please find your own word to describe the unelightened, that one is ours.
we might be on to something here...
and Andy,
you rule dude
we might be on to something here...
and Andy,
you rule dude
Buy on AliExpress.com
Able Xavier Converts to Islam (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ventus
- Start date
- Status
Buy on AliExpress.com
Before Islam, during Mohammad, after Mohammad, until today, you can see a pattern in the behavior of the nobility when put in the same position as Abu Sufyan. I can't help you people if you think that your shit doesn't smell as bad as my shit or any other's shit.
When you were on top and you had great privileges, you'll do whatever needed to keep these privileges. Just because Muslims think that everyone joined them because they realized that there is one true God and one true religion, doesn't mean it happened.
And yes, many normal people did join them for that. Islam was progressive and prosperous at the time and the place. No wonder many found it attractive. But from 7th till mid 15th century I have many examples (with various sources from different provenience) that show why did the nobility accept Islam or, if didn't convert to Islam, fought in Islamic armies, which makes me think that it was no different during Mohammad's time.
Live with it.
Btw, are you Moroccan?
P.S: And if we want a different source, can we check what do the Shia Muslims say about Abu Sufyan and his reasons why he converted to Islam?
Here it is:
"The Shia divide the companions into three factions: First, are those who
believed in Allah (SWT), believed in the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and gave all
they could for the sake of Islam. These are the highest in rank. These
companions ALWAYS supported the Prophet and were WITH him. They never
disobeyed him in every other issue, nor did they ever accused him of
talking non-sense! (may Allah protect us). Examples include, but are not
limited to, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (AS), Abu Dhar al-Ghifari, Salman al-Farsi,
Miqdad, Amar Ibn Yasir, Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari, ... may Allah (SWT)
be pleased with them.
The second group, are those who were Muslims, but were not sincere in
their acts.
The third group, are those who became apostate after the death of Prophet
as al-Bukhari recorded (see below), or those who neither believed in Allah
(SWT), nor the Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the first place, but managed to
infiltrate the Islamic isles to be included among the Muslims. These are
the hypocrites, like Abu Sufyan, his son Muawiyah, and his grandson Yazid.
Yazid, when he became caliph, said:
"Hashimite played with the throne, but no revelation was revealed, nor
was there a true message!!!""
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/shia4.txt
When you were on top and you had great privileges, you'll do whatever needed to keep these privileges. Just because Muslims think that everyone joined them because they realized that there is one true God and one true religion, doesn't mean it happened.
And yes, many normal people did join them for that. Islam was progressive and prosperous at the time and the place. No wonder many found it attractive. But from 7th till mid 15th century I have many examples (with various sources from different provenience) that show why did the nobility accept Islam or, if didn't convert to Islam, fought in Islamic armies, which makes me think that it was no different during Mohammad's time.
Live with it.
Btw, are you Moroccan?
P.S: And if we want a different source, can we check what do the Shia Muslims say about Abu Sufyan and his reasons why he converted to Islam?
Here it is:
"The Shia divide the companions into three factions: First, are those who
believed in Allah (SWT), believed in the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and gave all
they could for the sake of Islam. These are the highest in rank. These
companions ALWAYS supported the Prophet and were WITH him. They never
disobeyed him in every other issue, nor did they ever accused him of
talking non-sense! (may Allah protect us). Examples include, but are not
limited to, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (AS), Abu Dhar al-Ghifari, Salman al-Farsi,
Miqdad, Amar Ibn Yasir, Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari, ... may Allah (SWT)
be pleased with them.
The second group, are those who were Muslims, but were not sincere in
their acts.
The third group, are those who became apostate after the death of Prophet
as al-Bukhari recorded (see below), or those who neither believed in Allah
(SWT), nor the Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the first place, but managed to
infiltrate the Islamic isles to be included among the Muslims. These are
the hypocrites, like Abu Sufyan, his son Muawiyah, and his grandson Yazid.
Yazid, when he became caliph, said:
"Hashimite played with the throne, but no revelation was revealed, nor
was there a true message!!!""
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/shia4.txt
It was progressive without a doubt. Compare pre-Islamic Arabia with mid-late 7th century Arabia or 8th century Arabia and you'll realize how progressive it was.
And all the Islamic laws and rules had a perfectly logical meaning at the time.
Just that I think, i'm convinced, that what was progressive at the time is backward now in the 21st century, while the Muslims think that those laws and rules have the same importance and meaning as they had back in the 7th century and they'll have it for eternity.
Obviously neither of us can change each other's opinion, but it's still fun discussing about it and thinking that we owned the other side, while in reality we achieved shit
And all the Islamic laws and rules had a perfectly logical meaning at the time.
Just that I think, i'm convinced, that what was progressive at the time is backward now in the 21st century, while the Muslims think that those laws and rules have the same importance and meaning as they had back in the 7th century and they'll have it for eternity.
Obviously neither of us can change each other's opinion, but it's still fun discussing about it and thinking that we owned the other side, while in reality we achieved shit
No but when you lose a battle*, you think of what has happened for the losers in "most of the time" so you or anyone else in the right mind of his would avoid facing with such a treatment. Doesn't necessarily mean that Muhammad would have treated them like that though.
* It wasn't really a battle in Abu Sofyan's case though. He felt that Quraish are not strong enough to keep the Muslims from conquering Mecca. There was no other way for him but to yield.
I'm not going to go through the Abu Sofyan case because living in a Shi'a environment, I've been told (in history books, movies, etc) that he'd never actually converted to Islam. After the Mecca conquest by Muhammad he just had to utter "Ash-Hado alla elaha ella Allah". Have no idea about the substance in those sources, neither do I care about it.
I'm not talking about those people who brought their idols to Kaaba. Muhammad cleansed the Kaaba from all the idols even though there were still some people who were worshiping them.
And what do you mean by stressing on "after the battles"? Only because Muhammad conquered Mecca, him throwing out the idols is justified? So now that Israelis are ruling Palestine, are they right not to let the Muslims doing their holy prayers?
I didn't support the guy when he made a generalization about millions of people. I did aim another post of his where he called Islam a backwards religion.
I'm not a Muslim. The things which distinguish Muslims from the other religions' followers or from the other people in general are what they practice. They practice the Islam's instructions. I don't.
I'm a product of my parents, both are Muslims, both did fight for the Islamic revolution in 1979 to overturn the King, both have been teaching me about Islam regardless of what the regime has been offering. My country is not being ruled under Islam but under a collection of lies, superstitions and counterfeited hadithes they are feeding the people with. After the revolution, the regime executed communists, most of which were teenagers. They obliged women to wear hijab, they stifled everyone who was criticizing them all in the name of Islam. People were like: was this the Islam we did sacrifice everything for? For years the regime misrepresented Islam and people hated on Islam wrongfully. But now, people have reached to the point in which they can easily distinguish between Islam and what the regime suggests as Islam. I'm not a product of our regime even though the history would tell you how people drag the most out of themselves in times of oppression and adversity.
In what way do I think I've outsmarted them? I'm everything and they are not? What are you talking about?
You can break your TV and Abraham had the right to break his idols. I thought Abraham was a monotheist.
You got me wrong there. By no means did I mean that you shouldn't have interfered the discussion as I had asked a question from Rebel. I just gave a summary about what happened here only to tell you that my point wasn't to judge whether Muhammad insulted the idols or not. Someone called Islam backwards, Rebel called it an insult, I asked him why does he think it was an insult while in fact his prophet did the same to those who were worshiping idols. In fact what mcrae (?) did was nowhere near what Muhammad did. Mcrae just called a religion (ie instructions and beliefs) retarded and stupid. Muhammad were preaching all people about how worshiping those images were wrong and stupid for so many years. That's all okay for you Muslims but if someone calls your beliefs retarded you feel insulted. This is how your minds' structure is: You are right and the others are wrong. You can ridicule and fight with anything you believe is absurd even though some do believe in them but how dare someone calling your religion stupid and credulous?
But who defined this "civil" line? You? This line gets incredibly narrower when it comes to Muslims.
That's it. I'm just curious to know what happened to Hinda making her change so drastically that she converted to the religion of a man whose uncle's liver had been eaten by exactly the same woman. She simply had to convert to Islam. Prophet forgave her then.
I didn't flame anything against Islam. All my discussion was about Muslims and their touchiness when it comes to their beliefs. No surprise that you didn't notice it because you seem not to even read what I wrote there.
And you know what I feel? And what majority of Iranians feel? I see this thread has turned to a place for people making assumptions about how I feel, how my personality has been produced and what psychological problems I've got as a delusional Islam hater.
Nah in fact, I don't care about what Arabs did after Muhammad's death. Not to forget that Iran's conditions before Arabs took over the place is nowhere near something to be proud of.
So you think this is Islam that ruling my country?
I did support my words exactly where you apparently refused to read. I brought my points, my conclusion was that you can't complain about someone who's mocking your beliefs.
I don't know on what side are you standing to be honest. Some people blame Muslims for trying to expand Islam boundaries by invading places and countries. Some like Byzantines were smart enough to acknowledge the defeat, some were not like the Persians who got defeated in the end. Is this what you say? That Muslims expanded the boundaries by invading people, killing those who were not "smart" enough? Your fellows are trying so hard to tell that it wasn't the case. Don't disappoint them now.
What argument? You always come up with the most unrelated stuff laughing at people calling them ignorant and stupid without even backing your words. You need to realize that you don't necessarily have to say something when you don't have something to say. This is the way you are: People are discussing a matter. You come up calling a group wrong as if you know the ultimate truth. And that's about it. You only can point out who is wrong and who is right, who is stupid and who is not and nothing else. It's either vanity or that you don't know a thing about the matters about all of which you want to say something.
Which burst another one into laughter probably because he's felt the same more or less throughout the time.
Whatever his reason was, there's nothing wrong in calling a cult absurd and stupid when you think that is absurd and stupid.
Calling a religion absurd is by no means a racist remark, mind you. I didn't say he didn't insult Muslims btw, I just said if Muslims take that as an insult, they need to stop believing in Muhammad who insulted all those who were worshiping their cults' images.
* It wasn't really a battle in Abu Sofyan's case though. He felt that Quraish are not strong enough to keep the Muslims from conquering Mecca. There was no other way for him but to yield.
I'm not going to go through the Abu Sofyan case because living in a Shi'a environment, I've been told (in history books, movies, etc) that he'd never actually converted to Islam. After the Mecca conquest by Muhammad he just had to utter "Ash-Hado alla elaha ella Allah". Have no idea about the substance in those sources, neither do I care about it.
I'm not talking about those people who brought their idols to Kaaba. Muhammad cleansed the Kaaba from all the idols even though there were still some people who were worshiping them.
And what do you mean by stressing on "after the battles"? Only because Muhammad conquered Mecca, him throwing out the idols is justified? So now that Israelis are ruling Palestine, are they right not to let the Muslims doing their holy prayers?
I didn't support the guy when he made a generalization about millions of people. I did aim another post of his where he called Islam a backwards religion.
I'm not a Muslim. The things which distinguish Muslims from the other religions' followers or from the other people in general are what they practice. They practice the Islam's instructions. I don't.
I'm a product of my parents, both are Muslims, both did fight for the Islamic revolution in 1979 to overturn the King, both have been teaching me about Islam regardless of what the regime has been offering. My country is not being ruled under Islam but under a collection of lies, superstitions and counterfeited hadithes they are feeding the people with. After the revolution, the regime executed communists, most of which were teenagers. They obliged women to wear hijab, they stifled everyone who was criticizing them all in the name of Islam. People were like: was this the Islam we did sacrifice everything for? For years the regime misrepresented Islam and people hated on Islam wrongfully. But now, people have reached to the point in which they can easily distinguish between Islam and what the regime suggests as Islam. I'm not a product of our regime even though the history would tell you how people drag the most out of themselves in times of oppression and adversity.
In what way do I think I've outsmarted them? I'm everything and they are not? What are you talking about?
You can break your TV and Abraham had the right to break his idols. I thought Abraham was a monotheist.
You got me wrong there. By no means did I mean that you shouldn't have interfered the discussion as I had asked a question from Rebel. I just gave a summary about what happened here only to tell you that my point wasn't to judge whether Muhammad insulted the idols or not. Someone called Islam backwards, Rebel called it an insult, I asked him why does he think it was an insult while in fact his prophet did the same to those who were worshiping idols. In fact what mcrae (?) did was nowhere near what Muhammad did. Mcrae just called a religion (ie instructions and beliefs) retarded and stupid. Muhammad were preaching all people about how worshiping those images were wrong and stupid for so many years. That's all okay for you Muslims but if someone calls your beliefs retarded you feel insulted. This is how your minds' structure is: You are right and the others are wrong. You can ridicule and fight with anything you believe is absurd even though some do believe in them but how dare someone calling your religion stupid and credulous?
But who defined this "civil" line? You? This line gets incredibly narrower when it comes to Muslims.
