Able Xavier Converts to Islam (39 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ventus
- Start date
- Status
I think we won't be disappointed with the answer. It'll be worth waiting so long to hear it. 
If what shia's said was the only source we had about this particular person or event, I'd have doubted it the same way I doubted the other source when I thought it's the only source we have (I wasn't even aware of the existence of this second source initially).
You must always have in consideration who's the one who wrote something, the time when it was written, what were his motives, his alliance.
Both had motives to lie, right? But you say the Shia's aren't a good source. I can agree with that, but in that case the other source must be equally bad source because if the Shia had motives to paint Abu Sufyan in the worst possible manner then the source who wrote about the conquest of Mecca had motives to paint Mohammad and everything that happened in Mecca in the pinkest way possible.
The main point is that it's very hard to take something like this for granted, without a reserve, and you certainly can't take it as a fact and call it a history lesson.
Btw Alen, you quoted what shia's said about Abu Sufyan earlier, and if he was a real muslim or not, and them pretty much painting him in worst possible manner, they are not a good source to say the least due to certain circumstances
You must always have in consideration who's the one who wrote something, the time when it was written, what were his motives, his alliance.
Both had motives to lie, right? But you say the Shia's aren't a good source. I can agree with that, but in that case the other source must be equally bad source because if the Shia had motives to paint Abu Sufyan in the worst possible manner then the source who wrote about the conquest of Mecca had motives to paint Mohammad and everything that happened in Mecca in the pinkest way possible.
The main point is that it's very hard to take something like this for granted, without a reserve, and you certainly can't take it as a fact and call it a history lesson.
I think we won't be disappointed with the answer. It'll be worth waiting so long to hear it.
If what shia's said was the only source we had about this particular person or event, I'd have doubted it the same way I doubted the other source when I thought it's the only source we have (I wasn't even aware of the existence of this second source initially).
You must always have in consideration who's the one who wrote something, the time when it was written, what were his motives, his alliance.
Both had motives to lie, right? But you say the Shia's aren't a good source. I can agree with that, but in that case the other source must be equally bad source because if the Shia had motives to paint Abu Sufyan in the worst possible manner then the source who wrote about the conquest of Mecca had motives to paint Mohammad and everything that happened in Mecca in the pinkest way possible.
The main point is that it's very hard to take something like this for granted, without a reserve, and you certainly can't take it as a fact and call it a history lesson.
If what shia's said was the only source we had about this particular person or event, I'd have doubted it the same way I doubted the other source when I thought it's the only source we have (I wasn't even aware of the existence of this second source initially).
You must always have in consideration who's the one who wrote something, the time when it was written, what were his motives, his alliance.
Both had motives to lie, right? But you say the Shia's aren't a good source. I can agree with that, but in that case the other source must be equally bad source because if the Shia had motives to paint Abu Sufyan in the worst possible manner then the source who wrote about the conquest of Mecca had motives to paint Mohammad and everything that happened in Mecca in the pinkest way possible.
The main point is that it's very hard to take something like this for granted, without a reserve, and you certainly can't take it as a fact and call it a history lesson.
Shia write off the caliphate although they did accept Hadhrat Abu Bakr. They wanted Ali to succeed him and when that didn't happen they broke off - something Ali didn't even approve of. Some Shia (see Alawi) regard Ali as God (I'm no expert on them so if someone know better please correct me). They believe in incarnation, they don't believe in the Qur'an, don't pray, etc. yet they consider themselves Muslim.
For reasons above their views on Islamic history have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
I think we won't be disappointed with the answer. It'll be worth waiting so long to hear it.
blinded in both eye in battle, the latter(yarmouk) being after the death of muhammad, documented by recognized historians in the west.
Now please tell me why would he go out in the twilight of his life with his sons already doing the fighting, already blinded once to battle, after his positions was already cemented, and the person he was supposed to fool already dead?
This was what you meant all the time?
I'm sorry, but I can't help feeling disappointed (no sarcasm or anything else included)
How about..... he saw the potential and he knew that it's useless trying to get back at the old ways, when he, afterall, kept a good position for him and his family and trying to fight against Islam, after he was already defeated once, can only harm him and his family....
He wasn't fighting for God and Islam, he was fighting for power, territories, influence.
Now again, i'm not claiming that this is how he felt, how he was thinking and what he was doing. I'm just noting it as a probability that I can't help think is a logical one.
