Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
I'm not a Muslim. To me, Islam is what its claimed adherents do, in context.
Corruption and violence are very popular among Muslims. This may be because of an over-riding credo that success in an endeavor is considered evidence of G-d's blessing, while failed attempts to contest with non-Muslims (including a Muslim who befriends or acts non-Muslim) are considered a test of faith. Yet I'm not sure that has to be the case, or that it's always been that way.
I've been reading an interesting book published in 1943 called, "The Forgotten Ally". The author is very Zionist. He lists many of Britain's clear attempts to undermine the Zionist project and theorizes that British decisions in the Middle East during the 1920-1940s period can be explained by the secret motivation of the British Colonial Office to eliminate added industrial competition to Britain by tricking the Jews out of their promised state and establishing a series of puppet Arab governments. The project involved fomenting murderous violence and limiting education - explicitly including the suppression of reason among the Arabs.
(Note that it was also a staple of colonial rule to set subject minorities at each others' throats, so the occupier could step in to "establish order". Legally, the Brits were not supposed to behave this way under the Mandate - but they seem to have considered the Mandate as a mere fig leaf for continued colonial rule. Even as late as 1947, the Brits tried to dissuade one of their intelligence officers, Audrey Eban, from supporting the independence of Jewish Palestine, tempting him with the prospect of becoming Britain's High Commissioner in Palestine. Eban refused and became one of Israel's leading diplomats, eventually rising to the post of foreign minister.)
Much more openly, British officials opposed the Palestine project by citing their worry about keeping the loyalty of their Indian troops - that is, the Muslims in the Anglo-Indian Army who would later be spun off into the Pakistani Army.
I wonder how much Pakistan's generals who served as officers in Anglo-Indian army picked up from their masters and sought to apply these lessons at home, don't you?
Corruption and violence are very popular among Muslims. This may be because of an over-riding credo that success in an endeavor is considered evidence of G-d's blessing, while failed attempts to contest with non-Muslims (including a Muslim who befriends or acts non-Muslim) are considered a test of faith. Yet I'm not sure that has to be the case, or that it's always been that way.
I've been reading an interesting book published in 1943 called, "The Forgotten Ally". The author is very Zionist. He lists many of Britain's clear attempts to undermine the Zionist project and theorizes that British decisions in the Middle East during the 1920-1940s period can be explained by the secret motivation of the British Colonial Office to eliminate added industrial competition to Britain by tricking the Jews out of their promised state and establishing a series of puppet Arab governments. The project involved fomenting murderous violence and limiting education - explicitly including the suppression of reason among the Arabs.
(Note that it was also a staple of colonial rule to set subject minorities at each others' throats, so the occupier could step in to "establish order". Legally, the Brits were not supposed to behave this way under the Mandate - but they seem to have considered the Mandate as a mere fig leaf for continued colonial rule. Even as late as 1947, the Brits tried to dissuade one of their intelligence officers, Audrey Eban, from supporting the independence of Jewish Palestine, tempting him with the prospect of becoming Britain's High Commissioner in Palestine. Eban refused and became one of Israel's leading diplomats, eventually rising to the post of foreign minister.)
Much more openly, British officials opposed the Palestine project by citing their worry about keeping the loyalty of their Indian troops - that is, the Muslims in the Anglo-Indian Army who would later be spun off into the Pakistani Army.
I wonder how much Pakistan's generals who served as officers in Anglo-Indian army picked up from their masters and sought to apply these lessons at home, don't you?
...As for fiqh...If you see these fiqhs...they all arose from Hadith all which are from the Prophet....I dont believe there is only 1 way to do something...As long as it comes within the basics of Islam....there can be 5-10 ways to do 1 thing hence many diff fiqhs each which was selected based on the area where it grew...and it evolved in that area based on the environment as ulema / scholar before did use to do ijtihad and they did formulate the best for a certain environment...of course all is from the Quran...but like I said environment is more important of course and of course whatever you think up should be in par with the quran and not contradicting it...But killing someone is contradicting the Quran....So if that is what they learned...then yes it is all jahalat coz that is what the Quran asks us not do!
grammar nazi!