That's it. I'm just curious to know what happened to Hinda making her change so drastically that she converted to the religion of a man whose uncle's liver had been eaten by exactly the same woman. She simply had to convert to Islam. Prophet forgave her then.
I didn't flame anything against Islam. All my discussion was about Muslims and their touchiness when it comes to their beliefs. No surprise that you didn't notice it because you seem not to even read what I wrote there.
And you know what I feel? And what majority of Iranians feel? I see this thread has turned to a place for people making assumptions about how I feel, how my personality has been produced and what psychological problems I've got as a delusional Islam hater.
Nah in fact, I don't care about what Arabs did after Muhammad's death. Not to forget that Iran's conditions before Arabs took over the place is nowhere near something to be proud of.
So you think this is Islam that ruling my country?
I did support my words exactly where you apparently refused to read. I brought my points, my conclusion was that you can't complain about someone who's mocking your beliefs.
I don't know on what side are you standing to be honest. Some people blame Muslims for trying to expand Islam boundaries by invading places and countries. Some like Byzantines were smart enough to acknowledge the defeat, some were not like the Persians who got defeated in the end. Is this what you say? That Muslims expanded the boundaries by invading people, killing those who were not "smart" enough? Your fellows are trying so hard to tell that it wasn't the case. Don't disappoint them now.
What argument? You always come up with the most unrelated stuff laughing at people calling them ignorant and stupid without even backing your words. You need to realize that you don't necessarily have to say something when you don't have something to say. This is the way you are: People are discussing a matter. You come up calling a group wrong as if you know the ultimate truth. And that's about it. You only can point out who is wrong and who is right, who is stupid and who is not and nothing else. It's either vanity or that you don't know a thing about the matters about all of which you want to say something.
Which burst another one into laughter probably because he's felt the same more or less throughout the time.
Whatever his reason was, there's nothing wrong in calling a cult absurd and stupid when you think that is absurd and stupid.
Calling a religion absurd is by no means a racist remark, mind you. I didn't say he didn't insult Muslims btw, I just said if Muslims take that as an insult, they need to stop believing in Muhammad who insulted all those who were worshiping their cults' images.
Only when he mentions a solid reason supporting his statement of why it is absurd and stupid which he did not.
Is not until it's followed by such a post
As for the Mohammed insulting topic, I'm not going to get into this because I am unsure just like yourself, Alen and Tahir about this topic.
Historical religious books can seem biased and untrue at some times, even History and Religious teachers can't really assume much when it comes to historical religious topics.
Is not until it's followed by such a post
As for the Mohammed insulting topic, I'm not going to get into this because I am unsure just like yourself, Alen and Tahir about this topic.
Historical religious books can seem biased and untrue at some times, even History and Religious teachers can't really assume much when it comes to historical religious topics.
Here what happned between Mohammed and Quraish after Mohammed takeover in Mecceh during his first speech to the Quraish people (no one converted to Islam yet).
Mohammed: What do you think I'm going to do with you people?
Quraish people: We all know you as a merciful brother.
Mohammed: I forgive all of you.. You are all free... whoever refuge to Ka'beh is safe, whoever refuge to Abou-Sofyan's house is safe, whoever close his door and stay at his house is safe.
And then Mohammed asked his soldiers to never attack anyone unless it's a self-defense situation.
Mohammed: What do you think I'm going to do with you people?
Quraish people: We all know you as a merciful brother.
Mohammed: I forgive all of you.. You are all free... whoever refuge to Ka'beh is safe, whoever refuge to Abou-Sofyan's house is safe, whoever close his door and stay at his house is safe.
And then Mohammed asked his soldiers to never attack anyone unless it's a self-defense situation.
You are offended by callin Islam backwards?How else to call an ideology stuck on middle ages?One which orders its believers what to eat,what not to eat,what to drink,how to dress,when to pray,what not to listen(music is haraam let's not forget)...Doesn't sound very progressive to me!
Anyway as i've mentioned earlier i can't tell others what to believe and what not,in their countries (and thank Allah there are tons of them )they can do whatever they like.But the rapid spread of Islam in western society is a dangerous threat that should be dealt as soon as possible.Islam as it stands now is incompatible with modern Western civilization,end of story.
Anyway as i've mentioned earlier i can't tell others what to believe and what not,in their countries (and thank Allah there are tons of them )they can do whatever they like.But the rapid spread of Islam in western society is a dangerous threat that should be dealt as soon as possible.Islam as it stands now is incompatible with modern Western civilization,end of story.
- Status