Rate This: 0  0

Rate This: 0  0

Andy Tait (a drummer)
Leeds

Rate This: 0  0

In this way Islam invaded in the seventh century, and in a few years after the death of Mohammad in 632 AD all lands in the Middle East outside Arabia and suppressed, oppressed and persecuted the non-Muslim natives, mostly Christian, of these areas.

That was the first encounter between Islam and Christendom and not the Crusades, and if some could see defenders in the Muslims who fought against the Crusaders, no one should fail to see the unprovoked, expansionist aggressiveness of the first Muslims, who set a lasting example to all Muslims by their violence, aggression and hate.

That aggression is an integral part of Islam, sanctioned by Allah and made sacred and duty of every Muslim if he or she could.

Rate This: 0  0

Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my previous post. I must respectfully disagree however, with all three of your points on Sufism, though I agree with your last remark that in many places Sufism descended into corruption and superstition, garnering some well-earned contempt. In fact, many Sufis themselves supported Ataturk’s closing of the tekkes (Sufi lodges) in Turkey, as they had become a way for loafers to live off of the state in the name of spirituality’s highest ideals. This concern over the false coin has been a perennial one among Sufis. As early as the tenth century, Sufis were decrying imitators (mustaswif). Abu’l Hasan Fushanji famously said ‘today Sufism is a name without a reality, whereas formerly it was a reality without a name.’

This leads to my response to your three points on Sufism, a) although Sufism was systematized, and took shape in the numerous orders that proliferated throughout the Muslim world during the medieval era, Sufis themselves trace their teachings to Muhammad and his companions (mostly to Ali, but the Naqshbandi’s trace their lineage, uniquely, to Abu Bakr). Early signs of Sufism are found amongst the saying of some of the companions, indicating a teaching transmitted by Muhammad to them not taught to the community as a whole (for example, Abu Hurayra’s saying on the two ‘vessels’ he’d received, one of which he disseminated, and the other he kept secret – in Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 3, No. 121).

Of course we then have the early ascetics – Hasan al-Basri (d. 728 CE), and the progenitor of love mysticism, Rabia al-Adawiyya (d. 801 CE), and Jafar as-Sadiq’s (d. 765 CE) mystical tafsir, all representative of some of Sufism’s early trends. In the ninth and tenth centuries, well, the list goes on (Junayd, Bistami, etc.).

b) Although Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s (d. 1798 CE) movement in the Arabian peninsula has marginalized Sufism in many places in the Arab world, Sufism remains vital there, especially in Syria (Damascus remains an important center) and Egypt (where Ahmad al-Badawi’s mawlid, or birthday, is widely celebrated).

c) Sufism has weaned incredible political influence throughout much of Islamic history. Many a sultan was a student of a Sufi shaykh, and many of the ‘ulama (legal scholars) were students of Sufis, or Sufis themselves (a trend that continues in many respects today). The Seljuks, for example, widely built both universities of law and theology, and Sufi lodges (khanaqahs). Interestingly, the Naqshbandi shaykh Ubayd Allah Ahrar (d. 1490 CE) was acknowledged to be the de facto ruler of much of Tansoxania during the mid fifteenth century, as Richard C. Foltz observes in his article “The Central Asian Naqshbandi Connections of the Mughal Emperors,” (Journal of Islamic Studies, 7, 1996).

Further, I would not draw such a hard and fast contrast between Islam and Sufism, as Sufis are most often practicing Muslims, and as mentioned previously; scratch the surface of many an Islamic phenomenon and you’ll find evidence of Sufism. Many rightly, I think, define Sufism as Islamic spirituality – Islam’s inward aspect, or spiritual path, and as such, many Muslims have believed it to be integral to Islam.

In any case, any account of Islam, to be doctrinally, practically, and historically accurate, must adequately deal with Sufism’s often pre-eminent role in the faith. To write it off as an aberration, ignores, to my mind, far too much of Muslim history and practice.

Rate This: 0  0

You are obviously a fan of Muslim Sufism. It is good and I find some of the Sufis deserving of admiration. Truth is, however, that Sufism appeared a. almost more than four centuries after Mohammad (so it is really a Medieval phenomenon); b. it does not represent Islam, particularly in the Middle East (I note that you have not included one Arab country in your list where Sufism constitutes a force); c. it has never acquired political power within Islam and has never ruled a Muslim society (and in some areas where it finds some support it became synonymous with superstition and corruption to the extent that its followers are given by the general Muslim population the contemptible description “daraweesh”. My contention is that it is good to lean towards Sufism and to attempt to see some hope in it for Muslim societies; however, it is self-deception to see in it a strong representation of Muslim thought.

The phrases Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War)were coined in later centuries, but they find their meaning and sources in Mohammad (610-632 AD)and the period of the so-called Rightly Guided Caliphs (632-661 AD). The basic elements of this vision of the world for the Muslim were made complete during that period, and to the Muslim this ancient vision is a “sacred vision” that is rooted in Koran, Sunna and the traditions of the first Companions of Mohammad and the four Caliphs after him (Abu-Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali). This world vision is so poweful that it has influenced political Islam for the last fourteen centuries and continues to do so to this day. Ibn Taymia (d. 1328 AD) and Ibn Gayyim Al Gawzzia (d. 1350 AD), although they are not the first who talked about this vision, they are the ones who put it in writing in its clearest and most powerful version. Prior to them, one can find the same vision scholarly described, but less powerfully described, by the founders of the four main Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence “fiqh”, Abu Hanifa (699 – 767), Malik ibn Anas (714 – 796), ibn Shāfi‘ī (767- 820)), Ahmad bin Hanbal‎(780 – 855). The Shia schools of fiqh have all, also, described the same vision, and theirs does not deviate significantly from the Sunni’s.

The sooner to understand this the better so that we may not self-deceive.

Rate This: 0  0

There is an important factual error in your discussion of Islam that should be pointed to. The use of the terms dar al-harb and dar al-Islam as technical descriptors of the world originate not with the sayings of Muhammad, but with the development of the Islamic jurisprudential tradition (fiqh). These labels are not, as you describe them, norms “that stand forever.” The terms dar al-harb and dar al-Islam were developed by medieval Muslim jurists and gained acceptance in the Islamic legal tradition during this period. As they arose within a particular historical context, such concepts can and do shift within Islamic jurisprudence (and among Muslims in general) as changes take place in political relations between Muslims and others, and the structure of international relations takes on new forms. As Professor Sherman Jackson (University of Michigan) has noted in his insightful article “Jihad and the Modern World,” (Journal of Islamic Law and Culture Spring/Summer 2002), the prevailing ’state of war’ between and among various religions/ethnicities in the pre-modern era, has, at least officially, been replaced by a ’state of peace,’ mandated by international law, and the respect for national sovereignty it engenders. This has led many contemporary Muslim thinkers to re-consider the medieval terms and the assumptions they rest upon. Sherman rightly, I think, remarks that dar al-harb and dar al-Islam were more descriptions of political realities at the time, rather than prescriptions for all time.

Let it also be said that some of the most important Muslim jurists have defined dar al-Islam as any place where Muslims can practice their faith in security, meaning that most of the world today would fall under such a category within the classical Islamic legal tradition.

Also, I would caution using the thought of Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 1350 CE) as broadly representative of Islam. As a disciple of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE), al-Jawziyya stands in what many scholars consider to be the more radical wing of the Hanbali madhab (jurisprudential [and to some degree theological] school). Although there are certainly Muslims today who would ascribe Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya a central place in Islamic thought, historically this is not the case. The works of both Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim were highly controversial during their time, and landed Ibn Taymiyyah in jail on numerous occasions throughout his life (primarily due to his theological literalism and vocal attacks on prominent Sufis). Furthermore, both Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim’s thought fell into something close to irrelevance for a number of centuries following their deaths. It is only since the revival of Ibn Taymiyyah’s (and his students’) thought in the past two centuries that their works have been returned to the forefront of debates among Muslims on the nature of Islam, and on Sufism in particular.

In this regard, I would recommend considering Sufism’s formative role in the classical Islamic tradition, and its continuing influence and prevalence in many parts of the Muslim world (Morocco, Senegal, and parts of Pakistan, India, among others). Those who understand Islam as best represented by extremists, frequently fail to adequately account for Sufism’s broad acceptance among medieval Muslims and its continuing influence today. Al-Ghazzali, Rumi, Yunus Emre, Moinuddin Chisti, Ibn ‘Arabi, among others, all had a profound effect on the ethos, culture, literature, philosophy, architecture, and art and practice of Muslims. Their traditions of spirituality, beauty, love, and tolerance were deeply imprinted upon the thought and practice of Islam. Although there are certainly Muslims who seek to downplay the centrality of Sufis in the pre-modern and contemporary Islamic tradition, historically, I think the case is quite clear. This is not to say that Sufism as a historical phenomenon is wholly positive (what historical phenomenon is?). Nevertheless, Sufism cannot be ignored in considering the ways in which Islam has manifested over time. Sufis have just as much claim to the heart of Islam as do their more politically radical co-religionists.

Rate This: 1  0

hitler was a christian what did he do, slaughtering the jews. does that mean christianity promotes violence NO!…. so back off Mr Dioscorus Boulos.}

My response:
1. To “it says in the koran that if “anyone” takes the life of an innocent human being it is if he killed the whole of mankind.” Mohammad killed thousands of people, children, women, old people. One Jewish tribe was completely eliminated by him (some 700 of them). He slaughtered them with his friends’ help. He killed civilians and militants together. He killed poets who said poems denouncing him. He plotted to kill those who dared to criticise him. This is all facts and is written in early Muslim tracts and books. Mohammad had streams of innocent blood running off the palms of his hands. Jamshed of course would say that these people were all “guilty” and non was innocent, and therefore their murder by Mohammad and his companions were justified. Presently Muslim terrorists from the Sunni sect kill everyone around them, Christians, Jews or Shia, whether military or civilian. To them, like to Mohammad, no one of their victims is innocent. Their definition of innocence and guilt is not as morality and the civilised world defines them. My contention is that statements such as the one I have quoted above, and often used by Muslim apologetics, are hollow.

2. Another hollow statement is the following: “hitler was a christian what did he do, slaughtering the jews. does that mean christianity promotes violence.” The difference is that Hitler was not a Christian, and even if he were, he was not the originator of Christianity, and so his crimes could not be used to discredit Christianity to the same degree the crimes of Mohammad, the originator of Islam, discredit Islam. Jamshed would have been successful in defending Mohammad vis-a-vis Christianity had he found similar criminality (to that of Mohammad’s) in Jesus Christ.

Rate This: 1  0

as far as his depiction of the prophet mohammed, is absolutley incorrect.

“islam” means peace and the word “muslim” means submission to one god, we muslims call him by the name ALLAH.the aforementioned gentleman needs to get his facts corrrect with referenceat least.
and for his comment about the koran he has’nt got a clue. it is easy to blame religion for what a individual or individual do.

it says in the koran that if “anyone” takes the life of an innocent human being it is if he killed the whole of mankind. so dont try to portray islam in light of actions commited by individuals.

hitler was a christian what did he do, slaughtering the jews. does that mean christianity promotes violence NO!…. so back off Mr Dioscorus Boulos.

it seems that you are a jew, i have no problem with that but it seems that you have resorted to stirring up hatred with inn mankind. it aslo seems that you have’nt even read your own holy book properly.

like some one said above that your a lost cause, l will pray ALLAH guide you.

Rate This: 0  1

Rate This: 0  0