I'm sorry, but I can't help feeling disappointed (no sarcasm or anything else included)
How about..... he saw the potential and he knew that it's useless trying to get back at the old ways, when he, afterall, kept a good position for him and his family and trying to fight against Islam, after he was already defeated once, can only harm him and his family....
He wasn't fighting for God and Islam, he was fighting for power, territories, influence.
Now again, i'm not claiming that this is how he felt, how he was thinking and what he was doing. I'm just noting it as a probability that I can't help think is a logical one.
This was what you meant all the time?
I'm sorry, but I can't help feeling disappointed (no sarcasm or anything else included)
How about..... he saw the potential and he knew that it's useless trying to get back at the old ways, when he, afterall, kept a good position for him and his family and trying to fight against Islam, after he was already defeated once, can only harm him and his family....
He wasn't fighting for God and Islam, he was fighting for power, territories, influence.
Now again, i'm not claiming that this is how he felt, how he was thinking and what he was doing. I'm just noting it as a probability that I can't help think is a logical one.
I'm sorry, but I can't help feeling disappointed (no sarcasm or anything else included)
How about..... he saw the potential and he knew that it's useless trying to get back at the old ways, when he, afterall, kept a good position for him and his family and trying to fight against Islam, after he was already defeated once, can only harm him and his family....
He wasn't fighting for God and Islam, he was fighting for power, territories, influence.
Now again, i'm not claiming that this is how he felt, how he was thinking and what he was doing. I'm just noting it as a probability that I can't help think is a logical one.
that is a probability but not as big as its counterpart since he really didnt need to fight personally anymore.
sorry to disappoint you
that is a probability but not as big as its counterpart since he really didnt need to fight personally anymore.
that is a probability but not as big as its counterpart since he really didnt need to fight personally anymore.
There are many similar examples in history about the elderly watching the battles but I only know about 1 completely crazy Illyrian in the 4th century BC who was actually fighting and leading his soldiers even in his 80's.
If you're an Ahmadi, as your surname suggests (sorry if I'm wrong), you should be knowing the feeling of being misunderstood and ruled out by the other groups of Muslims. So if my assumption is right, I'm surprised how you made such simpleminded statements about another branch of your religion.
Alawis are a branch of Twelvers and the majority of Iranians are Twelvers as well. Alawis consider Ali as the true successor of Muhammad but they never consider him as God or as God in flesh. They do their prayers like the other Muslims (with minor differences of course) and they do believe in Qoran.
Alawis are a branch of Twelvers and the majority of Iranians are Twelvers as well. Alawis consider Ali as the true successor of Muhammad but they never consider him as God or as God in flesh. They do their prayers like the other Muslims (with minor differences of course) and they do believe in Qoran.
Tahir, I studied the Islamic sects once, and I have to say some notes here...
The sect that considers Ali a God are the Sabai people, not the Alawis. These Sabais almost disappeared. They are the followers of Abdullah Ibn Sabaa, the guy who was living during Prophet Mohammad's life.
Alawis and Druze are not considered Islamic sects because they don't do the simple Islamic duties.
Shiaa are an Islamic sect because they do the basic Islamic duties, but have some differences with Sunna on historical issues.
The sect that considers Ali a God are the Sabai people, not the Alawis. These Sabais almost disappeared. They are the followers of Abdullah Ibn Sabaa, the guy who was living during Prophet Mohammad's life.
Alawis and Druze are not considered Islamic sects because they don't do the simple Islamic duties.
Shiaa are an Islamic sect because they do the basic Islamic duties, but have some differences with Sunna on historical issues.
To be completely honest, I thought Altair mixed Abu Sufyan ibn Harb with Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith, and when he asked about Abu Sufyan's state before his death I thought he mixed the Quraish Abu Sufyan with the Abu Sufyan who dug his own grave next to Muhammad's mosque 3 days before he died .
.
To be completely honest, I thought Altair mixed Abu Sufyan ibn Harb with Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith, and when he asked about Abu Sufyan's state before his death I thought he mixed the Quraish Abu Sufyan with the Abu Sufyan who dug his own grave next to Muhammad's mosque 3 days before he died .
.
Or did you perhaps want to say that he didn't need to fight at all after he accepted Islam and risk being killed, or as it happened, blinded in both eyes?
If this is what you mean, then think about the time all this was happening. Time when even kings and emperors themselves were fighting and even losing their lives on the battlefield.
If this is what you mean, then think about the time all this was happening. Time when even kings and emperors themselves were fighting and even losing their lives on the battlefield.
I never heard about the other Abu Sufyan you are talking about
- Status