problems with islamic history...

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Sis, ok your learning the way they tell you. But how will things change if someone doesnt step up to the plate and say "Hey, this is all wrong!" If someone has the guts and knowledge to do so, go ahead. But I would never sit quiet and let the lies pass by me. Sure I'd learn it the way they are if I want to get ahead in the university...but even just verbally fixing their mistakes makes a whole lot of a difference...even if its just in their minds...

The point here is that if you want to learn Islamic history itself...whats better than going to the source itself? And it seems to me your field is history in general. So i think its proper you learn it the way they tell you, but also remember to fix their mistakes if you can. Why should we let lies about our Deen pass like nothing?

!

 

[Woodrow]

I am going to move this thread where it belongs shortly. But, before I do I would just like to point out a few realities.

1. Muhammad(PBUH) was Arab. Who did he conquer for? the Arab world? Less then 15% of the world's Muslims are Arab. Seems like that was not much of a conquest.

2. my ancestors the Taters of the Golden horde, were pagans when they attacked the Muslim world. they had already invaded much of Eastern Europe. They reverted to Islam after their blody conquest. The same can be seen with the Berbers of the Sahara, they had conqured North Africa and then reverted once they came in contact with Islam.

3. Muhammads conquest of Makkah was peaceful, not an enemy was killed. It was later because of treachery that any killing took place.

 

[sevgi]

precisely woodrow.

i know all this, tho, the initial point of this thread was the fact that many 'western' sources on the early medieval period are innacurate and send off a messge totally opposite to what our prophet and khalifs intended and acted.

i was upset due to the fact that i am obliged to use these sources throughout my course and degree.

however, seeing as this thread is about a year old, i am a year advanced in my degree and have learnt my way around the 'facts'...i am pretty much qualified to critique such 'facts' and prove them wrong...

 

[Woodrow]

precisely woodrow.

i know all this, tho, the initial point of this thread was the fact that many 'western' sources on the early medieval period are innacurate and send off a messge totally opposite to what our prophet and khalifs intended and acted.

i was upset due to the fact that i am obliged to use these sources throughout my course and degree.

however, seeing as this thread is about a year old, i am a year advanced in my degree and have learnt my way around the 'facts'...i am pretty much qualified to critique such 'facts' and prove them wrong...

I am glad to see that you have seen that "History" books will differ depending on whose perspective you are looking at it from. History doesn't change, but the facts get "remembered" differently.

With that said it is best to close this thread before additional confusion is added.