Islamic terrorism are invariably unwilling to grant. As several statesmen have said, those who make nonviolent change impossible make violent change inevitable.
Reply

Syed Noman
12-30-2015, 07:10 PM
why you are only remember the 911? why you are forget the thousands of Muslim killed since 1940 in plastine Kashmir and many more countries and the world biggest terrorist ever is america because of his atomic attack in japan and millions of people killed just in a few minutes do you agree with me.
Reply

sister herb
12-30-2015, 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by Syed Noman
why you are only remember the 911? why you are forget the thousands of Muslim killed since 1940 in plastine Kashmir and many more countries and the world biggest terrorist ever is america because of his atomic attack in japan and millions of people killed just in a few minutes do you agree with me.
Why he would remember? One´s terrorists are other´s heroes and liberator forces.
Reply

Futuwwa
12-30-2015, 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by BML
The first book I found described the development and some of the history of Islam and within it I read that when Muhammad died his position, if that's the correct term to use, was followed by what were described by four "rightly guided “caliphs whose rule covered the period 632 to 661. I then read that three of these were assassinated which appeared to me to be rather savage bringing Islam into disrepute. Is it possible to say why, how this happened?

I apologise if anything I have written above offends anyone and if it does please explain to me why.
They were heads of state. Why do you think heads of state are protected by bodyguards? It seems to me like you're the one who are thinking the assassinations imply something, so why don't you go ahead and make your case for whatever you think it is?
Reply

BML
12-30-2015, 11:17 PM
Futuwwa
Of course you are quite correct. Heads of state do get assassinated and I suppose that my idealistic view of expecting something better than the average state from Islam was idealistic.
You asked me to make my case and I have to say that before I started asking questions about what are nothing other than atrocities I really had no case other than to believe that nothing happens in the world without a reason and it was the reason behind these atrocities that I was looking for.
I started by believing that those who committed the atrocities were motivated by their hatred of those who they killed and that their hatred was primarily aimed at western states especially America for their support of Israel and their actions in the middle east. As I started to read it became obvious that there was a body of opinion that considered Islam to be at fault.
If I am going to be able to reach a valid conclusion I need to find truthful and valid accounts that deal with what I have stated above and finding that the books that are available fall into to camps is not helpful.
Reply

sfontel
12-30-2015, 11:46 PM
Would I be wrong if I say that Muslims are in 100% of agreement, that the creation of the state of israel is the center of the problem?

This is a historical question...

Thanks and God bless!
Reply

Search
12-30-2015, 11:51 PM
:bism:

Majority of Muslims in the world are moderate and will never support any kind of terrorism. However, there is a minority of Muslims, who have a DIY type of philosophy in regards to Islam and do self-interpretation of Quran and ahadith (prophetic traditions) to justify the unjustifiable.

So, from my humble understanding, I should emphasize Islam is not at fault, and yet the extremist type of Islamic interpretation that started spreading in Arabia in the 18th and 19th centuries that I call Wahabbism had a tribal type of worldview in regards to non-Muslims, and of course, the interpretation was supported by Saudi Arabia because the regime wanted to ensure that they remain in power and that their actions are not called into question even if they indulge in un-Islamic actions. However, what I expect and see is that even Saudi Arabia did not anticipate the consequences of spreading this type of extreme interpretation of Islam, as some persons practicing Wahhabism or Salafism in our modern age are undoubtedly hateful and more easily persuaded into joining Islamic militants to commit un-Islamic actions under the guise of avenging lost Muslim lives elsewhere in the world and supporting purist Islam. Islamic scholars by consensus in the Muslim world have globally condemned and continue to condemn terrorism, suicide bombing. However, what terrorist organizations believe and say is that Islamic scholars who have taken this position are "sell-outs" and only they [terrorist organization members] are on true Islam and "haqq" ("truth"). They also say that the Muslims who do not support them are either pusillanimous, ignorant, villainous, deviant, modernist, sell-outs, or not Muslim.

To be honest, I think you'll find it hard (not saying impossible but definitely hard) to find books that offer balanced views because unfortunately the terrorist organizations' evil actions mean that all Muslims and Islam are tarred with the same brush and found guilty without a trial in the court of public opinion, not to mention that there is an easy money-making enterprise available in authoring Islamophobic literature or blogs. Also, the liberals or other like-minded individuals who try to voice their objection to stereotyping Muslims or Islam are considered sell-outs by ring-wingers or populists who are unequivocally not abashed about calling such individuals who are destroying the country. So, if I find any balanced literature, I'd definitely love to share with you; however, mostly, I have seen an overflowing of the opposite literature that seeks to say that Muslims and Islam are bad and evil and must be dealt with or even annihilated (in extreme literature).

So, sorry, bro, it's not going to be easy for you to sift through books to find balanced views; however, that said, I wish you resounding success on the endeavor.

Originally Posted by BML
Futuwwa
Of course you are quite correct. Heads of state do get assassinated and I suppose that my idealistic view of expecting something better than the average state from Islam was idealistic.
You asked me to make my case and I have to say that before I started asking questions about what are nothing other than atrocities I really had no case other than to believe that nothing happens in the world without a reason and it was the reason behind these atrocities that I was looking for.
I started by believing that those who committed the atrocities were motivated by their hatred of those who they killed and that their hatred was primarily aimed at western states especially America for their support of Israel and their actions in the middle east. As I started to read it became obvious that there was a body of opinion that considered Islam to be at fault.
If I am going to be able to reach a valid conclusion I need to find truthful and valid accounts that deal with what I have stated above and finding that the books that are available fall into to camps is not helpful.
Reply

Search
12-31-2015, 12:21 AM
:bism:

That's a difficult question to answer as I certainly do not presume to speak for all Muslims. So, I'll explain my view only.

