SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:27 am
Let’s say me view is very narrow and it revolves around Abrahamic religions and non-Abrahamic religions. I use these terms interchangeably with RHP and LHP. This is very narrow yes - but this is as far as I am in this journey.
Okay, but it would make misunderstanding with others who identify with those paths here. Example of definition is here:
viewtopic.php?p=750502
viewtopic.php?f=245&t=43868
viewtopic.php?p=447901#p447901
And you do understand if you call Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc "LHP" because they're non-Abrahamic, it can go bad, yes? They're not all vamacara and tantra : p
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:27 am
“Traditional” religions having an immortal at the top saying “do x because I said so you pathetic mortals, or else” are considered Right Hand Path religions. The most obvious examples are Judaism, Christianity/Catholicism and Islam, which are really all the same thing, seeing as they are built around the same immortal with minor semantic differences.
Might want to put the link to it to the source:
viewtopic.php?t=36351
in case the forum rule #23 applies.
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
If you expect me to send an English link stating that then I’m sorry such thing doesn’t exist.
Then you can't expect non-muslims and non-Arabic muslims to consider that as general Islamic knowledge.
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
I’m not taking away from non-Arab Muslims but upon conversing with them, their view on Islam is different or let’s say very minimal?? It’s like they take the philosophical aspect and leave the blood-filled, hardcore stuff behind. It’s like how they like to run with Mohammed’s hadeeth about all humans being equal or how Bilal is in heaven but are completely clueless regarding slavery being an integrated part of Islam and that the slave have the word mawla/freed slave next to their name in all historic books so that we’d know they are not of Arab decent and/or were slaves.
That is an excellent observation. I can also add that not only minimal, but also shallow, even ignorant.
Yet, it can be argued that taking only the philosophical aspects make the non-Arabic knowledge purer, more focus on the essence than the culture. Then it can be asked: based on pure Islamic teaching, who'd make a better representative of Islam, an Arabic or non-Arabic muslim?
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
Arabic is a very complicated language and if you don’t speak it from birth then you will not be 100% fluent in it.
No need to remind me : P It is as hard as learning Japanese.
I tried learning it until a Moroccan told me that I don't have to, because classical Arabic can't be used for modern interaction. A Yemeni even said it's better for non-Arabic muslims not to know the language.
I received the same advice about Buddhism and Daoism as well, although the reasons are different.
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
Because when you’re an Arab Muslim, you have been raised in a certain way that bestows certain fundamental beliefs and knowledge other non-Arab Muslims don’t have. One of these things is how we learn about Islam and it’s fundamentals. We study it from KG till high school, and even in universities and collages it’s still a integrated in the curriculum.
That is not limited to muslims in Arabic countries only. Malay and Indonesian schools also have obligatory religious subjects based on the student's religion from elementary to high schools, and many state universities also make it obligatory for first year undergraduate course.
If you want to argue about the depth of the religious study in those non-Arabic countries, then we can go with your own argument: "But I have to say though that I’ve been taught as a Sunni, not any other sector, so yes what I’ve been taught is not solid truths but opinions and statements made by Sunni seculars."
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
Okay so, Allah has created man and djinn to worship him. And Shirk/idolatry is the biggest sin. Arabs were in fact Jewish and Christians until paganism started resurfacing again (some attributes it to this person:
https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9% ... 8%AD%D9%8A
You’ll have to use google translate).
Interestingly, the French and Indonesian wiki pages have additional info about Amr ibn Luhay:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Amr_ibn_Luhay
https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Amr_bin_Luhay
And yes, google translate is our friend in this : p
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
Source? It’s in the ancient books called Umahat el Kutub/mother of books or ancient books.
This book and other ancient books about them should be translated to English.
Plus that Shams al-Maarif, the big one.
The only one I could find in English about Arabic paganism was Book of Idols / Kitab al Asnam.
It might be a good additional source of income if you translate and sell them : )
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
Anyways,Islamic books described how societies were out of order and how darkness loomed. It’s a common knowledge among Muslims that pre-Islam Arabs were animals with no moral codes and women were treated like trash. But it was far from that. Khadijah, Mohammed’s first wife was a rich woman who decided she wanted to marry mohammed and no one stood in her way despite him being a very young orphan. Hind bint Utbah ruled her tribe and was a very powerful women. So where does this “women were treated less than dirt” rhetoric? From the Islamic propaganda.
I asked the same question long ago, and got no definitive answer except that those women were special cases. So I tend to agree with your argument here. Although, Muhammad did have some sort of respected status even though he's an orphan, as his grandfather and uncle were clan leaders. And he was a great salesman according to the established tradition.
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
. Abu Jahal did nasty things to Mohammed and Muslims but he was never mentioned in Quran. Who was actually mentions? Abu Lahab. You know once your name is in a sacred religious scripture then you must have messed up really good lol
Gotta admit, they had cool nicknames. "Father of Ignorance" and "Father of Flame", kind of like the names for deities or dark lords : P
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
There are chapters of them in many old books, how they looked like, how Arabs worshipped them above all, their powers etc
And there's no mention of other deities, e.g. Hubal, Wadd, etc in those books?
Because this:
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
Among all the deities Arab and Quriash had, who does Quran deciders to mention? Al Lat, Manat and al-Uzzah.
disregards the reason why they are mentioned, which can be seen in the two verses after they were mentioned.
And this:
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
They were so dwelling in the female worship religion. And Allah didn’t like that, actually he took offense in claiming he could birth and/or have female daughters.
sounds more like speculation and assumption. Only daughters? Not sons?
SurajSyrah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:42 am
Mohammed was sent to end paganism and who was the most prominent and most worshipped deities? The three female goddesses.
Not Hubal? As mentioned here:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bound ... ic-arabia/
"Mecca’s most important pagan deity was Hubal, whose idol had been placed there by the ruling Quraysh tribe and remained until the 7th century." and "The chief god in pre-Islamic Arabia was Hubal, the Syrian god of the moon."