13 Jun 2005


How is history seen and written through the eyes of apologists historians? Was there manipulation in the way history was written? How reality is transformed by apologists into an idealied view of history ?
*Will elaborate later, for sure.
*This post is not particularly about religion.


Blogger LouLou said...


I think the fact that you can find about 10 different versions of each historical incident in different sources proves that definitely not all historians were as objective & precise as we wish to be. Studying history is I think a process of trying to get to as many different sides of the same story as possible. In the end you form a general impression but one can't ever be really sure what happened. The truth is always somewhere in between. But exactly where?Who knows?

I think however that in the West they have less of a tendency to be apologist about their history than we do. In Europe for example it's very common to meet people who condemn colonialism or the Dark Ages. They clearly see themselves as having been the bad guys in many historical sagas.

Most Americans that I've met will also have no hesitation in condemning things like slavery or the way the White Man treated the Indians etc...

And I love the fact that they wil hold events to comemorate their past historical 'sins' & show regret. They don't just hold events or national holidays that glorify their history.

Needless to say, I don't see any of the above among Muslims. To us our past is all a perfect, idealist Golden Age of Salaf Saleh etc...& we desperately want it all back. It seriously agitates people if you try for any type of critique of Islamic history.

6/14/2005 08:41:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only us (our modern time) who see our past as all perfect and ideal, but this tendency existed when Islamic history in particular was initially written...the more conflicts, the more political struggle invaded the muslim ummah during for instance Umayyads or Abbasids, the more the haneen to the past time; the more the back projection to the perfect society of the prophet and his companion; the more the issue of precendency start to emerge and volumes of work talking about fada'il of sahaba, tab3een, ..... and of course this fada'il work is politically oriented to, a mean of propaganda to serving a political figure whose descendants are claiming power or legitimacy, Abbasids, Alid's are clear examples.

6/14/2005 10:55:00 am  
Blogger Alina said...

Well, one of my favorite leaders, Caesar(funny detail - he used to be call the man of all women and the woman of all men :)), was an expert in manipulating historical events. He actually wrote two books describing his wars in a light that would favor the Romans. The ego of the Romans was another mean he knew how to exploit, so that they accepted his story without even questioning it.

"I think however that in the West they have less of a tendency to be apologist about their history than we do" - it depends how Far West you go, actually! Romanians still have a long lasting dispute about their history with the Hungarians...And it seems relevant facts - documents, artifacts and such - are not enough to support the Romanian history...Moreover, the interpretation of historical facts is very important in creating a national pride (BTW, the only Europeans who exceed Romanians in pride are the Spanish). Yes, we had some great leaders, but we interpret what they did in such a way that it becomes a myth...For example, everyone knows Stefan cel Mare built a monastery after each victory against invaders (mostly Turks), but hardly anyone remembers he spread illegitimate babies around the country (about a hundred rumors say).

When it comes to history as seen by a certain religion, if it is supported by a Holly Book, it is considered to be a great sin not to believe things happened just as the book states they did. So what if researchers did demonstrate (or they said they did) only 5% of what is said to have been told by Jesus were really said by Him? Any true Christian must dismiss this theory as heretic...

As long as any artifact can be interpreted (I've seen something quite strange on Discovery actually, a letter, the very same, said to have been written by Nefertiti in one footage and by Tutankhamon's wife in another), history can change depending on the point of view. The stronger a certain point of view is (it doesn't matter if it is shared by a country, a majority of a country or an empire), the harder will be to prove it is not the right perspective.

6/14/2005 11:11:00 am  
Blogger Alina said...

As for the need to always think back to an ideal past, that is true for any society. I guess it has something to do with very old beliefs, something in the deepest places of our mind, taking us back to the times all human resources were used to perform religious ceremonies which would bring a Paradisiac moment of the existance to the present - the time of total union with the Divine beings.

6/14/2005 11:15:00 am  
Blogger haal said...

You gals are awesome!
Will write more later! Finally, a light interesting discussion!!!!!

6/14/2005 11:18:00 am  
Blogger Mohamed said...

Women should write history from now on.

6/14/2005 11:45:00 am  
Blogger Alina said...

Well, if you think of the feminist theory - why HIS-story and not HER-story - which BTW is an typical exageration - it might not be so impossible! :))

6/14/2005 12:15:00 pm  
Blogger haal said...

'To us our past is all a perfect, idealist Golden Age of Salaf Saleh & we desperately want it all back..'
Yes, everyone wants the past back. Everyone who came before us is much better than us. We are no body, no one. Who are we to compared to them. They know everything....etc. I actually dont like that at all. The old generations, even the most religious ones, did have their own stuff, own problems, own mistakes, worries and confusion. Their society was not perfect or idealistic as we wanted to imagine. They were on and ongoing struggle to solve problems, and can I dare say, devastating problems. All the political issues arising 2 days after the prophet's death, during the rightly guided caliphs, and then the shit hits the fan with Yazid and Al-Hussien massacre, and more to come..... I mean, saying that our ancestors had problems doesn't by any mean degrade who they were/are to us; it is not that they were perfect. Even the prophet was not perfect in worldly matters (take religion from me, but worldly affairs you know best about it.. an example of that is zera3at al-nakheel when the Ansar asked him for advice).

Yes, Kayla, they will spread billions of story about how great he was but will not raise a pen to mention any incident that will make him appear as a normal human. It is thus another way of idol worshipping.

In our Islamic history, the story of Baybars is a famous case that deals with how leaders dictate what to be written about them. Turning every action they underook to a 'wise' action, adding new fabrications here and there to spice things up and divert the reader from the main story to the details that is there to manipulate you to looks somewhere else and give the whole story a different spin that the Historian wants you to see.

And yes Mae, Fad'il works are the best example of early age propaganda.

6/14/2005 02:47:00 pm  
Blogger haal said...

It is through the past that they legitimize the future.

6/14/2005 02:47:00 pm  
Blogger Alina said...

According to Frank Herbert, any flourishing religion has to be based on s series of popular history illusions (such as bad people never succed, actions say more than words, the rich will not be happy etc). Further more, the religion was to be used to gain political control (control held by an organization - Bene Gesserit, or by a messiah - Muad'dib, Mahdi). Therefore, manipulating the common beliefs about history is the easiest way to manipulate the masses...I don't know how true this theory is, but I know creating an idealic image of the past helped certain leaders get people to accept everything, even Comunism. It is not the only way though...

But I still say this habit of longing for the better-than-the-present past has to do with something a lot older and deeper than the present "collective imaginary"(I'm not sure this is the right phrase, so help me define it - the common beliefs, myths, cellebrations remembered by members of a certain group. Although it functions as the group's memories, it is not remembered, yet learned at a very young age).

6/14/2005 03:14:00 pm  
Blogger Mohamed said...

Haal, I thought this post was not about religion!

I actually think exposing the faults in a civilization's history demonstrates how great that civilization was. The greateness is in overcoming the devastating problems, and overcoming people's faults, not in living a faultless life.

That was actually used, when over-emphasizing the problems with the Jahily period. But the ongoing struggle and problems didn't end there, and would've been more glorious to show how that civilization ws able to withstand its ongoing problems.

6/14/2005 03:33:00 pm  
Blogger Alina said...

"I actually think exposing the faults in a civilization's history demonstrates how great that civilization was" - this depends on the form of that acknolegment. The Pop made the best choice in appologizing for the crusades. On the other hand, Romanian President Traian Basascu, looked pretty stupid when crying over what some Romanian soldiers did to Jews during the WW2. Just admiting we did so and apologizing would have been quite enough! If you start making a media circus out of it, all it's true value is lost...

6/14/2005 03:49:00 pm  
Blogger Mohamed said...

Well, for one we (Muslims) should admit to the atrocities the Ottomans did in southern/eastern Europe.

6/14/2005 03:57:00 pm  
Blogger Alina said...

"the atrocities the Ottomans did in southern/eastern Europe" - we were involved in that too and it is presented so that it could horrify people...pretty messy. You cannot imagine the huge number of stories about women being killed and their babies cut out of their womb, about young children taken away to be trained as soldiers...

"Atrocity is recognized as such both by the victim and the author, as well as by all those who have knowledge of it..." - I guess this is cannot always be applied...

6/14/2005 04:34:00 pm  
Blogger LouLou said...

I think that when we develop the culture of self-criticism about our past, present & future, the battle for our ever-elusive development will be half-won. I agree with Mohammed. A civilization that confronts its shame as well as its glory is a great one.

6/14/2005 05:29:00 pm  
Blogger Alina said...

I agree the best way is to face and accept your past as it really was. That would really give everybody a better perspective on the present and the future...If you alter the past in such a way to please you, the expectations for future actions might never become reality.

6/14/2005 05:46:00 pm  
Anonymous DNA said...

A bit late to the game, but don't we all reminisce of times gone with certain fondness? I mean, I always like to think that I was happier when I was younger. Am I the only one?

6/14/2005 06:55:00 pm  
Blogger Alina said...

No, you are not the only one...Although it is not always true, we do tend to think we were happier when we were younger. Maybe because parties were so great! Yet I try to concentrate on the present and future and let by gones be by gones.

6/14/2005 07:50:00 pm  
Blogger haal said...

It is not about religion, it is about History and how history is written and how honest can it be, or can't be. Purpose.

Well, DNA, you were happier as a kid because you were a kid back then. Didnt know much but looking forward to learn. This in my opinion the oppposite to history back projecting. Past history is complete, mature, grownup, perfect and our future is like the kid's phase: knows nothing, and not trusted.

Mohamed, Kayla, Loulou: yes, we should expose problems happening in our past, and how it was/wasnot solved.

This post is still not about religion. History. History of religion? maybe!

6/15/2005 01:14:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Everyone who came before us is much better than us. We are no body, no one. Who are we to compared to them. They know everything....etc. I actually dont like that at all" actually i dont like that too...
.and this is because as u haal stated that every generation has its own problems and its own confusions….thats right….but when u come and speak about a prophet and the time he was sent to convey the message that he was sent for…and im speaking here about any prophet…there were for sure struggles the time they were trying to convey their message….and even after….and this is because that’s the human nature….struggles….right and wrong….good and evil….this happens everywhere and in all ages….as we can see now….there are good Christians and there are bad ones….as well as jews and muslims….

“Even the prophet was not perfect in worldly matters (take religion from me, but worldly affairs you know best about it.. an example of that is zera3at al-nakheel when the Ansar asked him for advice).”
Well ur talking here abour knowledge….being perfect or being good doesn’t really have to do with knowledge….the prophet being almost perfect doesn’t mean that he has to have knowledge in farming and everything else…the prophet’s message was to convey islam and not to teach people how to cultivate land….the point that ansar were taking the prophet’s opinion even in farming is a good sign that the prophet was a great man to the extent that they trusted him in everything even farming….

“Yes, Kayla, they will spread billions of story about how great he was but will not raise a pen to mention any incident that will make him appear as a normal human. It is thus another way of idol worshipping”
well I disagree this isn’t what happened….as much as I do respect prophet Mohamed….but at the end of the day the prophet was a human being….and because of that it isn’t idol worshipping “in another way”….and pens have been raised haal….BY ALLAH HIMSELF! and it was in the Quran too…!!…In Surat 3abasa – Surah 80….you can even check the tafseer if u want….there was that incident were a blind man was asking the prophet about something and the prophet replied back with a frown so God criticized prophet Mohamed’s reaction in that incident…which is a sign that prophet Mohamed was a human being with mistakes….but compare that with our mistakes now….how many time in the day do u frown….at ur mom….ur sister or brother…or even people in the street….what I want to point to here is that prophet Mohamed was truly a human being with mistakes….but at the same time he was perfect to a great extent….greater than any other human being….and that’s why Prophet Mohamed is Sayed el Khalk, and he did not aquire that description by anyone, but by the Creator Himself!

6/15/2005 02:19:00 am  
Blogger haal said...


You took the whole comments tailored on the Prophet. Well, no. This is not the case, I am sorry. We are speaking about past historical figures in general. My comment to Kayla was not in reference to Prophet Muhammad but to a figure she mentioned.

As for the date incident where I bring in the prophet, I was trying to make a point that the prophet himself didn't want people to distrust their own skills and depend on him on every single thing. He did have mistakes, and either the Coran corrected him not only the 3absa incident. Your point regarding the prophet being perfect, or more perfect than us is beside the point.

6/15/2005 11:20:00 am  
Anonymous DNA said...

Folks, I wasn't on about when I was a 'kid' - I don't consider being at uni and the first few years of employment being a 'kid.' Several years later, I look at those years - when I my expectations were 'higher' more fondly.

6/15/2005 01:14:00 pm  
Blogger Dalulla said...

My comment to Kayla was not in reference to Prophet Muhammad but to a figure she mentioned.

If Prophet Muhammed wasn;t the one u were referring to, then who were you referring to? Cesar? Or Jesus? or who? Jsut for clarification.

Haal the reason (speaking for myself) why i drift from ur main subjects and hold on to one aspect within ur comments is the way u use Islam and Islamic figures. Beleive me it is provocative for most moslems. I do not mean to hassel u, really. but just try to keep it ..how should i say, less provocative please.

6/15/2005 01:46:00 pm  
Blogger Alina said...

:) I don't get it, Dallula! Why should Haal take advice from you when this is her blog?? It makes me laugh, really! I know she can be provocative, but why are you afraid of challanges? And if it offends you that bad and you really can't stand her being so provocative, why read what she writes in the first place?

6/15/2005 02:09:00 pm  
Blogger Dalulla said...

So who were u referring to Haal. Seriously.

6/15/2005 02:34:00 pm  
Blogger Mohamed said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6/15/2005 02:44:00 pm  
Blogger haal said...

dalulla, dont be obsessed and a pusher. Till now, I really am playing nice. OK. So, make your comments, engage in a dialogue, say all what you want but never get personal with me. Deal?

6/15/2005 02:52:00 pm  
Blogger Dalulla said...

WEll..Who were you referring to?

6/15/2005 03:18:00 pm  
Blogger haal said...

Kayla, you are unbelievably (sp? word?) funny! Witty!!!

Dalulla, dont u get tired? if you just reread what Kayla had said in her post, you would probably understand, but obviously you just read my comments, and obviously dont understand it, and though obviously insist on commenting.

6/15/2005 03:22:00 pm  
Blogger Dalulla said...

why not answer directly instead of your endless criticism?

6/15/2005 03:26:00 pm  
Blogger haal said...

Lady, Go read. I really doubt that you know how to read. I am not supposed to give you all the answers. Read. Can you do that. Read. If you can't do that, then I dont think you will understand.

Plus, what is ur problem. Just get it out and stop acting like a freek. You are really too much.

6/15/2005 03:29:00 pm  
Blogger Dalulla said...

Ok.. whatever, am i supposed to get all pissed off? well sorry your comments did not serve that purpose.

I asked you a direct question about what you said which is something normal, and you will not answer..

You just try to provoke me in a childish manner, seems there is a seriouse problem here.

Have the courage to just tell me you do not want me to comment here and i will simply stop if my questions are too hard to answer instead of telling me i don't know how to read and all that childish attitude.

I honestly feel you have an insecurity problem that is why you get so defensive and never answer straight.

6/15/2005 03:37:00 pm  
Blogger haal said...

No please, dont piss here.

Dont worry if I want to tell you to get the hell out of here, I will. But I really enjoy having you here. I dont get to meet people like this a lot, so to me you are a new experience.

Dahlia, I just think you just need to read a little and then you will save yourself the trouble of begging so hard for an answer. I assume you are a grown up who understands that begging too much is not 'goodie goodie'. Read, understand and you are welcome to discuss, but acting like a weirdo doesnt serve the purpose. ok?

Kayla, would you please explain to the young lady what your comment was about. Maybe she is used to someone explaining to her every single thing.

6/15/2005 03:45:00 pm  
Blogger Dalulla said...

:) I don't get it, Dallula! Why should Haal take advice from you when this is her blog??
It is just advise and kayla, no offense, but as moslems we are to advise one another..especially when it comes to making mistakes and giving people a gate way to attacking Islam and Respected Figures such as the Prophet(SAW).
Al din al nasiha (Religion is advise)

I know she can be provocative, but why are you afraid of challanges?
Who says i am afraid of challenges? I am only but a keen moslem and do not and will not accept Islam in general to be taken in vain. She degrades Islamic thought. As a moslem it is suprising to find her talking about certain issues in the way she does.

And if it offends you that bad and you really can't stand her being so provocative, why read what she writes in the first place?

Yeah maybe you are right.. I should not waste my energy here. Maybe for someone who is more open to strengthening Islamic beliefs rather than doing what she is.
Very good advise Kayla i will consider it.

But i am just waiting for her to tell me not to comment any more here.

6/15/2005 03:51:00 pm  
Anonymous Mae said...

I concur Haal, you are talking things too personal and this won't help. Just take it a little easy.

