What's new

Nationalism and national culture in Islam

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well why don't people research for themselves and read the books they believe in? and why wait for scholars to tell them?
If only our zombie awaam had this much sense we wouldn't have been in this situation...
By scholars if you mean molvi hazrat (to wo baychary) if they accept this as true then they would have to accept that many other traditions that they have been believing in as Wahi e Gair Matlu (ALLAH's word that is not recited) are false and fake. People would get to know that they have been held hostage and deprived their genuine rights disguised as ALLAH's will, and would start questioning monarchs and dictators and molvis, many a shops selling fatwas would close ......... and if by scholars you mean people who research on Quran well almost all of them have been declared Kafir, so why would anyone listen to kafir.
You're right my mistake to expect to listen truth from their mouths but still we've people like Maualan Tariq Jameel and Javed Ahmad Ghamdi they should tell the truth to people at least.
Bai dosro ki choti bachio kay sath zulm bhi to karna hay.
I thought this to be the main reason for their silence (or why they continue to lie) but phr mene socha let's not write this...
 
@The Sandman No one is to be blamed, we all read books related to our fikah and sects and believe them blindly. And even if we don't read them ourselves we listen to someone else quoting those books. All of us are victims of manipulated twisted historic accounts and narrations.
 
@The Sandman No one is to be blamed, we all read books related to our fikah and sects and believe them blindly. And even if we don't read them ourselves we listen to someone else quoting those books. All of us are victims of manipulated twisted historic accounts and narrations.
I agree i used to be a sheep too but after joining PDF not anymore whenever something related to religion comes up i first try do my own research on it! and than i hear what people like Javed Ahmad Ghamdi and other non-Pakistani scholars have to say on it.
 
In context of what became of Islam during their rule, the damages outweigh the benefits these monarchs brought with them. They just wanted to strengthen their rule and for that they went on to extent of inventing traditions / hear say that would make any ignorant believe that these Abbasid are rightful heirs to the throne. These idiots were fooled by Persians who had infiltrated and were holding senior positions in their governments, with such an influence that they were the ones running the government affairs. And finally their cowardice and incompetence was exposed by Mongols.

As said there are dark periods in Abbasid history as well no doubt, but the patronization of arts, science and culture that took place during their rule is unparalleled in Islamic history. Monarchies are inherently flawed and will sooner or later degenerate into producing incompetent rulers. Such was the case with the Ummayads and the same happened to the Abbasids and the Osmanlis. The Abbasids were merely a product of their age and their gradual decay into incompetence should not take away the fact that at their peak they made Baghdad if not the leading then one of the leading cities in the world in terms of science and education. This is the era of Al Khwarizmi, Ibn al Haysam (al hazen), Al Kindi. Minorities came forward during this time and Arab monopoly on power and education was destroyed. Even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sind_ibn_Ali from Sindh, Pakistan was welcomed at the bayt al hikma and became a colleague of Al Khwarizmi. Yes eventually the dynasty decayed like all monarchies do, but we shouldnt be unfair to the Abbasids for opening up the lobby of power to Muslims from various backgrounds. If anything that is more Islamic than the Ummayad bedoin Arab monopoly on power.

Non-Muslims who converted to Islam were required to continue to pay the same jizya tax they had paid before their conversion. In theory, this would protect the Ummayad caliphate from losing a valuable tax base, and ensure that all conversions would be sincere. In practice, it meant institutionalised discrimination based on race. Since the Arabs had almost entirely converted to Islam before the Ummayad caliphate began, the only people who were converting into the religion were non-Arabs such as Copts, Greeks, Berbers, and especially Persians. They were the only Muslims paying jizya, while their Arab brothers in faith were exempt. The intention of the Ummayads may have been to protect their tax base, but the policy ended up having a racial aspect, keeping non-Arabs at the bottom of society while Arabs rose to the top. From a religious perspective, this directly contradicted Prophet Muhammad's call for unity during the Farewell Pilgrimage, when he famously proclaimed, "No Arab is better than a non-Arab and no non-Arab is better than an Arab".

An attempt was made by the caliph Umar ibn al Abd al Aziz to undo the un-Islamic taxation policy during his reign from 717 to 720. Although his reforms were widly popular with the non-Arabs of the empire, he was distrusted by his own family for his views on equality and was poisoned by the Ummayad clan just two years after taking power.

page 57-58,
Lost Islamic History: Reclaiming Muslim Civilisation from the Past
By Firas Alkhateeb
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom