Sandmonkey on Arab Unity
Sandmonkey gives his two cents on Arab Unity
Arab Unity will require thought, not emotion; Planning, not reactionism; Following one's best interest, not one's sense of Pride or lack thereof; and more than anything, it will require leaders, not pompous tyrannical assholes whose only interest is enriching themselves and their families on our expense and who don't have the leadership skills to manage a MacDonalds store. And maybe it will require us Arabs to change as well. Be a bit more self-critical, be a bit more open to new ideas, and Judge an ideology or a belief or a mode of behavior by how successful it has been in meeting its said goals, instead of just following it because it's what your parents did. And more than anything, we have to change our flawed understanding of what the word "Pride" means. If we want to be proud of something, it has to be of something we are doing, not something we did 600 years ago. We might even have to think about planning for our future just a little bit, instead of just focusing on the past and the "right now". We have so much potential, but that's not enough. We have to act. We have to demand and facilitate change and reform in our respective countries first in order for that potential to be realized and actualized. Until that happens, you can talk about Arab Unity till the cows come home, knowing at the same time that it is nothing and will never be nothing more than a pipe dream.
First of all, what is Arabism? What makes us Arabs? If we know that we can understand whether a unity is even possible under the banner of Arabism. Well there are two possibilities. First, Arabs are the people that speak a common language that is Arabic. If so, then how is this idea bonding? How would the fact that you, Karim, knowing the Arabic language, a potential ground to create a bonding unity with me, another Arab speaker? As far as I understood, you are secular and I call for Islamic governance. It was indeed a breath of fresh air in this blog to see those photos of you praying, alhamdullilah I respect you alot more now, yet however, our ideas are still not the same and there is very little possibility that we will actualy form a unity. If a unity is indeed formed, it will certainly be silly if it was based on the concept that we speak the same language as such a unity is not based on common ideas and thus will fall apart quickly.
As for the second possibility as to what Arabism is, could it be that it is the people born within a certain boundary? And what are these boundaries? Who determines what is concidered Arabic boundaries? If Syria takes over Turkey (bear with me) would we grow a bond with Turkey that we didn't have earlier because now it is within the boundaries of Syria? Is it that? The political boundaries that keep on changing?
Arab unity cannot exist under the banner of Arabism as not only does it make little, if any, sense, but it also has no concept that it will fall apart quickly. The bonding will not exist and will be very weak within the people.
The only thing that truely bonds people is the ideological bond. The bond that we both agree on the same thing and work for the same purpose. The bond that we realise what we share, and what we share is a great thing that whether in peace time or war time, we can see and feel our brotherhood. Something Arabism can never bring. Islam? What nation on Earth has ever reacted so powerfully as the Muslims react when their fellow Muslims are under threat on the other side of the globe? Where have you seen a nation from Indoneisa crying out for the Palesinians and a nation from Algeria crying out for the Uzbek. It is the beauty and the brotherhood that Islam creates and if materialised, will bring forth a great and wonderful state once again.
In conclusion, I would say that the prophet (pbuh) told us to leave nationalism "for it is rotten". In another hadith, the prophet (pbuh) said:
"He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyyah or who dies for `Asabiyyah."
wassallam (Comment this)
get a life, you are , in simple words, substituting Faith with Nationalism.
Turning Religion into a nationality, with all its fervour & prejudism, little do you know of what you say or preach.
As for what the sandmonkey said, the usual rubbish, as if he (sandmonkey)actually discovered it by himself, the magic formula to arab unity...bah..some utopian notions covered with a sprinkling of reason then ends it up by a touch of realism which negates every previous idea.
The Idea of Uniting Arabs, in whatever sense possible, has fascinated many thinkers, whom contemplated & debated endlessly but without any tangible results, why? simply because it does not work, theortically it may sound attractive but practical experimenting & historical experience differs to a great extent, & the same applies to those who talk of an islamic unity, sounds nice & sells well but does not work & never did in the sense they claim. (Comment this)
Arabs after the death of the Prophet, were united only when Abu Bakr waged war on them when they refused his sovereignty over them as they hadn't chose him, so they denied him the Alms (zakah) & they were compelled in the end to recognize the new status of the Madina & abu bakr.
Arabs became powerful ONLY when they integrated other civilizations & utilized, now your ignorant rant about charlemagne is none of my concern, except it shows you are a prejudist idiot, most of my books are arabic historians, so you can take your rhetorical rubbish some other place.
I doubt that European text books fail to mention what muslim scientists accomplished, but you fail to mention that they were not arabs & they reached that high standard after studying greek philosophy & sciences of the time from others, just like Europeans did after muslim scientists faded out, you failed to mention that jews & christians had a big hand in it when they translated the books from their orignial language into arabic..
let me ask you this, as you say [who were united and followed the commandments of allah (swt)]
really they did?? sure many ordinary muslims did but,
- werent it muslims who assassinated Othman after his house arrest in the Madina?
- Who did Ali (4 khalifa) go to war with? wasn't it Al zubayr ibn El Awam & Talha, the close companions of the Prophet?( battle of the camel) over political matters ofcourse!
- Who did Ali again fight? wasn't he confronted by Muawiyah & Amro ibn ElA'as ( battle of Siffin)? was that in accordance with following religion & the prophets advice as you put it?
Do i go on enumerating errors of muslims that was from religion & Prophets advice? citing sources & references from arab historians like AL Tabari, Al Massudi, Ibn Al Athir, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qutayba....books aparently you never read a single page of in your entire life.
I can disprove what you said easily, & im not belittling what arabs did, they managed to pull themselves to be a global power in those times, but not by religion alone as you falsely claim & not by the way you say so ignorantly,
so befotre you tell anyone to wash their mouths, try to get a brain first. (Comment this)
I think this can slightly enlighten even blockheads like you two...
(
إن العصبيه هى أن يرى الرجل شرار قومه خيرا من خيار قوم أخرين )
أحمد بن الطيب
this is what the Prophet meant by عصبيه .
How long will it take you both to understand it? (Comment this)
These are the two topics if anyone's interested:
A letter on Islamism
More on Islamism
Alienkain, you just defined nationalism. (Comment this)
atta-arahman;
You said “bottom line muslims are going to remain the way they are until the time when allah wants them to get their acts together and it is in his plan for us that we WILL defeat the jews IN jerusalem, so im not worried, im just tired of waiting.”
The inshallah attitude will not fix your problems. Allah isn’t going to end your poverty, make you literate, fix your economy and reverse your backwardness. The modern societies of this world became successful through hard work, education, self-criticism, and noting what works and what doesn’t. They did not expect Jesus, Buddha, or YinYang to do it for them.
You’ll wait forever if you think defeating the Jews is a more noble goal than feeding your hungry, educating your illiterate, and bettering the lives of your poor.
(Comment this)
You are telling the story like i knew it when i was 10 years old!
1-[there were may of weak faith who believed that there was no more islam after prophet muhammad ]
Wrong. There were a few who tried to emulate the Prophet's accomplishment by claiming prophethood & amassed armies to challenge the Madina. The Rest were not weak as you were told, they simply refused Abu Bakrs leadership, since they were not included in that decision & so they refused to hand Abu Bakr their collected Alms as they did with the prophet, which Abu Bakr took for disobedience & so waged war on them on what is known as Redda Battles, but infact they were muslims. Omar even told Abu Bakr to let them alone, why fight muslims? & he told him he would fight them over anything they denied him that they gave to the prophet.
2- What Shiites?? Shiites only appeared long after Ali died, mostly after his grandsons were murdered.
when people sympathetic to what happened to house of Ali & who believed he should have been Calipha. I spoke with several shiites & they deny that bit about Gabriel's mistake, also it is not mentioned in 2 most respected books on islamic groups & religions.
الملل و النحل للشهرستانى
الفرق بين الفرق لعبد القاهر الإسفرائينى
3-You mean to say that Othman's assassins were Shiites? they did not exist then. You mean to say that talha ibn Ubaydallah & Al Zubayr were shiites?? whats this nonsense??
Muawiyah & Amro Ibn el A'as were they shiites too? Muawiyah who started the Ummayad reign was no Shiite, what about the Kharijites (Khawareg) were they also shiite? they were more religion observant than alot, inclucded alot of quran reciters & they fought Ali with bitter insistance, even after he slaughtered them in AL Nahrawan, they still managed to kill him in the end.
These wars i mentioned were fought between muslims long before there was such a thing called sunni & shiite.
4- Ali believed that the caliphate should be in the Prophets family & he did not accept Abu Bakr's leadership till after 6 months of him taking it over.
5- Islamic jurisprudence & their own personal laws that they saw fit. & it did not prevent 3 out of 4 caliphas to get assassinated start several civil wars.
Seige of Madina by Egyptians & Iraqis lead to Othmans murder.(Abu Bakrs son was involved in it)
Battle of the Camel 37 Hejra, Talha & al Zubayr killed & Aisha sent back to the madina.
Battle of Siffin 40 Hejra, lead to confusion & ultimately Ali was killed in 41 Hejra.
6-WRONG, who turned to Hadiths exactly? the sayings or the Hadiths were compiled in the 3 THIRD CENTURY, during the Abassid dynasty. During the caliphas & Ummayad, there was no such thing as hadiths. They knew the sunnah & refused to compile & destroyed anything that was written of the sunnah. Many references proves Abu Bakr & omar burned the only available sayings in their time, as they believed these sayings should have never been documented, & so did the Prophet himself.
7- No one denies the efforts & genuis of many islamic thinkers, but they had freedom to invent & did not live with such futility as we do today, yes Europe was in ignorance & much dark times there when Arabs & Muslims were leading the way, but the picture is now reversed.
8-The Prophet broke many traditions & customs regarding the treatment of Women & slaves, though did not abolish slavery but gave them rights which was revolutinary at that time, hoping it would end by time, it did not...it had to be ended by Europeans in the 19 century.
As for the rights that ISlam gave women & which the prophet emphasized, arabs after him regressed & turned their backs to them both & suppresed women even more.what fanatics want women to be today is alot worse than their conditions in pre Islamic arabia.
9-Wrong & in your dreams.[bottom line muslims are going to remain the way they are until the time when allah wants them to get their acts together and it is in his plan for us that we WILL defeat the jews IN jerusalem, so im not worried, im just tired of waiting]
this is typical of the backward mentality, that contradicts directly " الله لا يغير ما بقوم حتى يغيروا ما بأنفسهم".
& as for that battle between the jews, there is no battle,Its made up myths & has nothing to do with Islam or the Prophet.
No, it is not mentioned in the Quran, what you might mention about Issra' surah was something that already happened to them long before the Prophet came & God was reminding them of it, Quran does not say of any impending battles between anyone, i've heard that one before & frankly, if you dont even know the basic facts of islamic or arab history, how can you understand or tell whats correct from false??
Im disgusted when i see muslims who don't know much about their history, yet talk about it with passion & defendit blindedly without knowing the truth or even bothering to read for their ownselves. You need to go & read by yourself & see what was it really like, not to say rubbish & cobwebs that are not true. (Comment this)
What Atta said is absolutely baseless & has nothing to do with Islam.
But i did hear of it before circulating around, when humans get frustrated, they tend to either blame someone for all their ills & predicament or wait for a saviour which their imagination made up.
The way he says "God in his plan for us" sounds very childish, God did not plan things for humans, he gave them a brain to think with & let them go about their business to do right or wrong & for which they will be accountable.
what surprised me, is that early muslims did not think in this way at all, they planned their battles with Mohamed & worked hard at it, sure some thought angels would join them but defeating your overwhelming enemy isnt luck, its well preparedness, & this is what he misses the point by light years. (Comment this)
I debated with you & refuted all your views, & you failed miserably when you ignored many points i posed for you, You were the one who kept repeating the same thing over & over like a machine, & i did reply to you as soon as you posted, but it took you over a day & 2 sometimes to get back to what i posted. so it seems that you are being told to what to say, or perhaps you send to a website questions & they answer you back which explains the delay.
I have my own sources & books & dont need someone to dictate to me, & what i do not know i say & dont delve into, unlike you, who knows nothing & dares to lie about God & Mohamed, ofcourse you can swear on it, you can swear on anything & for anything, because you dont seek facts or truth, you are a vain pompous self centred hypocrite who takes religion so it improves his image.
