Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - zulfiqarchucknorris

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 ... 23
Bengalis ARE an ethnic group. Bengladeshi is a citizenship. Its like how "Saudi" is a citizenship and "Arab" in the ethnic group.
To clear up some presumptions, i need to clarify a few things:
Bengal: a historical, geographical and ethno-linguistic region in South Asia, politically divided between India and  Bangladesh
Bengalis: the principal ethnic group native to the region of Bengal, which is politically divided between Bangladesh and India.
Bangladesh: A country that makes up PART of Bengal.
Bengaladeshi: A citizen of Bengladesh
There are Muslim Bengalis (which are the majority in Bengaladish) and Hindu Bengalis (which are the majority in India). They are called Bengalis because they come from the region of Bengal (this is divided between modern india and Bangladesh), Begalis can be pagan like the majority of Benglis in India or
You say that Bengalis are pagan, not necessarily, Hindu Bengalis, which are the majority in the Indian part of Bengal, are Pagan, (Thus your picture shows Hindu Gods, this is why it says bengal and not bengladesh), these people never claim to be Muslims, they are Bengali Hindus. Muslim Bengalis make up the mjority
It is true that many people have settled in Bengal over the centuries, but that doesn't mean its not Bengali, those people integrated into Bengal Society Adopted the local Culture, and Mixed with the native population, the latter reason makes the decendants Bengals. I have a friend whos grandfather is Uzbek, however, he migrated to mecca, married an Arab Girl, and there daughter married an Arab boy, does this make him NOT ARAB? No it doesnt, he is an arab, with some Uzbek decent, but arab nonetheless. You can belong to any race/ethic group (Bengalis, Arabs, etc.) and be a muslim.


Peace Brother
I disagree with you on the Bengali Part, just because certain aspects in the culture used to be practiced in Pagan times and are still practiced after islam does not mean that it is pagan worship, its just part of there culture. Are they Worshiping Another God? Or are the pictures you showed us are just a form of art? If the former is true, then this is against Islam, if the latter, then they are Muslims.
Begalis are an ethnic group, they belong to the Bengal Region, this area is split between Modern India and Bengaladish, they have there own language, Bengali. There are some people who say that Bengalis are basiclly just Indians. Bengalis are Indian as French are European.


Yes, there are words of non-arab origin in the Quran, languages influenced each other, just as in Spanish has the Arabic word Ojala, but that does not make spanish arabic, it the words were integrated in Spanish and are now spanish.
30% of English words are French, 40% German, the rest is Greek and Latin, but English is not any of those Languages.

« on: January 12, 2014, 03:48:22 PM »
I would just want your opinions on a possible solution for the Arab-Israeli Conflict. I have my own opinions but i was wondering what your were.

Thank you brother
We should note that the prophet himself is a man, a divinely inspired man, but a man nonetheless. He never claimed divinity.
Some people actually say that everything the prophet did is permissible and everything he did not do is forbidden (even if he did not explicitly or implicitly, forbid it.

Kaab did not just insult the prophet, that is not a valid reason to kill someone. Kaab, however, Kaab was punishemed for treason for he was working with the meccans who wanted to kill the prophet. In addition, he actively encouraaged the meccans to kill the prophet. Please read the link the previous guy posted, and also this
As for the lying, in warfare it is permissible to lie, as old sun tzu said "the way of war is a way of deception", most wars are won by deception, it is part of war, look up any war and you will see deception being used.

« on: December 20, 2013, 07:54:57 AM »
Well, Pakistan has MANY ethnic groups, like india and Iran.
Persians, Kurds, Khuzestani Arabs (My Grandma is from there), Balochi, Lors are all iranian people
Indo-Aryan people (which make up most of Pakistan the north half of india) include Punjabis, Sindhis, Kashmiris, etc.
You are probably a mix from these people, most are white.
and btw, i agree with you that most Arabs are racy (Please look at the definition of racy on google)
However, I disagree that most gulf Arabs are racist.

If that happens then they will be considered the flaw in the chain, and then the hadith is rejected.

« on: December 13, 2013, 01:38:28 PM »
Its a common misconception that only the Arabian peninsula (and west Mesopotamia) are racially Arabs, and the rest of the countries are Arabs only by language due to Islamic expansion. The reason the countries that are Arabs is because Multiple Arab tribes have migrated to those areas, due to the violent nature of life in the Arabian Desert, intermingled with the local population. For Example, the Maghreb (Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco) were inhabited by Berber Tribes (non Arabs), and they remained that way even after the islamic conquests, however, at the ninth century, the Arabian Tribes of Hilal, Sulaym, Hassan, and many others, migrated to those areas, and intermingled with the local berber tribes. Because of this, most of the population of the Maghreb is considered Arab-Berber, because they can trace there origins back to those tribes. Arab tribes also left the Arabian peninsula before Islam, Banu Ghassan, left there ancestor home in Yemen and migrated into the Levant (Palestine/Israel, Syria, Lebanon), even before this, the nabateans (who spoke a language derived from Aramaic, which then shifted into Arabic), levant, and so was Palmyrene Empire, led by the famous Arab Queen Zenobia. Because of the influx of Arabian tribes these regions became Arab Land, remember the ones i mentioned above are not all of them, they are just the most prominent, also remember that this occurred BEFORE Islam. Sinai was also inhabited by Arabs before Islam (they were called the Arubu Tribes). Iraq did also, like Banu Lakhm, and the majority of Mesopotamia was settled with Arabs centuries before Islam, remember at least in Asia, most of what is today the arab world is actually Arab ethnically because of Arab settlement and not merely language, you cant just learn Arabic and call yourself and Arab, that would make many Islamic Scholars Arab, which they are not.
Some Arab look different from each other because they are not pure Arab, for example, my friedns great grandfather lived in the area known as Uzbekistan, he then migrated to mecca, married an Arab Women, and his sister married an Arab Man. There children are Arabs but they themselves are not Arab. And because they are not pure Arabs they look like Turkic people are still considered Arabs.
If your Northern Iraqi, then you could be Kurdish, Turkman, Assyrian, or even Arab. Or Even Mixed.
I am arab that traces his origin to Bani Tamim, my grandmother though was from Iran. She is an Iranian Arab (Iran is NOT an Arab Country, its made up of Lors, Kurds, Azeris, Tajiks, Persians, the majority, but there are Arabs who settled in the Khuzestan region, especially from Bani Kaab, my grandmothers tribe)
Here is a list of the Arabian Tribes:

Here are the Arab tribes in Iraq:

Hope I helped

« on: October 01, 2013, 08:00:49 AM »
The word Daraba could mean to beat, but it could also mean to leave. The scholars that use this view use Hadiths such as this one in ibn Dawud "Do not beat them", to support there claim. this is one view.
Even the scholars who do say that beat is OK have extreme limitation about it such as it cannot be harmful, the face cannot be hit, you must not leave a mark, do not break the bones or anything else, it cannot be on the face, etc.
Most Scholars have one view or the other. Either that beating is forbidden or that it has extreme limitations about it.
Not taking a side
just stating the facts

GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Assalamu alaikum everyone :)
« on: August 28, 2013, 07:47:11 AM »
Good luck and welcome

GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: muhammad and the jews
« on: August 13, 2013, 07:26:59 PM »
i would also like to add that when the qurayza chose saad bin muadh to decide there punishment, saad said they should be punished according to the torah, specifically
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
thats why the punishment was carried out

GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: muhammad and the jews
« on: August 05, 2013, 01:00:57 PM »
Dude, first the ghassasinids (some sources include the sulaym tribe) killed the prophets messanger to them to preach islam, so the prophet sent an army, the byzantines came to the ghassasinid aid since the tribes were there protectorates. This battle resulted in the battle of mutah, the first conflict between byzantium and the muslims.
So why are you telling us false statements. Get your facts straight.
As for the banu qaynuqa and the women invovled, after the large explanation i gave plus the links, you still stick to this claim, get your facts straight. If the prophet wanted to remove all jews, he would have done it immediately, instead, he only expelled the tribes that betrayed him, plooted to kill him, or were helping there enemies, and this is only when the entire tribe betrayed him, not just one or 2 people. In fact, when Kaab bin al ashraf, a member of nadir, ws supporting the meccans to kill the prophet, the prophet only punished him, later, when the entire tribe betrayed him, he expelled them.

GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: muhammad and the jews
« on: August 04, 2013, 01:09:49 PM »
Actually here is the story:
there were 3 Arabian Jewish tribes in medina (actually more, but these were the 3 main ones), Qaynuqa, Nadir, and Qurayza.
When the prophet came to medina, he signed a treaty with them, promising to live with them in peace, and to each his own. However, after the battle of badr, where the Muslims defeated the meccans, the tribe of qaynuqa betrayed him. How, because of that incident of the girl you mentioned, but after that, trouble started between the Muslims and the Jews because of this incident, because after the Muslim fought the Jew who did that, the Jews killed the Muslim, the Jewish tribe didnt even condemn the person, tensions were big after that. The prophet also almost fell into an assignation attempt by them (at least some sources say that). the Jews then broke the treaty they had with the prophet, because of this, they were expelled.
Nadir was another Jewish tribe, after the battle of Uhud, where the meccans defeated the Muslims, kab bin al ashraf went to Mecca and began encouraging the meccans to kill Muhammad and anyone who stood by him, and began plotting with them, Ka’ab was killed for that, and Muhammad left the entire tribe alone, but soon later the tribe itself began planning the assassination of the prophet. they told the prophet to enter a religious debate with them  (or the prophet went there to ask for blood money for an unrelated murder) he accepted, and began to journey there (or the prophet went there to ask for blood money for an unrelated murder, versions differ).
3 versions of the story happened after that:
      1. Muhammad bin Maslama told the prophet that nadir was planning to assassinate him
      2. God gave him a revelation that the Jews were planning it and some else confirmed it
      3.  A convert to Islam from the tribe told him
whatever it was, the prophet returned, he sent a message to nadir, then, after he was sure, told them that they had to leave medina, they could bring all there possessions. they declined the offer and began preparing for a siege, the prophet beat them  but gave them the same terms as before, the Nadir were expelled with all there possessions to the Khaibar oasis, remember this, they come up late.

Only one tribe remained, the Qurayza.
The prophet then signed another treaty with them, promising to defend each other while the other one is attacked.
The meccans then wanted to get rid of the prophet forever, so they sent  10 000 to siege him, they teamed up with many other tribes, including nadir, and fought him around medina in a battle known as the battle of the trench, called that because the Muslims used a trench. The qurayza were stationed at the north, and the prophet expected them to defend their part, or at least not let anyone in. However, the Qurayza were planning on teaming up with the meccans, but the prophet made use of a spy to delay the  teaming up, long story (if you want to know the details, look at this link , it has many great articles about the jews of medina).
After the meccans and their allies were defeated, the prophet went to qurayza and went on to decide their punishment. The qurayza made a deal, the qurayza would choose someone who would decide there fate, they chose Sa’ad Bin Muadh, a member of a tribe that had friendly relations to qurayza, however, he was fatally wounded as the result of battle, possibly an indirect action of Qurayza breaking the treaty. Sa’ad Bin Muadh decided there punishment, that the warriors be killed and the women and children be slaves, Saad bin Muadh died soon after. Remember it was he who decided on the punishment, not the prophet, the qurayza even picked him to decide. The leader of the tribe, before being executed told the prophet that he had given them a fair judgment.
But we are not done yet.
Remember the Nadir, who planned to assassinate the prophet so they were expelled, then joined the meccans to fight him at the battle of the trench?

They were up to their old tricks, they began to plot to attack medina again and encourage others to fight the prophet. So the prophet besieged them in there new castle of Khaibar.

If you want more info on the jewish tribes please check here:

this is a link to many articles on the jewish tribes, please read some before you reply
I recommend those by bismikaallahuma

« on: August 03, 2013, 11:59:46 AM »
I was watching a youtube video a while back, and, in the comments i saw muslims debating each other on religious issues, which i saw no problem with that. However, i also saw muslims insulting and bashing each other, of minor religious importance, sometimes Sunni-Shia insulting, but also some sunni-sunni, and shia-shia, debates. I was horrified at these.
Suddenly, a person commented some great wisdom, his comment was this:
"Instead of bashing each other on whether to fold our hands or not, we should fight against those who want to chop them off"

it soon reached the most liked comment on the video
this quote touched me and soon after, the muslims began to reconcile and start debating a non-beleiver on the board, together. There were no insults after that, even from the non believer or towards him/her, it was just a intellectual debate. I hope we muslims can debate peaefully with each other, but can overlook our minor differences in faith and focus most of our effort at the non belivers, by debating with them intellectually.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 ... 23

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube