Islamic Spirituality - The Forgotten Revolution

desert_bird · October 30, 2008, 7:03am

Aap kee harshness be acceptable hai :)

PyariCGudia:

that when the choice was taken to bear arms, it was certainly not done with the pride and josh which you exhibit, nor was it done because of any such feeling that warfare is a prideful part of Islam. Arms were taken up because the people of the time felt there was a cause necessary to fight for, and it was taken up after other choices were exhausted. No one in their sane mind supports warfare for the sake of supporting it, and it is certainly not a major part of Islam. Islam allows a provision for it, but only in dire circumstances, as evidenced by the Prophet's willful avoidance of it despite a mass genocide spanning a number of years in which muslim converts were targeted around Makkah. In fact, he even led a mass exodus of these muslims away from their home to another city before any warfare had even begun in the region. And certainly warfare was not STARTED by the Prophet's side. If you study the history, any movements on the part of the first muslims towards picking up arms was in defence, not offence.

So, I would caution you to choose your words wisely. Islam doesn't condone violence for the sake of violence, and Islam could very well be practiced worldwide today without any bloodshed. The choice lies amongst muslims.

Citing any pieces of history after the Prophet's death is simply moot as we are not ordered to follow our ancestors for fear of repeating their mistakes. The Quran is in front of you, and I simply do not understand any justifications of violence because somehow your testosterone teenage selves get turned on by the concept of bloodshed and think that its a part of your heritage...because of some episodes of warfare in the history of the "Islamic" empire? How about you read the Quran for once, and use it as a guide, instead of murky memories of people long dead who, for all we know, might very well have had it all wrong?

Islam is not some mystical ritualistic tradition to pass on. Its a common sense, practical religion, and the motif of warfare that somehow has been woven into its picture innacurately represents the religion. And yet, even educated muslims can't see it.

Talk all you want about "jannat being below the shadow of swords". It doesn't have to be that way, and by honoring such statements and distorting them out of proportion doesn't help your cause. The Prophet was probably referring poetically to some martyr or other, and you've now taken it to mean that we can't go to Jannat without having had some involvement with a weapon. Again, more evidence of how the Prophet's sayings get twisted out of proportion and misused to propogate messages of violence. You should be ashamed of yourself. As for the definition of sufism, it certainly does not involve killing to spread the message of Islam. Islam has been spread for a good deal by deliving the message peacefully to people. I guess our people are getting what we deserve. Right now as we speak there are missionaries from all sorts of religions in muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan who are now converting people OUT of Islam. A whole lot of good your jannat under swords has been, now, hasn't it?

tauba , itna ghussa :)

You have shattered the whole institution of Jihad Bil Qattal , hundreds of Ahadees about the virtues and merits od Jihad, Prophet(pbuh) message of spreading islam to those who havent get teachings of islam. I wonder your hypothesis has put a big question mark on the Conquest of Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Eastern Roman empire by Umar(ra) and Usman(ra) invasion on whole Iran , Makran (Pakistan) . After all Iran, Iraq, eastern Romans, and Egyptians had not attcked the state of Medina so these wars by no mean , defensive. Can U expect from Sahabas like Umar(ra) and Usman(ra) to do bloodshed and Ali(ra) and thousands of great sahabas remained quiet over this 'unislamic bloodshed' !!

Plz. is par bhee ghaur karai laikin ghussai sai nahee, aaraam sai aur pyar sai :)