I defined عصبية you idiot, which mans racism & prejudism for either nation, tribe, race or religion. you just contradict what the Prophet said you fool
"لا فضل لعربي على أعجمى إلا بالتقوى" .
your problem is, you are not genuine in your belief hilmi.
(Comment this)
on islams place for women i could open another page on the beauty and grace that allah has bestoed upon women and the dignified position they hold in the world, but all of the hypocrites would have you believe that islam oppresses women. their false freedom is oppression in disguise. a womens worth is in her sex appeal. just look around at your local high school and you will see how much attention and praise the beauty queen sluts get. or how the media teaches people what a valuable woman is (easy, slow, perky, flirtatious). we the muslims are crazy because we put looks to the side (or under a hijab) and force people to judge a woman on her personality and intellegence, and her polite manners (in america many of the young women are vulgar and rough like men) yeah, muslims are real nut jobs. and the angels did help the prophet muhammad (sas) on numerous occasions and i believe in all of allah's (swt) creations including angels and jinn (no jinn are not fairy tales they are very real and the prophet (sas) used to preach to them and they are mentioned in the quran) and i believe in divine destiny and that there is a timeline for the day of judgement. no, jesus coming down as the messiah, or the mahdi, or the dadjal, or juj u majuj, or the war on the temple mount is not optional or a fairy tale either. i believe in islam on as much proof as is available, and everything else i believe in on faith in allah (swt)
unlike you im not a nit picker and i don't miss the forest for the trees. i can see the puppeteers strings in the sick show he is putting on for the world and i wont stand for it any longer, but i also see the master of all puppet masters, his strings are invisable and are too many to count. he can manipulate and control every particle in existence on the slightest whim, and he knows of the evils of the shatan and his manifestation on the earth as the new world, the new civilization. it is all part of his grand test for us, to examine how we react to this or that stimuli. our whole existence is a demonstration to us on the result of free will. we were created just to show ourselves how we would perform with the devil tempting our every weakness. would we take the harder, less popular, more mentally and physically taxing route to purity or fall to the devils "freedoms"? if our lord gave us every thing we need would we thank him constently with every move we make like the animals do? or would our free will make us forgetful and greedy, never satisfied? i understand on a deep level and thats why i don't question, i just believe.
AND DEFEND. (Comment this)
If you read carefully, you will see that
1-Omar would ask for several witnesses on a single saying that someone quoted, Meaning he did not accept any saying from the companions themselves unless another witness heard it himself.
2- Omar himself ordered his subjects not to talk much about the prophet's sayings, especially those he dispatched to govern new regions.
3- Omar ordered Abu Hurayra not to speak to people about the Prophet & had hit him once with his stick & only when he threatened to lick him up did he stop, only to start again during Mu'aweyah reign. A well known story that Abu Hurayra cited.
4- Yes they ruled with the Prophets Sunnah but you forget it wasn't what we know today, some elements are missing, & the sayings, ( Hadiths) were not written down for a reason.
5-Abdul rahman Hilmi did not prove one shred of evidence to what he posits. that is why...he claims things saying this is what Islam says & it is not. Now your rhetoric about me countering, arent you doing the same thing, minus of course any real knowledge about History, & i belive i gave enough references of books to go & find out yourself.
WHere do you get your religious facts from to know something is true? i guess its futile to discuss with your likes, you think you have reached a deep level because you believe & don't question & i guess those who question are infidels, ahhh, those who belive must not question sort of rule, right??
Let me ask you, how many verses in the Quran orders you to work your mind & brains & think of the creation of God?
you are soemone who fears to question or read his religion lest he finds questions he cannot answer, such is cowardice atta, it is fear, but not of God, but of himself.
Knowing there is God is easy, but to know his creation is not, to know what he truly says in the Quran is way beyond you. Dont try to be smart boy & think you know how i think, khaleek fel gahl eli enta fih. (Comment this)
That is an excellent statement! (Comment this)
[1-Omar would ask for several witnesses on a single saying that someone quoted, Meaning he did not accept any saying from the companions themselves unless another witness heard it himself.]
