Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Wow - only 5 votes!

RVP - well said my man, I agree with your points.

Daniyaal - on your last point, that Imam Mehdi (the guided leader) will be an Arab, can you dig out the reference for me.

My understanding is that he will actually be of Persian descent - based on the Hadith about Salman Farsi, the Persian companion of the Prophet, pbuh. The Prophet, pbuh, said that one of Salman's descendants/people (i.e. a Persian) would be the one who would bring the world back to Islam when it had gone up to the heavens (i.e. when people had stopped following the teachings of Islam).

This is what all the Hadith about the Imam Mahdi say he will do - bring the world back to true Islam.

So therefore, the question needs to be - 'how will the Arabs react when the Persian (Ajami) Mahdi comes'?



Wasalaam,
Shafique

Good morning Friends,
Just woke up and saw the post from Shafique. I must admit that I am learning a lot after I became member of dubaiforums.com and I hope all discussions here are termed as Healthy debate. Since you asked for references and you specifically touch upon the part of my reply which deals with Mahdi, I though I would clarify my position and also to hear yours and see where we agree or disagree.

Shafique, first of all I like to state that personally my belief about Coming of Imam Mahdi and Prophet Jesus near the end of time is not complete as there are several missing pieces that I did not find so far and still searching. There are several hadiths about both of them yet in Koran I was able to find only a reference that Allah has raised Prophet Jesus unto him and a resemble of him-another man was crusified.

verse 4:157:

"And because of their saying. We killed Messiah 'Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," -- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Isa (Jesus) was put over another man"

The above verse indicates that Prophet Jesus was not killed and as Allah said that "Every soul shall has taste of death" verse 29:57 I belive that prophet Jesus will also have to taste the death one day and that is an indirect reference to me about his coming back to earth. However I think if I were to die and my belief about this is not complete then I hope Allah will forgive me because this to my knowledhe is not part of shada. I am not negating the cocept but am in the middle state.

Therefore no mention of Imam Mahdi in Koran, however being a muslim you must believe in Hadith of Prophet Muhammd too. And this should be part of your faith i.e. to belive in his sayings and to take whatever he has given to us.

This is the reference which was given to me by my asian muslim brother:
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter2/2.html
http://www.irshad.org/islam/prophecy/mahdi.htm

I then looked at some other islamic websites:
This site has reference that Imam Mahdi will be from Muslims (not menting the origin arab or ajam)
http://www.al-islam.org/tahrif/yourimam/index.htm

This reference has hadiths from Abu Dawood book of hadiths which mentions that Mahdi will be from me (prophet's family) and decendents of Fatima.
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display ... anslator=3

However as you know both shia and sunni talk about mahdi from their perspectives so read this:
http://www.shia.org/mehdi.html

There is one reference that I found about Salman Farsi hadith but that too says Mahdi will be from Prophet Muhammad family.
Therefore could you please also provide me with your research and viewpoint.
http://www.al-islam.org/peshawar/last.html

Best Regards

Daniyaal

Your post although interesting does appear to be written with a tone of "belonging". You seem to be making a case that Islam does indeed belong though historical events to "the arabs".

Your post coinsides with the general conception in that the arabs consider themselves superior in this respect.

If you were to apply this principle away from the topic of religion and apply it to any other aspect within history then i am sad to say it really doesnt hold up.

The fact of the matter is, the arab nations all fairly insular when the slightest problem occurs within "Arabia". At all other times they come across as a united nation.

One of the best and clearest examples of my statement in recent times, was the invasion of Kuwait in 1992. Correct me if i am wrong Daniyaal, but not one single Arab nation actually gave a monkeys that one Arab nation kicked the crap out of another Arab nation.

I cant remember any cries of "all for one and one for all" back then, can you?

I agree with you Arnie - points well made.

Daniyaal - I've started a new thread on the identity of the Imam Mahdi.

I'm also very interested in hearing the response to the issue of women driving in Saudi - Arnie's references make good reading and point to what I was saying that it has nothing to do with religion, but is a symbol of lack of freedoms.

Cheers,
Shafique

Dear Arnie and Shafique,

I have already given you references of famous book of hadiths which mentioned that the Imam Mahdi will be from Prophet's stock and family and there are no mentioning of him being farsi at least in those hadtihs which I mentioned. You should have included my reply in your other new thread as the objective is to unify all available hadiths about Imam mahdi and not the ones you like to quote. It will be my wish if he is from non-arab and then you also made a very silly point that Jesus is also not an arab as if I have proposed that GOD will change his origin on his second coming?Have you actually read the refences I have given where prophet clearly mentioned that Jesus will be brought back and he will be behind our Imam?.

