The sorry state of Muslim World

There are indeed a ton of problems in the middle-east, and education is probably one of the biggest issues.However, why do you assume the problem lies with religion? In my opinion, the most obvious reason for this is first the colonisation of most of those countries, followed later on by a sudden vacuum of power which was afterwards filled by dictators and what-not. If however you study history further back, you see that the middle east has had it's golden ages as well, and the tables were turned once. so obviously it's not a problem that comes from religion, but which has other factors.

As for that website you mention, I don't know that specific sites. But there are tons of idiotic sites, coming from all denominations and groups of people. It's one of those laws of the internet. The number of idiotic website will always be proportionally constant to the number of people who have acces to it... (regardless their religious views!) So you've found a site which has poor information... Your point was?

I watched a program about Sikhs the other day they were celebrating something or another in Pakistan having come all the way from Punjab... The guy who was being interviewed concentrated all his efforts to speak poorly of the host region, of Pakistanis and Islam and I wondered if that made him feel better about his own beliefs or solidified them for him?
At any rate all empires rise and fall, as the hadith goes:

" كما تكونوا يولى عليكم "
and even though it is a weak hadith is certainly rings true.. Bad people have bad rulers,,, for it is what God sees fit for us as a people undeserving of the divine message we've neglected for man made laws and worldly lure.. But it doesn't denote permanence already the tides of change are reverberating all throughout the Muslim world and there's a new awakening to the hibernating lion for make no mistake, the ummah maybe a wounded lion but it is a lion nonetheless!. As for Islamic or Muslim contributions in modern time.. well there's no 'Muslim Ummah' to foster the talents of its children, they're talented just the same, they don't put their talent under the title of 'Muslim scientist' anymore no- the glory goes to the country of citizenship. Visit any hospital of large firm and look at the list of names and who the brightest of its stars. . Some of the best doctors bar none that have made it to the hall of fame are Muslim. ...
If I were you and I am convinced of my beliefs and gurus then I'd concentrate my efforts on my own spiritual growth, I wouldn't go visit a forum and tell its members oh look at your sorry state.. in fact that speaks more of your state of being than ours..
btw my close friend and college friend is Sikh, I must admit I haven't found unanimity between her beliefs or those of other sikhs, each gives their own version and then mocks the others for being heretics -- I find that quite strange !

best,

format_quote Originally Posted by g.singh

Middle east is a muslim dominated area of the world with huge resources of oil and if needed they can actually become the world power. But sadly, its one area that no one wants to live in (including muslims). We look at the modern world histroy and there is nothing to speak about muslim contribution in the field of science, technology , etc.

This is completely fallacious. It was because of Muslim scientists we even have the scientific method - i.e. the corner stone of scientific study. Half of the utensils doctors use today are based on (or are actual) tools designed and created by Muslim scientists. The field of algebra was invented by Muslim mathematicians. The numbers you use to tell the time are based on Muslim designed numbers. The ranks in your military, again based on Muslim terminology. I could go on.

All we hear from muslims is their hatered against other religions, or demanding sharia in UK or US or AUS instead of living in peace in these great countries. All they have to say is how great quran is and blah blah blah. Personally the world is least interested. But as I said this thread is not about discussing religious topics.

Really? How many Muslims have you personally met in real life stating those claims? Would you say that number (if at all) is representative of 1.6(*) billion people?

Even when muslims comes to west, all they keep asking about is how oppresed they are

That's because they ARE. Take a look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine or just about any Muslim country and you'll see it for yourself. So what you're actually saying is Muslims should shut up about being oppressed because you don't want to here it? That's honestly the most douchiest thing I have ever read on the internet.

and need government funding to tell people more about islam and implement sharia law.

This is an outright lie on both occasions. First of all: any mosque or Islamic centre is built entirely on donations because this country is secular and does not fund Islamic places of worship...Secondly, since when was the concept of wanting something in a Democracy a bad thing? Are you against freedom of speech now? I think you are, it seems to fit with everything you've said so far...hopefully I'm wrong.

I mean isn't it unislamic anyway to get assistance from non muslims as per quran?