What Hall was refering to was Cesar's figure when Kayla said that 'Caesar was an expert in manipulating historical events. He actually wrote two books describing his wars in a light that would favor the Romans. The ego of the Romans was another mean he knew how to exploit, so that they accepted his story without even questioning it.'

This should put the answer to your question Dahlia. And I think you should believe Haal, if she said she didnt mean the Prophet. Ok. Chill out!

6/15/2005 03:53:00 pm  
Anonymous rahmanium said...

...now history is done, written mostly by the "victorious" at their time,when no body else can say the truth or have it all until resonable time passes, and when that time comes,truth will be available for those who search for it , but what stays in the common's mind is most of the original lies told by their makers.

but how do you think of our present time when becomes history. in the paste, sources for the truth were limited , which's not the case now... too many sources, huge amount of informations , lies... what will be the effective source for documentation . fox news showing how the iraqi people enjoys the frutes of democracy ,how the american solders build schools, help the people...etc., while aljezera shows the agony and the killings..... the americans are happy with what they see of achivements on the t.v. screen in iraq , happy and convenced to re-elect g.w.bush....

seeing is beliving.., so will it be, how to picture history rather than to write it.

6/15/2005 03:55:00 pm  
Blogger haal said...

History is written by the victorious. Very correct. I strongly agree. Hardly will you find historical writings written by minorities survive, or any one questions what the victorious write about themselves.

What do you mean by 'how to picture history rather than to write it'?

6/15/2005 04:08:00 pm  
Blogger Dalulla said...

ok.. thank you, someone finally answered. I was just not clear..i got confused.. I didn't do anything, I asked who she meant since Kayla mentioned Ceesar and Jesus, it was a confusion. Isn't one allowed to get confused? Besides who is getting personal here? why not re read what she wrote, any way, i think this is ecough .. I got my answer thank u and that was it.
No need to take the comments any further from the main topic..

6/15/2005 04:21:00 pm  
Blogger Alina said...

"too many sources, huge amount of informations , lies" - this is quite true. Right now it is hard to judge the present if you cannot access all the sources...Probably the future will judge our present, just like we judge our past (I mean the crusades and other atrocities). As for now, the judgement can only be a personal one, or better yet, one belonging to a certain group, thus depending on the number of sources that group is analizing.

6/15/2005 04:34:00 pm  
Anonymous rahmanium said...

i mean media as a new way to manipulate history and document this manipulation.

6/15/2005 05:00:00 pm  
Blogger Dalulla said...

each line in the media has a different say, which is almost the same as the old times.. so do guys think the truth will always remain a mystery? We are all aware of the main issue, but how about the details? how can we we tell what really happend is the real queation.. I think it is the exposure to many different sources that might help.. but again the question brings itslef, how can we tell which one is giving precise information, the closest to the truth?

6/15/2005 05:26:00 pm  
Blogger haal said...

media in our modern time is historian in the old times. every historian, if you do a little investigation in their bckground, had certain inclination to a dynasty and caliph, a political figure, a sect...etc. The way they write 'what happened' from their perspective will depend on that how hard they try to be objective. What really happened is always be somehting unknown, but searching through the fine details and tracing stories and different narratives can get us closer-- or at the very least, make us realize that there is 'no absolute truth' when it comes to history and historical figures, and they are just the 'makings' of narratives, stories, twists, that got accumulated throughout the years.

the real fun is 'knowing' and 'discovering' the undercurrent that was happening during that old times.

6/15/2005 05:38:00 pm  
Blogger LouLou said...

"media in our modern time is historian in the old times. every historian, if you do a little investigation in their bckground, had certain inclination to a dynasty and caliph, a political figure, a sect...etc."

Yes & media in modern times are driven by market forces too. They're driven by things like viewer ratings & commercials. So they tend to sensationalize. They want a scoop. Every journalist or reporter wants to show that he discovered something new. I think many of them care about telling an exciting story than telling the truth.

6/15/2005 09:01:00 pm  
Blogger Dalulla said...

Well there's what i may say a puzzle that is missing pieces.. You know what the whole picture looks like in your mind (to a great extent) but the picture in our eyes, as in terms of visulaising is missing.

There is always something missing or untrue. the stories are never complete. The problem is, some people do not really get exposed enough, from what i understood, in the U.S for instance, the public were not informed except for what their government wanted them to know, that is till the past couple of years. I think to be more precise, till the terrible incident of 9/11. But i think it happens every where.

