Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Morganite's Avatar
    Morganite Posts: 863, Reputation: 86
    Senior Member
     
    #1

    Oct 2, 2005, 12:48 PM
    Changes in Muslim belief
    The soul of Islam sprang from solitary Christian hermits, scattered here and there throughout the desert, consecrating their lives to God, and fleeing from the wrath to come. Even in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry we see how strong was the impression made on the Arab mind by the gaunt, weird men with their endless watchings and night prayers. Again and again there is allusion to the lamp of the hermit shining through the darkness, and we have pictures of the caravan or of the solitary traveller on the night journey cheered and guided by its glimmer. These Christian hermits and the long deserted ruins telling of old, forgotten tribes--judged and overthrown by God, as the Arabs held and hold--that lie throughout the Syrian waste and along the caravan routes were the two things that most stirred the imagination of Muhammad and went to form his faith. To Muhammad, and to the Semite always, the whole of life was but a long procession from the great deep to the great deep again. Where are the kings and rulers of the earth? Where are the peoples that were mighty in their day? The hand of God smote them and they are not. There is naught real in the world but God. From Him we are, and unto Him we return. There is nothing for man but to fear and worship. The world is deceitful and makes sport of them that trust it.

    Such is the oversong of all Muslim thought, the faith to which the Semite ever returns in the end. To this the later Murji’ites opposed a doctrine of Faith, which was Pauline in its sweep. Faith, they declared, saved, and Faith alone. If the sinner believed in God and His Prophet he would not remain in the fire. The Kharijites, on the other hand, held that the sinner who died unrepentant would remain therein eternally, even though he had confessed Islam with his lips. The unrepentant sinner, they considered, could not be a believer in the true sense. This is still the Ibadite position, and from it developed one of the most important controversies of Islam as to the precise nature of faith. Some extreme Murji’ites held that faith (iman) was a confession in the heart, private intercourse with God, as opposed to Islam, public confession with the lips. Thus, one could be a believer (mu’min), and outwardly confess Judaism or Christianity; to be a professed Muslim was not necessary.

    This is like the doctrine of the Imamites, called taqiya, that it is allowable in time of stress to dissemble one's religious views; and it is worth noticing that Jahm ibn Safwan (killed circa 131), who was one of these extreme Murji’ites, was a Persian proselyte in rebellion against the Arab rule, and of the loosest religious conduct. But these Antinomians were no more Muslims than the Anabaptists of Munster had a claim to be Christians. The other wing of the Murji’ites is represented by Abu Hanifa, who held that faith (iman) is acknowledgment with the tongue as well as the heart and that works are a necessary supplement.

    This is little different from the orthodox position which grew up, that persuasion, confession, and works made up faith. When Murji’ism dropped out of existence as a sect it left as its contribution to Islam a distinction between great and little sins (kabiras, saghiras), and the position that even great sins, if not involving polytheism (shirk), would not exclude the believer forever from the Garden.

    The second sect, that of Qadarites, had its origin in a philosophical necessity of the human mind. A perception of the contradiction between man's consciousness of freedom and responsibility, on the one hand, and the absolute rule and predestination of God, on the other, is the usual beginning of the thinking life, both in individuals and in races. It was so in Islam. In theology as in law, Muhammad had been an opportunist pure and simple. On the one hand, his Allah is the absolute Semitic despot who guides aright and leads astray, who seals up the hearts of men and opens them again, who is mighty over all. On the other hand, men are exhorted to repentance, and punishment is threatened against them if they remain hardened in their unbelief.

    All these phases of a wandering and intensely subjective mind, which lived only in the perception of the moment, appear in the Qur’an. Muhammad was a poet rather than a theologian just as he was a prophet rather than a legislator. As soon, then, as the Muslims paused in their career of conquest and began to think at all, they thought of this. Naturally, so long as they were fighting in the Path of God, it was the conception of God's absolute sovereignty which most appealed to them; by it their fates were fixed, and they charged without fear the ranks of the unbelievers. In these earliest times, the fatalistic passages bore most stress and the others were explained away. This helped, at least, to bring it about that the party which in time came to profess the freedom of man's will, began and ended as an heretical sect. But it only helped, and we must never loge sight of the fact that the eventual victory in Islam of the absolute doctrine of God's eternal decree was the victory of the more fundamental of Muhammad's conflicting conceptions. The other had been much more a campaigning expedient.

    This sect of Qadarites, derived its name from their position that a man possessed qadar, or power, over his actions. One of the first of them was a certain Ma‘bad al-Juhani, who paid for his heresy with his life in A.H. 80. Historians tell that he with Ata ibn Yassar, another of similar opinions, came one day to the celebrated ascetic, al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110), and said, "O Abu Said, those kings shed the blood of the Muslims, and do grievous things and say that their works are by the decree of God." To this al-Hasan replied, "The enemies of God lie." The story is only important as showing how the times and their changes were widening men's thoughts.

    Very soon, now, we come from these drifting tendencies to a formal sect with a formal secession and a fixed name. The Murji’ites and the Qadarites melt from the scene, some of their tenets pass into orthodox Islam; some into the new sect.

    The story of its founding again connects with the outstanding figure of al-Hasan al-Basri. He seems to have been the chief centre of the religious life and movements of his time; his pupils appear and his influence shows itself in all the later schools. Someone came to him as he sat among his pupils and asked what his view was between the conflicting Murji’ites and Wa‘idites, the first holding that the committer of a great sin, if he had faith, was not an unbeliever, was to be accepted as a Muslim and his case left in the hands of God; the other laying more stress upon the threats (wa‘id) in the Book of God and teaching that the committer of a great sin could not be a believer, that he had, ipso facto, abandoned the true faith, must go into the Fire and abide there. Before the master could reply, one of his pupils--some say Amr ibn Ubayd (d. circ. 141), others, Wasil ibn Ata (d. 131)--broke in with the assertion of an intermediate position. Such an one was neither a believer nor an unbeliever. Then he left the circle which sat round the master, went to another part of the mosque and began to develop his view to those who gathered round him. The name believer (mu’min), he taught, was a term of praise, and an evil-doer was not worthy of praise and could not have that name applied to him.

    But he was not an unbeliever, either, for he assented to the faith. If he, then, died unrepentant, he must abide forever in the Fire--for there are only two divisions in the next world, heaven and hell--but his torments would be mitigated on account of his faith. The position to which orthodox Islam eventually came was that a believer could commit a great sin. If he did so, and died unrepentant, he went to hell; but after a time would be permitted to enter heaven. Thus, hell became for believers a sort of purgatory.

    On this secession, al-Hasan only said "I‘tazala anna"--He has seceded from us. So the new party was called the Mu‘tazila, the Secession. That, at least, is the story, which may be taken for what it is worth. The fixed facts are the rise at the beginning of the second century after the Hijra of a tolerably definite school of dissenters from the traditional ideas, and their application of reason to the dogmas of the Qur’an.



    MORGANITE
    eawoodall's Avatar
    eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5
    Full Member
     
    #2

    Oct 2, 2005, 03:42 PM
    What religon are you calling this? New name old face.
    Muhammad disagrees with you.

    Perhaps if you read some of the koran.

    The bible disagrees with you, perhaps you could read some there also.

    Comparison shopping for religion is best not done at the blue light special.

    Are perhaps you could consider using better sources, Since your sources mix and match different types of views or religion without explaining the reasons for those differences. Many systems have inherent differences based upon fundamental belief of it's system.

    But many do not seek truth, just bewilderment. So maybe many will flock to whatever religion you are trying to form, thinking it is something new, when really it is very old, and so are the arguments. But they were rejected long long ago, and far far away. Sad that any consider it a possibility.

    Learn it is a mistake not to.
    Morganite's Avatar
    Morganite Posts: 863, Reputation: 86
    Senior Member
     
    #3

    Oct 2, 2005, 04:42 PM
    Developments in Islam
    Quote Originally Posted by eawoodall
    Muhammad disagrees with you.

    perhaps if you read some of the koran.

    the bible disagrees with you, perhaps you could read some there also.

    Comparision shopping for religion is best not done at the blue light special.

    Are perhaps you could consider using better sources, Since your sources mix and match different types of views or religion without explaining the reasons for those differences. many systems have inherent differences based upon fundamental belief of it's system.

    But many do not seek truth, just bewilderment. So maybe many will flock to whatever religion you are trying to form, thinking it is something new, when really it is very old, and so are the arguments. But they were rejected long long ago, and far far away. Sad that any consider it a possibility.

    Learn it is a mistake not to.

    You cannot change history because you do not believe in it. After it has happened it will not go away, however much you desire it.



    MORGANITE
    eawoodall's Avatar
    eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5
    Full Member
     
    #4

    Oct 3, 2005, 05:13 AM
    Deconstructionism and true history
    You cannot change history by misquoting it.

    Perhaps you should study history (his story - the story of God).
    You see deconstructionism teaches that the meaning of words is in what they mean, what they came from, what they purpose for the word was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morganite
    You cannot change history because you do not believe in it. After it has happened it will not go away, however much you desire it.



    MORGANITE
    Morganite's Avatar
    Morganite Posts: 863, Reputation: 86
    Senior Member
     
    #5

    Oct 3, 2005, 08:09 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by eawoodall
    you cannot change history by misquoting it.

    Perhaps you should study history (his story - the story of God).
    you see deconstructionism teaches that the meaning of words is in what they mean, what they came from, what they purpose for the word was.
    You cannot establish anything by clichés and platitudes.

    The definition of Deconstruction you supply is more akin to etymology.

    Deconstruction is a term coined by French philosophy Jacques Derrida in the 1960s, and used in its stricter sense to dsignate a critical system holding that speech and writing are too imprecise to represent reality, because words only refer to other words. Used in its looser sense, the term means to take apart a narrative, a hypothesis, a theme, to show that it is not disinterested or objective, but motivated by the ideology characteristic of the author.

    This controversial mode of textual analysis is based on the presumption that it can reveal hidden ideological assumptions. It also questions hierarchical thinking in which one term is privileged over another (eg culture versus nature, man versus woman), and mainly draws on Derrida's thought, who elaborated on linguist Ferdinand de Saussure's vision of language as a system of differences.

    Final answer!


    MORGANITE
    eawoodall's Avatar
    eawoodall Posts: 230, Reputation: 5
    Full Member
     
    #6

    Oct 3, 2005, 01:48 PM
    Yes more, I hope enough
    No I already gave you the final answer and you refuse to accept it.

    That you consider not the meaning of what the definition used in modern philosophy classes of deconstructionism shows that you do not share the common view of history that modern common thought espouses, certainly you may have any opinion you want, if in the united states of america, but if you live in other places in the world you are not allowed such a right. If you live in forced religion countries your view could be considered heritical, and perhaps would be subject to extreme penalties because of their, not my, unwillingness to consider rational thought as a viable way to understand matters. I merely know what I know, and you certainly believe what you believe, and neither of us in any way can change what is truly reality. For reality knows and believes what is truly real, and we with our limited understanding try to argue for a particular limited view of how reality might be. Both of us could be correct, and both of us could be wrong, only reality knows for sure. We may or may not hear today from reality about what is correct, but let us know that we have both strived to be available to understand the vastness, and infinity that is reality. Perhaps it is beyond us, but we have discussed what we both view and passed on that knowledge however limited it might be to others. Trying to teach others what we ourselves have experience is reasonable, because we are witnesses of our viewpoint, and that we experience it. Maybe the peace of understanding can guide if not then it is my hope that someone is correct somewhere, and perhaps we will learn it someday. eawoodall
    fredg's Avatar
    fredg Posts: 4,928, Reputation: 674
    Ultra Member
     
    #7

    Oct 4, 2005, 07:25 AM
    History
    Hi,
    If you wish a good history of religion, try reading the New Testament, of the King James version of the Bible.
    Best wishes,
    fredg
    Morganite's Avatar
    Morganite Posts: 863, Reputation: 86
    Senior Member
     
    #8

    Oct 4, 2005, 03:48 PM
    Eawoodall
    Quote Originally Posted by eawoodall
    no i already gave you the final answer and you refuse to accept it.

