war of the camel

[Nur]

JB

 

I knew by shaking the tree, the fruits will fall, Bravo JB, I think I got the best of you so far, your response spawned a myriad of questions, but before embarking on the trivial ones, let me focus on your declared valuable motivation to be :

 

A pure and plain dedication to the TRUTH and unwaving cincerity are prerequisites for real knowledge,

 

Remember that your readers will be holding you to that statement.

 

Now for starters, to allay my fears of your TRUE motivation, give me reasons to believe that the above statement is true, such as the knowldege about Islam that you have so far gathered from this site that you learned from different posters ( forget my Rubbish), your posts do not reflect a person who is in search of knowledge, in contrast, it reflects a person who purposefully sheds doubts on everything Islamic, talk about negativity pal, for once, it helps to hear you say something positive about Islam or even the faint possibility of Allah's exisitence, try the crowd, they will begin taking you for serious, this site is dedicated for such people who are looking for truth, but, I am sure even skeptics seeking TRUTH dont spoil gatherings of faithful by inflaming ultra sacrilige issues pushing it on their hosts throats day in and day out, try that with Rumsfeld and see your freedoms and girl friend disappear in thin air.

 

A seeker of truth is tactful of his statements, objective with every question, building a knowledge base to get her/him closer to a truth they seek, he has more questions than answers. In your case and as many would agree with me, you come across like a person who has a knowledge that we dont, trying to pesruade with zeal to agnosticm. That would be fine, if this page was renamed AGNOSTIC CORNER, in which you would be a candidate moderator, but SOL does not have such a policy as their mainstream audience are Somali Muslims seeking Islamic knowledge online, the last thing they want to hear is a disguised preaching of agnosticism.

 

Somaliaonline Islam page was meant to help those seeking knowledge about islam, not those desseminating doubt as their core value, as a daily ration, disagreeing with every aspect of Islam indescriminantly.

 

I more than welcome the divesrsity that this site allows, your presence can be very valuable if you stick to the above statement of seeking truth, everyone else is, and all of us here would be at your disposal to help you find knowledge that you are seeking with pleasure.

 

 

Nur

[Johnny B]

Xiin, Atheer , let me sqeeze a lil bit more , a drop or two might just be left.

 

Isen´t it amazing to see Sheikh Nur asking for a reason instead of a sign to beleive in something?,

Hade Cara and co somehow succeeded in banging in the some rationality in the good Sheikhs´s head? you tell me.

 

Sheikh Nur, let us not turn this thread into a "JB the persona "thread, as i wont be able to teach you the core concepts of Natural Skepticism/Agnoticism/Atheism.

Unlike in religious belifs, where one claims to have an urge to save lifes(souls),and preachs what one perceives as the Absolute truth, but end up pounding that very truth in the minds and hearts of "the to be saved people" enforcing it by intellectual dishonesty and by violence, as in the case of this War of the Camel.

 

Sheikh Nur, Skepticism is the innocent five years old child´s question " Dad, where does God live?", and if you be cincere enough to both to SOL and to yourself, you sure will have loads of repressed innocent childhood questions to ponder on.

Sheikh Nur,A Skeptic doesen´t have the need to make a ' Dawa', A Skeptic naturally questions claims that he or she finds unsubstantiated, And SOL is not intrested in neither my intentions nor my motives, unless you´re a Judge of sort who feels so desperate and conspired against.

 

Islam is the religion of my Mother and as far as i know nobody has a monopoly on that faith, so relax and put off the "Mujahid" mask, i´ve seen it defended in more sophisticated manner than you seem to facilitate. My cousin who doesn´t speak Arabic seems to reason slightly better.

 

Back to War of the Camel, who won it? and what do you think of cause of those who died in that war?

[Socod_badne]

You clearly admit to not knowing(you say remembering) what you're talking about.

 

 

The only thing I admitted to not remembering was where I read Ali accused Aisha of adultery. What was it you said about disregarding the truth?

 

 

Yet you analyse it like you studied Islamic history in college.

 

 

Neither did I study Greek history but I can discuss about Troy's demise. How is the Battle of Jamal any different from Mithridatic Wars and all other historical battles/wars? Unless of course you're saying Islamic history should be approached the same way Islamic religious texts are, ie the Quran, Hadiths etc. Are you? If not, then your quibble is blithely dismissed.

 

 

you have no sources to quote from, and you expect us to take you seriously ??

 

 

I have no need to present sources since you pretty much agreed with me on most points. You agreed or didn't present any evidence at varience with the following:

 

1. Battle of Jamal was fought by forces commanded by ALi against opponents commanded by Aisha.

2. The Battle of Jamal was named after the imposing camel Aisha was mounted on, from where she commanded the battle AGAINST Imam Ali!

3. Aisha harboured ill feelings for Ali from adultery accusation affair. YOu agreed that Ali didn't back her by advising the prophet (scw) to divorce her. Where as I went further by saying Imam Ali accused her of adultery. Granted, I can't present at the moment sources backing me but honestly does it substantively detract from the point I'm making: that Aisha wasn't at best of terms with Ali?

 

These 3 points comprise the gist of my arguement and you haven't so much as substantively scratched them at your repeated attempts at rebuttal. Since you're pretending you're leading me to some inescapable alley where you'll reveal your master plan whereby exposing me as empty shirt, I thought I throw you a bone in the hope you ditch this lack of sources facade. Read History of Al-Tabari, especially sections pertaining to Aisha's attitude toward Uthman and Ali.

 

Now, I got no bone to pick about who lit the match in the powder keg separating Aisha's and Ali's poised armies. In my humble opinion, Aisha shouldn't have been leading an army against the chosen leader of the Ummah. It was bold and inexcusable act of rebellion, disobedience. PERIOD.

 

 

By the way, tell SOLers Aisha's post-bellum manners. I'm sure it will be of indispensible help to them in deciding wether Aisha's intentions were as purely innocent as you'd like us believe.

 

 

I understand it's your desire to present Aisha in the best light possible. But I prefer my history raw, dry and unvarnished. I want the truth not what a particular partisan narration promotes. And I approach Islamic history no different from other worldy history: I apply the rules of parsimony. After considering all the sources (some of which are telling the truth, some not or all of them sometimes wrong), I use my best judgement and take as fact the most probable, least complicated scenario.

 

 

Finally, the Riddah wars were purely religious.

I know that is what you say, unfortunately for you you don't persuade me one inch.

 

 

Originally posted by Kashafa:

b)You habitually disregard the truth, facts, or any semblance-of whenever it's convenient for you.

 

 

Right back at ya!