I think you miss the whole point I was never advocating for arabs, merely replying to comments made against them for WRONG reasons.

In any case it was better to open to a separate thread and I will wait to see what others will post there.

As for the invasion of Kuwait issue made by Arnie, Saudi Arabia intervene to sough help from US to liberate arab. This is one example of an arab country if you like to count as one.

Cheers

All Saudi did was to let the US use their airfields for supplies.

Great debate

btw I voted malaysia the single currency idea is a great idea should be implemented.

daniyaal wrote:I am not sure how in the best manner I should explain my view about the whole situation (the events that you mentioned/jumped from Salahuddin and especially your comments about Ummayad which makes the reader believe that Ummayad brought nothing to Islam except mastery over non-arab muslims).

OK stop a minute.

Your question on this debate was who should lead. you said Saudi.. i say malaysia. i say saudi are a minority and shouldnt lead people who are totally different to them. I say Malaysia has a successfull model, and should lead.
I say ARABS have never accepted being ruled by Non Muslims since the ummayads - a well known fact. ... i have kept my comments relative to your debate. Who should lead.
I HAVE NOT, dissed arabs.
I HAVE NOT at any point said Ummayads braught nothing to islam

I mentioned Salahuddin as a prime example to say leaders however great can only lead people to follow for a short while. And i also provide the example of Ottomans as well as Salahuddin as leaders who were rejected by Arabs as rightfull rulers.

By mentioning that Arabs have always rejected rule did this DOES NOT STATE arabs have baught nothing but misery!!! You are taking criticism of an area and acting defensively, whether you realise it or not.

No reader and i mean NO READER with common sense will interpret it (your umayyad comment) in that way. It is worse to deny the existance of the attitude than to highlight it.

daniyaal wrote:I see that non-arabs muslims have made it a habitual practise to joke about current day arabs and then to go back and generalize the whole islamic history into arabs vs muslims and all they can do is to give examples of Salahuddin and then Persian and then Turkish muslims, while they completly forgot about the contributions made by arab muslims to islam as a whole. I have met a good number of arab muslims and i never found a glimpse of prejudice in them against non-arab muslims. If I were to believe your comments then perhaps I was the only lucky person on this planet to have the company of such arab muslims, what can I say?

Are you for real? who dissed the arabs on this thread? we are talking about WHO SHOULD LEAD. No one has said Arabs did nothing for Islam. You are going through a completely unrelated path.

daniyaal wrote:
There could be many reasons where people like you feel inferior to arab muslims or should I say feel that arab muslims are making you feel inferior: for example lack of arabic langauge is one major reason which is the center to understanding islam.

People like me? So, you have automatically assumed:
A) I am a Muslim
B) I feel inferior to an Arab
C) I dont know how to speak Arabic.

A) i may not be a muslim
B) Most of my exposure to Arabs outside Middleeast are the immigrants who come to Sweden looking or a better life. We are a tolerant group of people. So we have no such inferiority cimplex againt any Arabs at all.
C) Arabic language - of 1.1 Billion muslims how many actually speak Arabic? very little. And im sure many still Understand Islam.

You are making too many assumptions in your arguments and not keeping in line as to why you think Saudi is fit to lead. I am trying my level best to let you know what i think they are not fit to lead.

daniyaal wrote:You gave an example of persian/mughal empire to indian-pakistan continent as the main source of islamic conversion, but you forgot to mention the influence of Persian lanaguage and the mughal culture that still is visible to indians and pakistan muslims in their education and even food. Persian language was sort of compulsary for every muslims under mughal rule and major islamic books were written in persian, what do you call this influence? From your view that era may be golden but from other views they will call that era as Mughal mastery over local indian population??

I did not forget to mention the influence of the Persian language at all. It is not relevant in this debate - hence i excluded it. Look back to your own comments. the only reason i mention Persian and Turkish influence on Asia was to REMIND YOU, that Arabs did not spread Islam to Asia as YOU had stated. I mentioned the Mughal, because YOU made a hypothetical comment regarding Wealth and how Pakistanis would distribute it had they been as rich as some Arabs.
You did, conveniently, miss the point i mention about Malaysia... and why the Arabs havent followed their successfull model.

So they were a response to points you have made which are Irrelevant to who should lead?

daniyaal wrote:In short the efforts of arab muslims actually made our religion Islam which was sort of an arabic religion/culture into cosmopolitan, universal religion which exists today. The roots of persian, turkish were actually arabs muslims. It is not your say that Allah has chosen the arab nation as the one where HE will send his last messenger. Jews and christians at that time could not belive that GOD could send his messnger to the arab nation. Anyway GOD knows how to spread his message.