That's what we Muslims call "Ahadeeth mutawatira", as opposed to "hadeeth ahad". If you knew anything about ahadeeth you would that there are different types.
[2- Omar himself ordered his subjects not to talk much about the prophet's sayings, especially those he dispatched to govern new regions.]
What Omar said was that Abu Hurayra should not teach ahadeeth when the Muslims are still ignorant of the Quran. He should teach the Quran first. An issue of prioritising.
[3- Omar ordered Abu Hurayra not to speak to people about the Prophet & had hit him once with his stick & only when he threatened to lick him up did he stop, only to start again during Mu'aweyah reign. A well known story that Abu Hurayra cited.]
Again same as above.
[4- Yes they ruled with the Prophets Sunnah but you forget it wasn't what we know today, some elements are missing, & the sayings, ( Hadiths) were not written down for a reason.]
And that's based on what exactly? Your own personal desires?
[5-Abdul rahman Hilmi did not prove one shred of evidence to what he posits. that is why...he claims things saying this is what Islam says & it is not. Now your rhetoric about me countering, arent you doing the same thing, minus of course any real knowledge about History, & i belive i gave enough references of books to go & find out yourself.]
I think I could actually site this exact quote being said by you about 10 times. No, no, I'm serious. "any real knowledge about history", "i proved and he didn't", and the rest of the repetitive nonesense that apperently is the only thing you say. Even in arguments, that's the only thing you say and you use as a reply for absolutly everything. I'm sure you even use that quote against people who follow a different football club.
Books? In the begining you gave me points and arguments and I replied to them all. So afterwards you decided to give me the typical alienkain line "lack of historical knowledge..." and the rest of the gibberish plus listing to me a dozen books you probably got their titles off some online bookshop and told me that it's all in there. I guess that was enough for me to realise that the argument is basically over and that you simply have no grounds to stand on. Personally, once I knew you realised how pittiful you are, that was quite enough for me. (Comment this)
Your replies are either misinformed & twisted or fabrications.
Anything I wrote is from Traditional Sunni History books,
You on the other hand take this matter personally & with your poor knowledge it is understandable. I dont care about how smart or thick headed you are.
1. There was no Motawater or ehad in the days of Omar, those 2 definitions were used centuries later when Hadiths books were written. (You wrote what i wrote to you before to use it but in the wrong context of course as you dont know)
قال الغزالى " خبر الواحد لا يفيد العلم " و قال الاسنوى " و أما السنه فالأحاد منها لا يفيد إلا الظن" و يقول الشيخ شلتوت بعد عرضه عده أراء " و هكذا نجد نصوص العلماء من متكلمين و أصوليين مجتمعه على أن خبر الاحاد لا يفيد اليقين, فلا تثبت به العقيده" (الاسلام عقيدة و شريعه-الشيخ شلتوت).
2. روت السيدة عائشه عن أبيها أبي بكر قالت : "جمع أبي الحديث عن رسول الله و كان خمسمائه حديث,فبات ليله يتقلب كثيرا فلما أصبح قال : أى بنيه:هلمى الاحاديث التى عندك, فجئته بها فدعا بنار و أحرقها" تذكره الحفاظ ـ شمس الدين الذهبى
3. و فى روايه عن أنس بن مالك أن عمر قال:لا كتاب مع كتاب الله" جامع بيان العلم ج 1.
4. كان أبو بكر و عمر ينصحان الناس بالإقلال من الروايه عن رسول الله. فقد خطب أبو بكر مرة فى الناس فقال:" إنكم تحدثون عن رسول الله أحاديث تختلفون فيها و الناس بعدكم أشد إختلافا. فلا تحدثوا عن رسول الله شيئا, فمن سألكم قولوا بيننا و بينكم كتاب الله, فاستحلوا حلاله و حرموا حرامه"." تذكره الحفاظ ـ شمس الدين الذهبى
5. عن سعد بن إبراهيم عن أبيه أن عمر حبس أربعه من صحابه رسول الله, هم : ابن مسعود و أبو الدرداء و أبو مسعود الانصارى و أبو ذر الغفارى. فقال لهم :"لقد أكثرتم الحديث عن رسول الله".
6. قال:" إنى أحدثكم بأحاديث عن رسول الله لو حدثتكم بها فى زمن عمر لضربنى بالدرة" تذكره الحفاظ ج 1 ص 7.
أبى هريرة هددة الخليفه عمر بترك الحديث عن رسول الله قائلا له:"و الله لتتركن الحديث عن رسول الله أولألحقنك بأرض دوس". مسند أحمد / البدايه والنهايه ابن كثير
فى روايه ابن عبد ربه أن عمر قال له :"
استعملتك على البحرين و أنت بلا نعلين ثم بلغنى انك ابتعت افراسا بألف و ستمائه دينار,فمن أين لك هذا؟..............قال : بلى. و سأوجع ظهرك. ثم قام إليه و ضربه بالدرة حتى أدماه" العقد الفريد. لابن عبد ربه وفى عيون الاخبار لابن قتيبه الدينورى
If I am that pitiful, then you must be more pitiful than I could ever be, seeing as you never disprove any discussion with anything or quote anyone.
God save us muslims from your likes who smear it with their ignorance & prejudism.
(Comment this)
2.this hadeeth is daeef. There is only one sahih hadeeth reported by Bukhari in the regard of not writing ahadeeth and that is:
Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri reported a hadith that forbids the writing down of hadiths: “Do not write from me anything except the Qur’an and whosoever has written anything from me other the Qur’an should erase it.”
all other hadeeth that speak of the matter are daeef. Secondly it only makes sense that the prophet (pbuh) would make such a statment considering that the Quran at the time was only just being revealed peice by peice and it is still fresh in the people's minds. Any recorded hadeeths or excessive attention being paid to ahadeeth will only create confusion. You're quite narrow minded to take everying literally. You'll be a good wahabi someday.
3. same reply as the above.
4.i'll repeat, these riwayat are all daeefa. the only thing that is sahih in this regard is one hadeeth from al bukhari which i quoted above.
5.again.
6.an example of you repeating yourself and going around in circles. I replied to this exact point in another topic and you ignored my reply. I'm just going to copy and paste what I said there.
About Abu Hurayra teaching Ahadeeth:
I said:
"Omar beat Abu Hurayra for teaching hadiths because Abu Hurayra was teaching it to new Muslims and to children before teaching them the Quran. Omar used to even say "Get busy with the Qur'aan; it is Allah's words", the hadith should not come first, it should be taught later."
About Abu Hurayra and Bahrain:
I said:
"Again, it is obvious that someone is telling you half truths or probably your getting your information from websites that specialise in attacking Islam. because this again is only half truth. Abu Hurayra was appointed as waaly Bahrain and one day Omar called him to his court and Abu Hurayra came. Omar told him that he has been informed that Abu Hurayra has horses that cost more than he could possibly afford as per his income. So Omar assumed that Abu Hurayra was steeling from the money of the Muslims. Abu Hurayra insisted that these horses were from breeding and gifts but Omar refused to believe him at first. He later beat Abu Hurayra on his back and striped away his authority in Bahrain. Abu Hurayra however prayed that Allah forgive Omar. HOWEVER, later on Omar called Abu Hurayra again and offered the wilaya of Bahrain to Abu Hurayra again. Abu Hurayra refused and when Omar asked why, Abu Hurairah said, "So that my honor would not be at stake, my money would not be taken, and my back would not be beaten." He added, "I'm afraid I would judge without knowledge or speak without patience.""
Both of these replied are in "A Letter on Islamism" topic. And both of these replied you decided not to answer, yet still you decide to bring forth the argument again. (Comment this)
Speaking of Arab unity, I'm sure you're aware of the effort to free your fellow Egyptian blogger Alaa Abd El-Fatah, who was arrested last week during a peaceful demonstration. (For those unfamiliar with this incident, El-Fatah, along with several other bloggers, was protesting the lack of an independent Egyptian judciary.)
As part of a campaign to increase awareness of his plight, entries have been made in Wikipedia. So far, we have covered English, Arabic, and Italian Wiki entries and we will soon have entries in Spanish and Catalan. If you know anyone who once to contribute an entry in another language, they can find the original English language entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaa_Abd_El-Fatah . (Comment this)