Again another outright lie.

And if they like sharia so much, y they left their country in first place.

Because their own countries are not using Sharia Law. Just like how your "home" country is not using the Sikh Law system.

Where as Jews on the other hand as the most inteligent people out there (Surprise, Surprise?). Most advanced in every field and more importantly no suicide bomboers

I don't know why you are turning this into Muslim vs Jews....

And then I watch people like Zakir Niak on television and muslims follow him blindly and they I am no longer surprised. Instead of teaching non muslims about Islam, I would actually ask Zakir Niak to go to middle east and teach people how to live in peace and harmoy.

I'm sorry, are you actually saying he shouldn't educate uneducated people (such as yourself) on Islam's teachings? If you bothered to actually listen to any of his (and many other sheiks/imaams etc) vids you'd see he addresses all your issues and more.

You want a discussion on all things Islamic? I'll welcome you with open arms. You want to vent your anger? Get lost.

I think you're being very close minded in many of the generalisations you're making.

Just wanted to let you know that contributions from Muslims towards things like Science are starting to increase, check out Saudi's improvement over the past year;



Also you need to keep in mind things like poverty, corrupt leaders etc. Which hamper down heavily towards our progress. And let's not even go into history, where Muslims were the main contributes towards many of the advancements of civilizations between 800-1200.

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

But there is little question that he was a ruthless warlord.

Don't you mean he(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was the most merciful "warlord" in history? Please show me one other instance in history that can compare to what happened during the conquest of Mecca?

But what is this? Is there no blood in the streets? Where are the bodies of the thousands that have been butchered? Facts are hard things; and it is a fact that the day of Muhammad’s greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Kureysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn they had inflicted on him; he gave an amnesty to the whole population of Makkah. Four criminals whom justice condemned, made up Muhammad’s proscription list; no house was robbed, no woman insulted. It was thus that Muhammad entered again his native city. Through all the annals of conquest, there is no triumphant entry like unto this one. (Lane Poole, quoted in Introduction to Higgins’ Apology for Mohammad pp ixxi)

And I can tell you, given what the Qureysh actually did, ruthless or not, it's hard to imagine anyone in his position would've just stated a few scriptural verses and let them off so easily.

Do some real research on the man, you owe yourself that much at least.

format_quote Originally Posted by g.singh

Most advanced in every field and more importantly no suicide bomboers

Because apparently, when Israel bomb houses usually consisting of only 8 children and two women makes them better than suicide bombers.

The following groups have been considered religious terrorist organizations in Israel:

• Gush Emunim Underground (1979–84): formed by members of the Israeli political movement Gush Emunim.^[10] This group is most well known for two actions. Firstly, for bomb attacks on the mayors of West Bank cities on June 2, 1980, and secondly, an abandoned plot to blow up the Temple Mount mosques. The Israeli Judge Zvi Cohen, heading the sentencing panel at the group’s trial, stated that they had three motives, ‘not necessarily shared by all the defendants. The first motive, at the heart of the Temple Mount conspiracy, is religious.’^[11]

• Keshet (Kvutza Shelo Titpasher) (1981–1989): A Tel Aviv anti-Zionist haredi group focused on bombing property without loss of life.^[12][13]:101 Yigal Marcus, Tel Aviv District Police commander, said that he considered the group a gang of criminals, not a terrorist group.^[14]

• The "Bat Ayin Underground" or Bat Ayin group. In 2002, four people from Bat Ayin and Hebron were arrested outside of Abu Tor School, a Palestinian girls' school in East Jerusalem, with a trailer filled with explosives. Three of the men were convicted for the attempted bombing.^{[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]}

• Brit HaKanaim (Hebrew: בְּרִית הַקַנַאִים, lit. Covenant of the Zealots) was a radical religious Jewish underground organisation which operated in Israel between 1950 and 1953, against the widespread trend of secularisation in the country. The ultimate goal of the movement was to impose Jewish religious law in the State of Israel and establish a Halakhic state.^[22]

• The Kingdom of Israel group (Hebrew: מלכות ישראל, Malchut Yisrael), or Tzrifin Underground, were active in Israel in the 1950s. The group carried out attacks on the diplomatic facilities of the USSR and Czechoslovakia and occasionally shot at Jordanian troops stationed along the border in Jerusalem. Members of the group were caught trying to bomb the Israeli Ministry of Education in May 1953, have been described as acting because of the secularisation of Jewish North African immigrants which they saw as 'a direct assault on the religious Jews' way of life and as an existential threat to the ultra-Orthodox community in Israel.'^[23]

It's pretty clear when you made this thread, you never did any research whatsoever. Just posted what you thought based on your limited observations and confirmation biases.

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

What is true however, is that scientific contributions from the Islamic world in the time period of the scientific revolution (late 1500's onwards) have been too few because of the rise in fundamentalism in the religion

what evidence you have to support that fundamentalism represses scientific growth? Avicenna was a very fundamentalist believer of his ideology. He even criticized Rhazes for not being trained in philosophy yet meddling in it.

You are ignorant. There are many Muslim scientists all across the world who are making new discoveries. My Muslim friend is 32 years old and he already has 3 publications in Nature in Immunology. You are stoned, go home.

Hopefilly Ill have a publiction soon too iA and I think i am a muslim ....

so back off, back off.

and that website I gav you, itss an epic dawah initiative for sikhs. Just admit the owner of that website exposed contradictions in your own scripture.

[QUOTE=g.singh;1561844]

Where as Jews on the other hand as the most inteligent people out there (Surprise, Surprise?). Most advanced in every field and more importantly no suicide bomboers[/

Allah had earlier chosen the the Jews for spreading islam's message but they have done away with role and have made their religion a racial religion and have sold their religion for the filth of this world and are just happy with political power and are afraid that if islam spreads they can no longer enjoy and are thus hiring shills and islamophobes like you to spread hate about it.

And then I watch people like Zakir Niak on television and muslims follow him blindly and they I am no longer surprised. Instead of teaching non muslims about Islam, I would actually ask Zakir Niak to go to middle east and teach people how to live in peace and harmoy.

Why dont you ask your bomb factories like RSS, VHP , Shiv sena to live in peace with Muslims ? Those filthy terrorist animals have demolished Babri masjid , attacked Mecca masjid, framed muslims and kill innocent women and children in Gujarat .

format_quote Originally Posted by g.singh

Middle east is a muslim dominated area of the world with huge resources of oil and if needed they can actually become the world power. But sadly, its one area that no one wants to live in (including muslims).

Speak only for yourself. Non-Muslims don't want to live in Middle-East, particularly Saudi Arabia, because they can't be promiscuous and alcoholics over there. It is quite difficult to find alcohol and women who prostitute themselves for free in Muslim countries.

Ever since I've returned from my Umrah last year, I'm so eager to go back that I can't even explain. I wish I could live in Makkah all my life. Various reasons block my way. Believe me, a great many number of Muslims from all over the world wish to live in the Middle-East.

Hi TJ-alcapone
Some thoughts on what you said:

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

Merciful warlord? Do you not see the paradox there? This notion that people would willingly surrender there lands is ludicrous. He did set out on a conquest, and he was indeed successful to an extent. But as is the case with any war, there is massive loss of life and blood. This is true of other monotheistic religions as well, such as Christianity and Judaism. Besides if you are saying that he had a temporary change of heart, that is a poor excuse. History is full of blood thirsty military leaders who change their ways and often seek religion. Ashoka is one example, when his wars cost the lives of thousands of lives, he took refuge in Buddhism. The mistake we shouldn't commit is firstly we shouldn't really judge these military leaders and emperors by today's standard. If so, most should be considered war criminals. Secondly and more importantly, don't gratify your emotional desires by distorting history.

There wasn't a change of heart. Islam is practical. Yes sure, pacifism is nice in theory; untill your enemy slaughters your whole community. Sometimes war is the only realistic option for long term survival. But when peace became a realistic option; then that path was always prefered. If you'd actually study the biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him) before criticising, that much would have been clear to you. As for distorting history, could you name a single event of that: "plundering and pillaging" you mentioned before?