However, from a historical perspective, I see the carving up of Ottoman Empire after WWI into arbitrary borders without considering ethnic or language barriers a trigger to start of the problem, and of course Israel pushing back against people of Palestine more and more without Palestinian peoples' having their grievances redressed on the global stage against Israeli human rights violations back then didn't help the matter as pan-Islamic identity had been globally weakened with the fall of the Ottoman Empire so that no so-called Muslim nation was either capable then or even desirous of effectuating a change that would address the problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when the conflict had been in its infancy. It is also possible that Muslims didn't really recognize the extent that the problem would build up over time because you and I have to understand and take into consideration that people then did not have the type of instant press that we have on our fingertips with the advent of cheap printed newspaper, mass-produced television and Internet; so, news would also have been slow-traveling back then, and maybe the defeat of the Ottoman Empire had knocked such a blow to Muslims then that they hadn't really been able to think through beyond their own internal national concerns to see that Israeli-Palestinian conflict wouldn't be able to be resolved peaceably into the future.

For example, if I may use the analogy, I'd use the analogy of Christendom. When Catholicism had monopoly over Europe before the Protestant Reformation, Christendom had been extremely strong. However, when specific countries chose to give/lend support to Protestantism more times out of geopolitical and economic concerns than religious ones, I do not think they anticipated how weakened Christianity's hold would become over Europe over many span of centuries' time so that many countries in Europe in the contemporary world are Christian in name only but not really observant of the faith. This consequence could not have been really anticipated by rulers who then elected to opt out of being a Catholic nation.

That is because hindsight is 20/20, and unfortunately, none of us really have it.

However, honestly, I'd say personally that Israel is not the root of problem but short-sighted Muslims generally who are too obsessed with West's actions to the point of having a myopic worldview are the problem. In Islam, the view is that God humiliates a people when they are not truly upon the deen (religion/way of life) and honors the people who are on the deen, which means that if Muslims want their external condition to change in the world, their internal (spiritual) condition must change for the better. However, Muslims generally have forgotten this spiritual truth so central to Islam and Islamic philosophy and continue to opine negatively about the West when the divine responsibility rests squarely on Muslims themselves. That's my humble opinion.

Originally Posted by sfontel
Would I be wrong if I say that Muslims are in 100% of agreement, that the creation of the state of israel is the center of the problem?

This is a historical question...

Thanks and God bless!
Reply

Zafran
12-31-2015, 12:59 AM
delete post mods
Reply

sfontel
12-31-2015, 01:03 AM
Originally Posted by Search
:bism:

That's a difficult question to answer as I certainly do not presume to speak for all Muslims. So, I'll explain my view only.

However, from a historical perspective, I see the carving up of Ottoman Empire after WWI into arbitrary borders without considering ethnic or language barriers a trigger to start of the problem, and of course Israel pushing back against people of Palestine more and more without Palestinian peoples' having their grievances redressed on the global stage against Israeli human rights violations back then didn't help the matter as pan-Islamic identity had been globally weakened with the fall of the Ottoman Empire so that no so-called Muslim nation was either capable then or even desirous of effectuating a change that would address the problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when the conflict had been in its infancy. It is also possible that Muslims didn't really recognize the extent that the problem would build up over time because you and I have to understand and take into consideration that people then did not have the type of instant press that we have on our fingertips with the advent of cheap printed newspaper, mass-produced television and Internet; so, news would also have been slow-traveling back then, and maybe the defeat of the Ottoman Empire had knocked such a blow to Muslims then that they hadn't really been able to think through beyond their own internal national concerns to see that Israeli-Palestinian conflict wouldn't be able to be resolved peaceably into the future.

For example, if I may use the analogy, I'd use the analogy of Christendom. When Catholicism had monopoly over Europe before the Protestant Reformation, Christendom had been extremely strong. However, when specific countries chose to give/lend support to Protestantism more times out of geopolitical and economic concerns than religious ones, I do not think they anticipated how weakened Christianity's hold would become over Europe over many span of centuries' time so that many countries in Europe in the contemporary world are Christian in name only but not really observant of the faith. This consequence could not have been really anticipated by rulers who then elected to opt out of being a Catholic nation.

That is because hindsight is 20/20, and unfortunately, none of us really have it.

However, honestly, I'd say personally that Israel is not the root of problem but short-sighted Muslims generally who are too obsessed with West's actions to the point of having a myopic worldview are the problem. In Islam, the view is that God humiliates a people when they are not truly upon the deen (religion/way of life) and honors the people who are on the deen, which means that if Muslims want their external condition to change in the world, their internal (spiritual) condition must change for the better. However, Muslims generally have forgotten this spiritual truth so central to Islam and Islamic philosophy and continue to opine negatively about the West when the divine responsibility rests squarely on Muslims themselves. That's my humble opinion.
All I can say is that I would like to see you and others that think as you as the single voice of Islam...thats way we would be able to reason and with certanty find a solution to this issues!

GOD bless!
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-23-2014, 09:20 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-01-2010, 04:50 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!