I personally always had this image of America as truely being truely free, 100% democratic,however, It seems we are living in one big world filled with dictatorship, but the levels differ from one country to another. The govenments do play an important role in the making of history since they always have this undercover manipulative effect over things. Do u think that is true?

6/16/2005 12:49:00 am  
Blogger Dalulla said...

can u please explain in what worldly matters was prophet Muhammed not perfect in?

I need to understand your point of view on that bit of your comment above.. It was part of the discussion and was left without your opinion in more details, at least for those that do not know much about him.

6/16/2005 12:58:00 am  
Blogger haal said...

ma'entee konty starting a good start ahou and going into 9/11, america,modern history, although off-topic but ahouu trying...What happened 10 minutes later?

I will answer you non-stop question about the prophet if you only tell me: does it matter if prophets were perfect in worldly matter? what significance does it add to prophet Mohameed in particular if he was perfect in worldly matter? and what do you mean by worldly matters, werent u the one who gave example of the 3abasa waa tawala as an example of the prophet making mistakes?

6/16/2005 09:19:00 am  
Anonymous rahmanium said...

...that's really funny, dalulla, i had a wide smile reading your comments regarding history and media... but "things are not what they seem",that was too short. obviously you could'nt stand it for long, back to your favorite topic again.

6/16/2005 11:05:00 am  
Blogger Alina said...

"They're driven by things like viewer ratings & commercials" - well, yes, but you can add here political interest, investors, the media's policy and others. And trust me, viewer ratings are the least important when it comes to constraints...At least that is what they told us at the University (I'm studying journalism). Rule one - follow the money supporting the media; rule two - follow the political figures behind the media.

6/16/2005 11:15:00 am  
Blogger haal said...

journalism? interesting.

Well, this brings us back to the idea of history is written by the victorious. Victorious definition change from one time to another. today's victorious are those who have money, influence, and political connections, and for sure those who owns media. As in the, the ruling class try to buy historians, in today's days political figures buy channels and own them. Same propaganda.

I am still reading this book that is so much trying to emphasize the point that 'history is tailored', 'reinvented' to legitimize current state and at some points shooting a phrase about how unhisotrical history can be.

6/16/2005 11:57:00 am  
Blogger Alina said...

Not that interesting, Haal (well, not anymore after four years) :)). True, history is written by the powerful, but most of the times the power is devided and each division shows a different face of history. Then, the less powerful ones have acces to other media - like the Internet - that are less likely to be altered by censorship...I guess analysing all sources remains the best way to get to the bottom of it. Oh, another journalistic "law" - always have at least three (or two, depends of the book you read) different sources and take into account each source's credibility.

6/16/2005 12:18:00 pm  
Anonymous Mae said...

I always feel that everything has its own history. Hardly will anything exist as 'reality' or 'absolute reality'. Maybe we just see it as part of 'our own reality' and in this zone all the objects in this zone appear 'real'. Wow.. What am I saying? Well, to sumup, there is nothing call absolute reality, no facts. No reality. All are just reflection and some other times refraction of our own. We see things in the way that it hits inside us and reflect in the outside mirror outisde us. And so is history! Just a reflection.

As for the consistent attempt of Dalulla to see everything through the prism of islam, religion is 'history', part of history. There is no religion that came out of nowhere, but had to be part of a certain history. History of the place maybe, of the people maybe, or their memories could be.... If it doesn't get into the historical fabric of the place then it would be rejected. ANd in that sense, Islam and its history is under the subject of History and historiography. What are you attempting to do is to squeeze in faith with history, which i think is a little impossible. I personally couldnt see how faith and history can be mingled within the same fabric, maybe I could be wrong. Reading history with the brain of a faithful will give history a different spin, and so from experience we can train ourselves to read history while keeping our faith outside the picture and not to attempt to integrate or challenge one with the other. So please, just enjoy the historical part of islam. It is fascinating, to me at least. Not because it is all pro-islam, but just as a pure science.

6/16/2005 06:47:00 pm  
Blogger Dalulla said...

3abasa wa tawala? I did not post that.

But it is true and there are many other instances as well.. But i wanted u to tell me, or give me examples of "the worldly matters" that you meant..

I was just keen on it's implication to those who don't know him, and i made that clear to you. I didn't mean to deviate from the main topic, but I couldn't help it since Prophets are not comparable to normal people in many senses.

Anyway, forget it, i don't want to keep going on and on about it, if u didn't understand the relevance of the question, and don't feel its importance then so be it, don't waste your time on answering if u don't want to.

Many things make a difference to some people haal, but to others, unfortunatly no. :-(

6/16/2005 06:58:00 pm  
Anonymous Mae said...


In my opinion as a muslim, it is not the continous pounding on how perfect the prophet is that will make people be attracted to islam or have doubts about it. The beauty of the prophet lies in him being 'human', bashar, not of his 'divine perfectionist', know it all figure. I don't see it as something 'bad', 'horrible' if the prophet didnt know how to harvest palms, or dont pay proper atention to the blind man, or the times when Umar corrected him and the Koran came to take Umar's side....etc. If the Koran, or Allah, wanted him to be perfect, knowing it all, why did he do some reproche for the Prophet.

I hope I get your point right. If not, and you want to clarify your point, just go ahead and clarify.

6/16/2005 07:25:00 pm  
Blogger Mohamed said...

Is the argument here really about the prophet being perfect or not?! Because as far as I know, that's something that's already settled. If he was perfect, he would've been God, no? He's only Allah's messenger, "wama yanteko 3anel hawa", but otherwise he's "basharon methlakom".

6/16/2005 08:14:00 pm  
Blogger Aladdin said...

what do you mean by the word 'apologists'?

6/17/2005 12:53:00 am  
Blogger Dalulla said...

Prophet Muhammed (SAW) indeed was human, "Bashar", but not like any of us, not even the best of us.. Can any of u say no? Why is a long story, can't start about it here.

So there for we cannot just throw in a comment like (even the prophet was not perfect in worldly matters)that and leave it hanging. The prophet not knowing certain skills was not the issue that made him not perfect.

Islam was taught to us through prophet Muhammed, Back at the time of the prophet it was he who encouraged people to become muslim through his attitude, being known (even prior to the revelations) as al Sadek (the trughtful), Al amin (the trustworthy.. etc etc. All i am saying is we should not bring him up as if he were someone that was just anyone, and when we bring him up we should give him Proper Stature and not compare him or any other prophet to the rest of mankind.. How many people are we encouraged to say a prayer when their names are mentioned except for the prophets? When we are dying, Do the angels take permission from us before taking our souls as the prophets?? Allah Gave all the prophets a very special status of respect even by the angels..
I hope u understood what i mean..

6/17/2005 12:26:00 pm  
Blogger Dalulla said...

I mean human standards of perfect ya mohammed.. not the perfection of the creator.. He made mistakes, but did not handle their corrections as any one would.. He accepted criticism, mashoura (advise) and applied them.. Unlike what most people would do.. SO at the end of the day, None of us can say He or any other Prophet were like mere people.. again the best of them.

6/17/2005 12:35:00 pm  
Blogger haal said...

Are we done yet with this 'perfection issue'?

If you want to add more comments about Prophet Mohamed, please write it in your blog and make a link here in teh comment if you want. Otherwise, this post is about Historical writings.

6/17/2005 12:54:00 pm  
Blogger Mohamed said...

Ok Dalulla, tell me exactly what you'd like me to believe and I will. Hope this will end this endless dwelling on useless issues.

6/17/2005 01:07:00 pm  
Blogger haal said...

Forget about it, Mohamed. I am sure she didnt even read the links you had. She had one thing in mind, and will go on and on about it till we all close the blogs for her sake.

I am getting irritated actually from this 'preaching', know it all tone!

6/17/2005 01:17:00 pm  
Blogger LouLou said...

Is it only historians who are apologists though?

I often find myself wishing that we'd all stop being apologist about horrible things that are going on today.

When will so-called civilized, democratic nations stop coming up with excuses for supporting the most brutal regimes in the world?When will we stop destroying the environment?When will politicians, dipolmats, businessmen stop apologizing for the international arms trade?

I can't believe that in this day & age, there are still people who can rationalize & justify things like Chechnya & Darfur. And other people who accept such rationalizations.

If we white-wash our present & ignore things that stare us in the face everyday then it is just that much easier to whitewash the past.

Could this be why history repeats itself?Cos we never actually learn anything from it?We just make a mistake, white-wash the consequences then wait a little & make it again.

6/17/2005 03:09:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home