    that you consider not the meaning of what the definition used in modern philosophy classes of deconstructionism shows that you do not share the common view of history that modern common thought espouses, certainly you may have any opinion you want, if in the united states of america, but if you live in other places in the world you are not allowed such a right. if you live in forced religion countries your view could be considered heritical, and perhaps would be subject to extreme penalties because of their, not my, unwillingness to consider rational thought as a viable way to understand matters. I merely know what i know, and you certainly believe what you believe, and neither of us in any way can change what is truly reality. for reality knows and believes what is truly real, and we with our limited understanding try to argue for a particular limited view of how reality might be. both of us could be correct, and both of us could be wrong, only reality knows for sure. we may or may not hear today from reality about what is correct, but let us know that we have both strived to be available to understand the vastness, and infinity that is reality. perhaps it is beyond us, but we have discussed what we both view and passed on that knowledge however limited it might be to others. trying to teach others what we ourselves have experience is reasonable, because we are witnesses of our viewpoint, and that we experience it. maybe the peace of understanding can guide if not then it is my hope that someone is correct somewhere, and perhaps we will learn it someday. eawoodall


    I am a citizen of a land that guarantees in law my right to differ with the government and anyone wlse I wish, and to say so in any forum in the land. That country is not the USA.




    MORGANITE

    :)
    KAOSKTRL's Avatar
    KAOSKTRL Posts: 119, Reputation: 0
    Junior Member
     
    #9

    Nov 16, 2005, 09:13 PM
    You can have your're own opinions but not your're own facts, your "story" swirls delightfully down the toilet.
    Islam history preislamic hanifism sabians the whole thing happened pretty much in full light of History,
    Having dedicated my existence full time to islams earlist times to descern if it has been hijacked and twisted or are the killers good muslims , I don't recognize the scriptural islam in your version of "history"
    wwrwtw's Avatar
    wwrwtw Posts: 4, Reputation: 2
    New Member
     
    #10

    Nov 17, 2005, 01:47 PM
    Agreed KAOSKTRL... I would like to see some scriptural proof of his version of history as well
    dragonfly11's Avatar
    dragonfly11 Posts: 12, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #11

    Nov 20, 2005, 09:40 AM
    People think they know history
    People think they know history but they have forgotten that the dark ages, wars and clashes of civilization have destroyed entire pieces of history through the destruction of societies, burning of books and killing entire groups. History is full of holes, besides God is not History to be studied. God is now. Look inside, books full of politics and clashes of the minds are nowhere to find God, God can be found in your own heart as he resides within you. Why look outside for the disagreements of mans opinions and the final cut written in books. If a book can open your eyes to love and care for others great, if it causes you to disagree, and your own ego puts you on the side of right and the other on the side of wrong all you are doing is forgetting to love each other and grasping onto the battle of politics. A quiet mind helps you find God, not the gnashing of teeth.
    Morganite's Avatar
    Morganite Posts: 863, Reputation: 86
    Senior Member
     
    #12

    Nov 20, 2005, 10:07 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by dragonfly11
    People think they know history but they have forgotten that the dark ages, wars and clashes of civilization have destroyed entire pieces of history throught the destruction of societies, burning of books and killing entire groups. History is full of holes, besides God is not History to be studied. God is now. Look inside, books full of politics and clashes of the minds are nowhere to find God, God can be found in your own heart as he resides within you. Why look outside for the disagreements of mans opinions and the final cut written in books. If a book can open your eyes to love and care for others great, if it causes you to disagree, and your own ego puts you on the side of right and the other on the side of wrong all you are doing is forgetting to love eachother and grasping onto the battle of politics. A quiet mind helps you find God, not the gnashing of teeth.

    How do you know what people have forgotten? Have you ever given amoment's thought to the possibility that you could be wrong? Why is everyone else wrong and you always right?

    Your sweeping generalities are laughable.





    MORGANITE



    :eek:
    firmbeliever's Avatar
    firmbeliever Posts: 2,919, Reputation: 463
    Ultra Member
     
    #13

    Aug 6, 2007, 04:07 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Morganite
    The soul of Islam sprang from solitary Christian hermits, scattered here and there throughout the desert, consecrating their lives to God, and fleeing from the wrath to come. Even in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry we see how strong was the impression made on the Arab mind by the gaunt, weird men with their endless watchings and night prayers. Again and again there is allusion to the lamp of the hermit shining through the darkness, and we have pictures of the caravan or of the solitary traveller on the night journey cheered and guided by its glimmer. These Christian hermits and the long deserted ruins telling of old, forgotten tribes--judged and overthrown by God, as the Arabs held and hold--that lie throughout the Syrian waste and along the caravan routes were the two things that most stirred the imagination of Muhammad and went to form his faith. To Muhammad, and to the Semite always, the whole of life was but a long procession from the great deep to the great deep again. Where are the kings and rulers of the earth? Where are the peoples that were mighty in their day? The hand of God smote them and they are not. There is naught real in the world but God. From Him we are, and unto Him we return. There is nothing for man but to fear and worship. The world is deceitful and makes sport of them that trust it.

    Such is the oversong of all Muslim thought, the faith to which the Semite ever returns in the end. To this the later Murji'ites opposed a doctrine of Faith, which was Pauline in its sweep. Faith, they declared, saved, and Faith alone. If the sinner believed in God and His Prophet he would not remain in the fire. The Kharijites, on the other hand, held that the sinner who died unrepentant would remain therein eternally, even though he had confessed Islam with his lips. The unrepentant sinner, they considered, could not be a believer in the true sense. This is still the Ibadite position, and from it developed one of the most important controversies of Islam as to the precise nature of faith. Some extreme Murji'ites held that faith (iman) was a confession in the heart, private intercourse with God, as opposed to Islam, public confession with the lips. Thus, one could be a believer (mu'min), and outwardly confess Judaism or Christianity; to be a professed Muslim was not necessary.

    This is like the doctrine of the Imamites, called taqiya, that it is allowable in time of stress to dissemble one's religious views; and it is worth noticing that Jahm ibn Safwan (killed circa 131), who was one of these extreme Murji'ites, was a Persian proselyte in rebellion against the Arab rule, and of the loosest religious conduct. But these Antinomians were no more Muslims than the Anabaptists of Munster had a claim to be Christians. The other wing of the Murji'ites is represented by Abu Hanifa, who held that faith (iman) is acknowledgment with the tongue as well as the heart and that works are a necessary supplement.

    This is little different from the orthodox position which grew up, that persuasion, confession, and works made up faith. When Murji'ism dropped out of existence as a sect it left as its contribution to Islam a distinction between great and little sins (kabiras, saghiras), and the position that even great sins, if not involving polytheism (shirk), would not exclude the believer forever from the Garden.

    The second sect, that of Qadarites, had its origin in a philosophical necessity of the human mind. A perception of the contradiction between man's consciousness of freedom and responsibility, on the one hand, and the absolute rule and predestination of God, on the other, is the usual beginning of the thinking life, both in individuals and in races. It was so in Islam. In theology as in law, Muhammad had been an opportunist pure and simple. On the one hand, his Allah is the absolute Semitic despot who guides aright and leads astray, who seals up the hearts of men and opens them again, who is mighty over all. On the other hand, men are exhorted to repentance, and punishment is threatened against them if they remain hardened in their unbelief.

    All these phases of a wandering and intensely subjective mind, which lived only in the perception of the moment, appear in the Qur'an. Muhammad was a poet rather than a theologian just as he was a prophet rather than a legislator. As soon, then, as the Muslims paused in their career of conquest and began to think at all, they thought of this. Naturally, so long as they were fighting in the Path of God, it was the conception of God's absolute sovereignty which most appealed to them; by it their fates were fixed, and they charged without fear the ranks of the unbelievers. In these earliest times, the fatalistic passages bore most stress and the others were explained away. This helped, at least, to bring it about that the party which in time came to profess the freedom of man's will, began and ended as an heretical sect. But it only helped, and we must never loge sight of the fact that the eventual victory in Islam of the absolute doctrine of God's eternal decree was the victory of the more fundamental of Muhammad's conflicting conceptions. The other had been much more a campaigning expedient.

    This sect of Qadarites, derived its name from their position that a man possessed qadar, or power, over his actions. One of the first of them was a certain Ma'bad al-Juhani, who paid for his heresy with his life in A.H. 80. Historians tell that he with Ata ibn Yassar, another of similar opinions, came one day to the celebrated ascetic, al-Hasan al-Basri (d. 110), and said, "O Abu Said, those kings shed the blood of the Muslims, and do grievous things and say that their works are by the decree of God." To this al-Hasan replied, "The enemies of God lie." The story is only important as showing how the times and their changes were widening men's thoughts.

    Very soon, now, we come from these drifting tendencies to a formal sect with a formal secession and a fixed name. The Murji'ites and the Qadarites melt from the scene, some of their tenets pass into orthodox Islam; some into the new sect.

    The story of its founding again connects with the outstanding figure of al-Hasan al-Basri. He seems to have been the chief centre of the religious life and movements of his time; his pupils appear and his influence shows itself in all the later schools. Someone came to him as he sat among his pupils and asked what his view was between the conflicting Murji'ites and Wa'idites, the first holding that the committer of a great sin, if he had faith, was not an unbeliever, was to be accepted as a Muslim and his case left in the hands of God; the other laying more stress upon the threats (wa'id) in the Book of God and teaching that the committer of a great sin could not be a believer, that he had, ipso facto, abandoned the true faith, must go into the Fire and abide there. Before the master could reply, one of his pupils--some say Amr ibn Ubayd (d. circ. 141), others, Wasil ibn Ata (d. 131)--broke in with the assertion of an intermediate position. Such an one was neither a believer nor an unbeliever. Then he left the circle which sat round the master, went to another part of the mosque and began to develop his view to those who gathered round him. The name believer (mu'min), he taught, was a term of praise, and an evil-doer was not worthy of praise and could not have that name applied to him.

    But he was not an unbeliever, either, for he assented to the faith. If he, then, died unrepentant, he must abide forever in the Fire--for there are only two divisions in the next world, heaven and hell--but his torments would be mitigated on account of his faith. The position to which orthodox Islam eventually came was that a believer could commit a great sin. If he did so, and died unrepentant, he went to hell; but after a time would be permitted to enter heaven. Thus, hell became for believers a sort of purgatory.

    On this secession, al-Hasan only said "I'tazala anna"--He has seceded from us. So the new party was called the Mu'tazila, the Secession. That, at least, is the story, which may be taken for what it is worth. The fixed facts are the rise at the beginning of the second century after the Hijra of a tolerably definite school of dissenters from the traditional ideas, and their application of reason to the dogmas of the Qur'an.



    MORGANITE

    USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts

    I do not agree with the fact Islam was founded by Muhammad (peace be upon him), he is just a slave of Allah like any human being and he is the final messenger in a long list of messengers.

    I do agree with the fact that there have been deviances from the original teachings of Islam and kharijites etc are some of them,
    But as I could not really follow the long winded question, I couldn't understand your question morganite.
    Hope the above link with historical references are helpful to put your question in a more chronological fashion so that it is easier to follow.
    pakiangel786's Avatar
    pakiangel786 Posts: 5, Reputation: 0
    New Member
     
    #14

    Feb 21, 2012, 11:46 AM
    Is that even a question you proberbaly copied it from wikipedia!! Lol
    No offence
    s.o.s?? ;)

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Muslim girl... [ 8 Answers ]

Dear Expert, I am 22 years old girl.I have a lot of problems in my life,that simply made me a very depressed person who doesn't believe in anything even in myself.The reason beyond this depression is my parents.I won't say they are the worse,but all I can say that I was never happy in my life,and...

Belief-O-Matic [ 5 Answers ]

I had originally posted this under another thread, but NeedKarma suggested it could be its own thread, so here it is! I found a fun quiz online called Belief-O-Matic. You answer 20 questions and depending on your answers, your results tell you which religious beliefs you are most in agreement with....


View more questions Search