Christian fundamentalism is full of such examples. Scores of people were burned at the stake for heresy. Giordano Bruno is one stellar example. Your colleagues burning to death isn't exactly what would serve as incentive for a larger pursuit of scientific I suppose. In its broadest sense, fundamentalism by definition is a form of ideological intransigence, which is not limited to religion, but includes political or social positions as well. Hence of course it would have consequences of free pursuit of knowledge. One good example of such in today's world would be stem cell research. Or take the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany. It had a tremendously adverse effect on German scientists as the atmosphere was intensely hostile and political, rather than the focus being on scientific discovery.

There are so many flaws with that argument. First of all, why on earth would you assume that what goes for Christianity would also go for Islam? They are two diffrent religions. It is true that there are some simularities, but that doesn't mean you can jump conclusions and say that anything which goes for christianity goes for Islam as well. The problem with Christianity is that their leaders had "filled in the blanks" while composing the bible, and now allot of those "filled in blanks" seem to contradict science. So obviously they had to make a choice there. As far as Islamic scripture is concearned, science has so far only confirmed claims you can find therin.
Secondly, if your argument is against fundamentalism, I'd be inclined to agree. It is true that moderation, and finding the right balance is the key. And in Islam we are instructed to follow the path of "the middle way". However what you seem to be implying, is a simplistic scale where, the more religious a person is, the more extreme he must be. That is off course idiotic. A person can be very religious, and yet very balanced without falling into the trapholes of fundamentalism. So the notion that the problems with fundamentalism proves a case against religion as a whole does not stand.

I am not sure whether your reply was to my post or the person who started this thread. But anyway, it is not that Muslim scientists themselves aren't engaging in scientific pursuits, but rather that the environment in the Islamic world is such that it greatly stifles innovation and scientific discovery. No wonder the top intellectuals and academicians of the Muslim world are all seeking refuge in western universities. And thereby the industries of those nations reap the benefit of the research. Take Iran for example, the supposed spearhead of scientific education in the Middle east. Its ratio of GDP which it allocates to R&D is dwarfed by the average in most other industrialized countries of the world. It is Iran's loss that it is not able to keep hold of its intelligentsia.

I mostly agree with you there, except then, that I would say

"but rather that the political environment in the middle east is such that it greatly stifles innovation and scientific discovery" instead of:
"but rather that the environment in the Islamic world is such that it greatly stifles innovation and scientific discovery"

If people blind themselves to bigotry and worship instead of critical reasoning and free condemnation, change will be slow and hard to come by.

• How does worship play into that? Can you actually demonstrate that the worship of a deity is an inhibition to improving the wellbeing of a country? Or is this just bias on your part?
• As for bigotry, that's not something that's encouraged by Islam. So that part of the comment is neither here nor there
• As for critical reasoning that actually is encourage in Islam, and you'll find many verses in the quran about that if you'd actually read it.
• I don't know what you actually meant by "free condemnation". I don't know what's so great about condemning one another without consequence. Perhaps you meant something different?

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

Merciful warlord? Do you not see the paradox there?

By Merciful warlord, it means the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) wasn't a coward who would sit on a high throne telling people to go out and fight random wars. Rather, he knew his people had to defend themselves, and instead of just giving orders, he himself would lead from the front lines as an example. This was such an inspiration for those around him.

It's amazing when kings wouldn't even do that much, and here we had the most wanted man in Arabia and the Prophet of God.

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

This notion that people would willingly surrender there lands is ludicrous.

Not quite as "ludicrous" as people who would willingly take persecution on their own land.

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

He did set out on a conquest, and he was indeed successful to an extent.

Nope, he set out to deliver a message from God. When he got persecuted and ended up having to fight back, he ended up conquering and liberating Arabia, free'ing it from its past practices ie. Infanticide, pimping slaves, betting women, playing darts on slaves tied to a poll, shooting sports on animals and so on.

Upon his conquest he reflected to his people that he had never intended for it to get to this point if his people had just accepted his message from the very start. This is why I vividly stated;

And I can tell you, given what the Qureysh actually did, ruthless or not, it's hard to imagine anyone in his position would've just stated a few scriptural verses and let them off so easily.

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

But as is the case with any war, there is massive loss of life and blood.

Not compared to similar types of wars. Scholars (based on the evidence) estimate around 1000-4000 lives were lost over a period of 23 years in the battles.

The reasons;

- Some of the battles were just skirmishes (sometimes only duels) and this would be a humiliation for the losing side, end up demotivating them.
- Kept forgiving his enemies. As someone once said;

"Can we picture the American, or French, or Russian Revolutions proceeding under the injunction to spare life whenever possible, encourage personal repentance before God, and forgive enemies? Can we picture them succeeding in these goals while holding casualties to microscopic levels?"

Given what the Qureysh had done (in terms of their persecution, torture, killing etc.) I haven't come across a similar case in history where the persecuted people, rose to power over them and ended up forgiving them in the end.

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

This is true of other monotheistic religions as well, such as Christianity and Judaism.

Not really an accurate comparison given that in Christian/Jewish states minorities were never able to live without persecution or being killed.

The Islamic state was the first of its kind that allowed so many different minorities live together in prolonged moments of peace. In the Islamic golden age, not just Muslims, but Christians, Jews and even Atheists were freely able to contribute towards progress.

“The religion, churches, lives, chastity and property of the entire Christians living in the East and the West are under the protection of Allah, His Prophet (saas) and all the believers. None of the people embracing the religion of Christianity will be forced to accept Islam. If one of the Christians suffers murder or injustice, Muslims are obliged to help him,” he narrated the verse: “Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way…” (Surat al-Anqabut, 29/46). - (Ibn Hisham, Abu Muhammad Abdu’l-Malik, (v.218/834), as-Seerat an-Nabaweeyat, Daru’t-Turasi’l-Arabiyye, Beirut, 1396/1971, IV/241-242; Hamidullah, Al-Wasaiq, s.154-155, No.96-97; Doğu Batı kaynaklarında birlikte yaşama, “Living together in Eastern and Western sources”, p. 95)

"…We may feel certain that if Western Christians, instead of the Saracens and the Turks, had won the dominion over Asia, there would be today not a trace left of the Greek Church, and that they would never have tolerated Muhammadanism as the ‘infidels’ have tolerated Christianity there. We (Christians) enjoy the fine advantage of being far better versed than others in the art of killing, bombarding and exterminating the Human Race" - (Bayle P., Dictionary, ‘the article Mahomed’, 1850)

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

Besides if you are saying that he had a temporary change of heart, that is a poor excuse.

His heart never changed, he never wanted to engage in a war and only ended up doing what he had to. He no longer wanted to see his people persecuted, tortured and wiped of the planet. He no longer wanted to see the evil practices that have lead so many astray and caused so many lives to be lost. He no longer wanted to see this petty tribal wars, the divisions amongst his people and so on. He decided to fight back, to liberate and unify the Arabian peninsula.

The greatest crime, the greatest ‘sin’ of Mohammad in the eyes of the Christian West is that he did not allow himself to be slaughtered, to be ‘crucified’ by his enemies. He only defended himself, his family and his followers; and finally vanquished his enemies. Mohammad’s success is the Christians’ gall of disappointment: He did not believe in any vicarious sacrifices for the sins of others. [Edward Gibbon]

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

History is full of blood thirsty military leaders who change their ways and often seek religion.

Nothing like the Prophet Muhammad. When the Orientilist Lane Poole said; "Through all the annals of conquest, there is no triumphant entry like unto this one..." He had a point.

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

Ashoka is one example, when his wars cost the lives of thousands of lives, he took refuge in Buddhism.

This is a terrible comparison, it really is.

- Did Ashoka and his people go through immense torture and persecution for 13 years?
- Did Ashoka fight when he ended up being forced to?
- Did Ashoka kept forgiving people like Muhammad did during his battles? I don't think so, that's why;

"Ashoka reflected on the war in Kalinga, which reportedly had resulted in more than 100,000 deaths and 150,000 deportations."^[3]

Compare that to the 1000-4000.

