Fall Of Muslims
Nawaz
Hi Folks
Historians are often astonished to note how the Arabs could reach the
height of their glory in such a short span of time, fourteen centuries
earlier. But in fact there is nothing to be astonished about. Their
glory was the natural consequence of acting in the guidance provided
by the Quran. The most astonishing thing on the other hand is that
which made the Muslim nation, after it reached the pinnacle of its
glory by acting on the Quran and after it witnessed the results of
such an action with its own eyes, then why they decline in every
sphere of life and ultimately fall into an abyss? How did it happen
that the veils of darkness mentioned above could manage to fall in
between the light of the Quran and the followers of the Quran?
The story is most painful and hair-raising and is worth listening to
with rapt attention. It runs as follows: When the forces which opposed
the rising tide of Islam in the 7th century A.D. noticed that the
uneducated, unskilled, undisciplined and most backward people of the
world living on dates for their subsistence had become the dominant
power of the world within a very short period, they not only became
jealous of this but also cautious. They simply could not bear the
aliens treading on their territories and demolishing the structure of
their ancient civilizations. The superior nations of that period were
the Romans and the Persians who comprise the intelligentsia of that
age. They were defeated and overrun by the Arabs who were far inferior
to them in material resources. When Hermazan, the defeated Persian
Governor was produced before Hazrat Omar !11 Caliph of Islam), the
latter asked him why the Persians were now suffering defeat after
defeat at the hands of Arabs while previously they could beat them
back easily in any encounter. Hermazan replied that earlier the
Persians had fought the Arabs alone but now they had to fight against
the Arabs plus their God and it was not possible for them to defeat
these two forces combined. How true his answer was when we look at the
Quranic verse; =93Truly God is with the believers.=94 - Al Anfall 8:19
The Persians were men of wisdom and insight, they truly realized that
Arabs would remain invincible in the battlefield so long as they were
close followers of the Quran and that the only way to overpower them
was to disassociate them from the guidance of the Quran and thus get
them separated from their God. This was an important turning point in
the history of Islam, and thus cam in waves of conspiracies which
entirely changed the very face of Islam in the years to follow. All
the basic concepts of the Quran on which the =91Deen=92 or social order
established by Muhammad (peace be upon him) came into existence and
were replaced one by one by ideas, beliefs and superstitions which
were the outcome of human thinking. Muslims in their era of glory and
triumph conquered both Romans and Persians but whereas the Roman
empire was partly conquered, the Persian empire was not entirely
subjugated but the edifice of its civilization was completely razed to
the ground. It was natural thing which that they felt it deeply and
maligned the minds of muslims in coming centuries. We all can see that
Muslims of today have become an example of weakness and one with no
divine objectives.
Nawaz
Religion Islam
http://www.parvez-video.com
DKleinecke
I know Nawaz will not reply, but I think he makes a couple of points
that deserve comment.
> Historians are often astonished to note how the Arabs could reach the
> height of their glory in such a short span of time,
I wonder who these historians are because there was nothing remarkable
about the speed of the Arabic expansion. Many historical empires grew
considerably faster. For example, Alexander before the Arabs and
Genghis Khan after them. The remarkable fact about the Arab empire is
that it hardly fragmented at all.
I wonder what Nawaz imagines "the height of their glory" to be. I have
observed that Muslim sentimentalists often speak of this "Islamic
Golden Age" but only in vague terms. My best guess is that the third
and fourth Islamic centuries are meant. We really do not have much
from before the third century and things were getting degenerate by
the fifth century. But, as almost everybody knows, very little of the
Golden Age was due to Arabs (meaning people of old Arabic racial
stock). The society spoke Arabic (or least wrote it) but they were
almost always of different racial stock - Persians were the commonest.
> Their
> glory was the natural consequence of acting in the guidance provided
> by the Quran. . . .
> why [then did] they decline in every
> sphere of life and ultimately fall into an abyss? . . .
> When the forces which opposed
> the rising tide of Islam in the 7th century A.D. noticed that the
> uneducated, unskilled, undisciplined and most backward people of the
> world living on dates for their subsistence had become the dominant
> power of the world within a very short period, they not only became
> jealous of this but also cautious.
Nawaz appears to have the curious idea that pre-Islamic Arabs lived on
dates. Yes, they ate dates and, where dates were plentiful fed them to
their camels, but they raised many other crops and the Bedouin who
were the backbone of the armies were meat-eating herders.
I would think that people who had conquered by the Arabs would have
more powerful emotions that jealousy.
. . .
> The Persians were men of wisdom and insight, they truly realized that
> Arabs would remain invincible in the battlefield so long as they were
> close followers of the Quran and that the only way to overpower them
> was to disassociate them from the guidance of the Quran and thus get
> them separated from their God.
I don't know whether this is actually a common conspiracy theory among
Muslims. It is new to me.
I understood that individual Persians joined Islam from the very
beginning (like Salman) but it was several generations before any
significant number of Persians became Muslims. And I have never heard
it suggested that they converted to Islam for any reasons except
genuine religious convictions or feigned convictions to better
themselves.
. . .
> All
> the basic concepts of the Quran on which the Deen or social order
> established by Muhammad (peace be upon him) came into existence and
> were replaced one by one by ideas, beliefs and superstitions which
> were the outcome of human thinking.
This appears to me to be a blanket condemnation of the Sunna and the
Shari'ah. Am I to understand that Nawaz represents one of the species
of Qur'an-only Muslims? Or has he, perhaps, only presented half of
his theology and, like the Salafis, has a selected sub-literature from
the Sunna and the Shari'ah that he is offering as the correct Sunna?
. . .
I am finally beginning to understand the sectarian point-of-view that
Nawaz keeps speaking from. Or am I simply getting more confused than
ever?
Eikin Kloster
subjugated but the edifice of its civilization was completely razed
to
the ground. It was natural thing which that they felt it deeply and
maligned the minds of muslims in coming centuries."
So maybe it was not such a great idea to have destroyed their
civilization to start with?