This is a TOTALLY Irrelevant piece. And by the way... Persians are not ofArab roots. The Persians are a completely different Race. The Turks are SLAVIC Not Semites! and the spread and diversity of Islam... was a contribution by MANY Races, not just Arabs.

daniyaal wrote:Therefore before you make any wrong accusations about islamic history you need to ask this, why GOD chose arabs to reveal his message and not persian, turks or india. And than the efforts those arabs did to make it so easy for later muslims. And please do not give example of Salah uddin and persian/mugla empire (with mose repect to them and may Allah please with them) in a way to defame the arabs.

how old are you? get a life pal. No one has said anything bad about the arabs as a people. Nor has anyone taken anything away from them. We point out why the current day arab states are not willing to be ruled, and have certain attitudes which will not allow them to rule 1.1 billion or so muslims.

Regarding why god chose the ARABs...hasnt Shafique already covered this?

daniyaal wrote:Lastly Some muslims scholars (which include persian/indian as well) belive that future Imam mehdi will be an arab and all muslims will be united under him. I wonder how will you re unite under an arab in that case?
Take care

OK, this is where YOU are separating the muslims, no one else.
If Islam says Imam Mehdi will be an arab, theres no need to say, the green, blue, and pink people also believe this.

Remind me, Isnt Imam Mehdi supposed to appear at near the end of times? WHAT HAS THAT TO DO WITH WHICH COUNTRY SHOULD LEAD ISLAM NOW - AS IN CURRENT DAY......

Dear Mr RVP,

Please look into your own thread and see who started the historical arab bashing? Current day arabs is different but to label the early ones and they have never accepted non arabs becuase of them thinking superior was the turning point where I started bringing some sense to you.

You have not chosen any arab country for the vote based on their current conditions fine, but then went on and start judging earlier ones in a tone that was disrespectful of their achievements and the way you described the salahuddin era was also not a positive note. Any reader after reasing your critical analysis of the arab history would not go without having a negative opinion about arabs (past and present both) and now you are trying to back track by saying that you never disrespect arabs at all?
Well dear you could have mentioned all that in your ealier posts, but you only took the part which suits your judgement.

You are the one who sounded for sure disliking arab muslims from the beginning and you want every one to agree with your logic, am sorry I can not join you in critising early arabs who spread islam to all of us, simple .....

Cheers

This is hillarious.
Even when i keep on reiterating that i make my points specifically to rule, you are taking it as Arab bashing.

Why dont you quote me, where i "BASH ARABS"

I said before, and i say again...Arabs have never accepted to be ruled/lead by Non Arabs... and i believe they will never accept it either... the criticism is on the attitudes of leadership and rule... not race.

If you take ths as a criticism to an entire race, then you will never be able to feely debate issues related to Arabs.

Right you never did so in writing but it was so obvious in your tone, isnt it.

But wait, if it is not then for the sake of putting things on record, I respect your comments about them being not accepting non arab leadership, however I will not agree to your reasoning, I think am entitied to keep my view.

Now I wish the others to focus on the original question without relating to the history of the nations mentioned, which country in your opinion is in the best position to lead islamic world/ummah? And please when you vote give your reasons and make them in context with the present and future.



Regards

and........ with the greatest of respect Daniyaal you are very clearly PRO ARAB.

The tone in your posts, and your inability to look outside of those "rose tinted glasses" actually makes the point mentioned over the last week in that "arabs do consider themselves superior".

Even when presented with a good well laid out "polite" reply as in RVP's case, you take exception.

If you want a debate where everyone just agree's with you, then this is probably the wrong forum. I am born UK white christian, and i dont pretend to have the same in depth knowledge as you, RVP and Shaf but ,what i do know is by reading these posts, you are a prime example of the perception that other muslims and indeed non-muslims have about the Arabs in general.

And before you jump on me as well, in the "arab bashing arena" i would respectfully suggest you read again your posts, not only what you have written Daniyaal, but the tone in which it is written.

daniyaal wrote:Right you never did so in writing but it was so obvious in your tone, isnt it.

So first you say i dissed the arabs.... now you say i didnt, but its OBVIOUS to you that my tone was to do so.....

Whats next?
"Even though your tone wasnt Anti Arab, im sure you thought about things anti arab cos its just so damn obvious isnt it?"

daniyaal wrote:But wait, if it is not then for the sake of putting things on record, I respect your comments about them being not accepting non arab leadership, however I will not agree to your reasoning, I think am entitied to keep my view.

Thats better....

daniyaal wrote:Now I wish the others to focus on the original question without relating to the history of the nations mentioned, which country in your opinion is in the best position to lead islamic world/ummah? And please when you vote give your reasons and make them in context with the present and future.

..... isnt that what i've done... all along?

Arnie thanks for seeing it from a sensible point of view!