- Did Ashoka aim to wipe out the evil practices like the ones that were present in Arabia, or did all he want to do was Conquer? (You know the answer to this).

In about 260 BCE Ashoka waged a bitterly destructive war against the states of Kalinga (modern Orissa).^[2] He conquered Kalinga, which none of his ancestors starting from Chandragupta Maurya had conquered. His reign was headquartered in Magadha (present-day Bihar). He supposedly embraced Buddhism after witnessing the mass deaths of the Kalinga War, which he himself had waged out of a desire for conquest

- Did Ashoka have strict rules of war against killing civilians?

Narrated By ‘Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah’s Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children. [Saheeh Bukhari]

Narated By Rabah ibn Rabi’ : When we were with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) on an expedition, he saw some people collected together over something and sent a man and said: See, what are these people collected around? He then came and said: They are round a woman who has been killed. He said: This is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. Khalid ibn al-Walid was in charge of the van; so he sent a man and said: Tell Khalid not to kill a woman or a hired servant. [Abu Dawud]

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, ‘The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.’” - [Malik Mutawatta]

Abu Bakr(ra)’s speech to the Army before dispatching them to Syria in which he said; I advise you ten things Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly… You are going to find a group of people who have devoted themselves to the worship of Allah (i.e. monks), so leave them to what they are doing. [Malik Mutawatta]

Anas b. Mâlik said that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) would say the following words to his troops before sending them to war: “Go forward in the name of Allah. Do not kill an elderly person, nor a small child, nor a woman, and do not exceed the bounds.” [Abû Dâwûd]

The Classical scholars are unanimous in this;

“As for the insane person then there should be no difference of opinion whatsoever over the issue of not killing them, even if the person has reached maturity, this is because the person is not responsible by agreement. The evidence that these types of peope (are not to be fought against) is the saying of Allaah: “Fight in the way of Allaah against thse who fight you and do not trangress the limits. Indeed, Allaah does not love those who trangress”. (Qur’an 2:190). From these types of people are those who are generally unable to fight such as the elderly, the decrepit, those who are secluded in worship, hired workers, mothers and the likes who are not to be trangressed against during fighting and Allaah gave them a special position in that it is prohibited to kill them due to His saying: “And do not trangress the limits”. (Qur’an 2:190). Meaning: Do not kill non-combatants such as women due to their inability to fight”. (Ibnul Munaasir, Vol 1, Page 228).

I can go on and on. It's a silly comparison and hopefully you can see why. Even Orientilists who have studied the life of the Prophet have observed;

"This respect for human blood is unequaled in the annals of man [Prophet Muhammad brought the most benefit - with the least amount of casualties]. The truth of this assertion is simply borne out if the losses of these campaigns are placed by the side of casualties in the last two world wars... yet none of these two blood-stained wars can be claimed to have done any good to the humanity nor did they solve any problem of the world. The Inquisitions established by the Roman catholic church in the Middle Ages for trial and punishment for heretics is reported to have taken a toll of 12 million lives." [John Devenport, Apology for Muhammad and Qur'an].

It was Abu Hanifa, a leading legal expert of Persian origin, the founder of a school of law in Baghdad, who first forbade the killing of women, children, the elderly, the sick, monks and other non-combatants. He also condemned rape and the killing of captives.… A legal expert in Baghdad, [he] attempted to make war more humane by setting forth rules that were not accepted in Europe until several centuries later—rules that were still not accepted, in any case not practiced, when colored people were involved. [Sven Lindqvist, A History of Bombing (New York: The New Press, 2000), 9.]

note: It was Abu Hanifa (one of the early Muslim scholars, founder of the Hanafi School and considered one of the four great Imams in Islam) who first codified these rules in a legal system, but all of the rules were taken from injunctions given by the Prophet Muhammad himself.

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

The mistake we shouldn't commit is firstly we shouldn't really judge these military leaders and emperors by today's standard.

Even if we did, they'd still come short of the conquest of Mecca.

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

If so, most should be considered war criminals.

Then every nation that's ever defended itself must be considered a war criminal. Every man that ever succefully liberated his people from oppression must be considered a war criminal.

format_quote Originally Posted by TJ-alcapone

Secondly and more importantly, don't gratify your emotional desires by distorting history.

You don't know anything about history. It became clear when you brought Ashoke into it how clueless you really are about Islam and the sirah of the Prophet.

Learn about the topic before you speak of it with ignorance.

muslims lack the faith they once had - the true strong deep connection with Allaah that once shook the hearts of the enemies of islaam is now scarce.

If you just read about the ettiquettes and mannerisms it is clear that what was and what is are too far away. Once muslims conquer their hearts and desires and accept Islam the way it was meant to - then the problems you see in the middle east will dissolve.


This wont happen until Imam Mahdi appears.

format_quote Originally Posted by g.singh

Middle east is a muslim dominated area of the world with huge resources of oil and if needed they can actually become the world power. But sadly, its one area that no one wants to live in (including muslims).

just google the terms - colonization corruption statistics -
and you'll probably wonder how it is that everywhere these "civilised" people go - the corruption spikes beyond record levels and continues for centuries.
and after deposing genuinely respected leaders, they install the lowest of the low who will sell their mothers for a pound or dollar.
i am currently living in a country which still suffers from rampant corruption - where ministers sell out government contracts for pennies on the pound to foreign companies.

also look at the financial stability of the countries before colonization and after.

do you really think people just love to leave their families and go off to freezing cold countries where they're often discriminated against and live to work and work to live?

format_quote Originally Posted by g.singh

Where as Jews on the other hand as the most inteligent people out there (Surprise, Surprise?). Most advanced in every field and more importantly no suicide bomboers

were you even aware of the fact israel survives on aid from america which is looted from "those arabs"?
and that even now - despite all their propaganda and deception about "the will of the people", they do their very best to make sure people in Muslim countries don't get a government of their own choice?
look at the events in Palestine, iraq, afghanistan and egypt - those are in the last decade. and the bid for statehood just a few weeks ago along with the reaction - we can see who is "advanced" and "civilized".
maybe it's because you've been brainwashed by the capitalist system into believing advancement and civilization mean tools and money.
not your fault, i'd put it down to your parents who left you in front of the t.v instead of teaching you to think for yourself.

and to the other brother who responded with the apology about fundamentalism, no offense intended but it was because many of us Muslims went away from the fundamentals of our deen that our resolve to learn, act and teach diminished,
the luxury and decadence made us forget Allah and we forgot ourselves.
and with it our honour and zeal went out the window and we allowed these children of apes to dominate over us.
it was the fundamentalists who understood the mechanics, not the decorators who focused on the paint job.

O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.
And if you dispute over a thing, then return it to Allah and the Messenger, if you have faith in Allah and the Last Day.
That is better and more beautiful of interpretation.
Quran 4:59

let us not apologize for God and His Messenger and those who go back to their deen, because the ones calling you a fundamentalist often don't know the meaning of the term.

format_quote Originally Posted by g.singh

Sat Sri Akal Everyone

Hey

Even when muslims comes to west, all they keep asking about is how oppresed they are and need government funding to tell people more about islam and implement sharia law. I mean isn't it unislamic anyway to get assistance from non muslims as per quran? And if they like sharia so much, y they left their country in first place.

I never said that I need government funding, nor do I demand for Sharia. I actually keep my beliefs to myself. I didn't leave my country. I was born in the UK and probably die there as well. :/ Never moved.

Where as Jews on the other hand as the most inteligent people out there (Surprise, Surprise?). Most advanced in every field and more importantly no suicide bomboers

Ah just don't say Jews are the best in the banking field or associate them with anything to do with finance. You may be called a racist.

And then I watch people like Zakir Niak on television and muslims follow him blindly and they I am no longer surprised. Instead of teaching non muslims about Islam, I would actually ask Zakir Niak to go to middle east and teach people how to live in peace and harmoy.

Why so you think this is the case?

Your asking the wrong person. Go to his speeches and ask him.

Oh let me ask you a question. Where have the Sikhs contributed to this world? Do they even have a country? :/

Some of them contributed towards keeping millions of their own people in check when the British east India company came over and took over India with around 5,000 soldiers.