Documentaries

[aa1234779]

Hello everyone..

As learning and sharing information/ideas is important to me and many others, I thought opening a topic on Documentaries can be both fun and educational.

Here is the first video I'd like to post..
Aljazeera's The Caliph part 1 Foundation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3O9d7PsI48

A short introduction to the history of the Islamic state founded by Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and his guided caliphs and how it deteriorated then became a monarchy (The Umayyads), an Islamic one at least, that continued expanding until infighting led to its fall.

I can't say that everything told in this video is completely true since the speakers are not islamic historians/scholars. Yet they express their views & analysis of the events that occurred, which can be differed with especially by a person who read the original narration of the events of that time in human history from authentic sources.

Please post any documentary film you deem worthy of sharing with others here.

[humbert]

I haven't had the time to watch the documentary, but I'm under the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that "Islamic Caliphate" implies some sort of political state run by the Islamic religion. If this is so then I strongly disagree. If history has taught us anything it is that government and [any]religion do not mix. Only a secular government can guarantee the right of the people, both freedom OF and freedom FROM religion. Religion is a private matter and has no place in government.

[aa1234779]

I haven't had the time to watch the documentary, but I'm under the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that "Islamic Caliphate" implies some sort of political state run by the Islamic religion. If this is so then I strongly disagree.

Actually, the Islamic State or Caliphate is run by men like us with strict reference to the Sharia Laws of Islam, derived from the Quran, Prophetic tradition (Sunnah), the tradition of the four rightly guided Caliphs, and so on. Immaculacy, on the other hand, died with the Messenger of Islam, Muhammad peace be upon him, as the Quran & Prophetic tradition clearly states.

If history has taught us anything it is that government and [any]religion do not mix. Only a secular government can guarantee the right of the people, both freedom OF and freedom FROM religion. Religion is a private matter and has no place in government.

You have a clear right to believe in this view as you aren't Muslim, Allah says in the Glorious Quran Ch.2 Verse 256:
"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion."

For me as a Muslim, and for many others around the globe, we'd rather be ruled by a government of men & women that refer to no other laws than those derived from the authentic sources of our religion. No man-made laws or widespread usury, adultery, liquor, drugs, and other sorts of what true Muslims deem as corruption.

In Islam, religion can be described as four inseparable parts:
1- Sharia (law) 2- Aqeedah (creed) 3- Ebadah (worship) 4- Sulouk (conduct)

If pondered well, you'll realize that Islam is much more than a religion for ones self, but an organizational system as well starting from the person whether it's a he or a she, the family, the neighborhood, the mosque, all the way to the government itself.

[humbert]

aa1234779 ->

If we define Sharia law as that which is practiced in Iran or Saudi Arabia, then the leaders  of those countries are directly violating Verse 256 of the Koran. In those countries, Islamic rules are imposed on everyone and those who disobey are brutally punished. I can name example after example.

It seems to me Verse 256 is every reason NOT to have a government that follows an official religion. In a secular government the right of all are respected. Christian churches, Islamic mosques, Jewish synagogues and Bhuddist temples all live together in peace. The government's job is to protect the rights of all and not to forcibly impose one religion over another as in the case in the 2 above mentioned countries.

Maher is one of my best friends, if not the best. The cornerstone of our relationship is mutual respect. He is a devout Muslim and I am an atheist, yet we fully respect each other and we firmly uphold and defend each other's right to disagree. Maher is a true Muslim - he is tolerant, respectful, and follows Verse 256 to the letter.

[aa1234779]

 

aa1234779 ->

If we define Sharia law as that which is practiced in Iran or Saudi Arabia, then the leaders  of those countries are directly violating Verse 256 of the Koran.

Sharia is not present on this earth nowadays, just partial implementations here & there, or shall I say, partial secularism.

In those countries, Islamic rules are imposed on everyone and those who disobey are brutally punished. I can name example after example.

The same can be said to any other laws, whether it is American, French, British, Indian, Chinese, or whatever.
Even if real untainted Sharia law is present, and an uprising of sorts comes into place, it will be wiped out. Same as everywhere.

It seems to me Verse 256 is every reason NOT to have a government that follows an official religion. In a secular government the right of all are respected. Christian churches, Islamic mosques, Jewish synagogues and Bhuddist temples all live together in peace. The government's job is to protect the rights of all and not to forcibly impose one religion over another as in the case in the 2 above mentioned countries.

The two mentioned countries are not representative of Islam, but are of the rulers of the two countries.
As to the Arabian peninsula, the Messenger of Allah told his Companions & followers to forever expel Christians & Jews from it. That did not completely happen back then, and now it is definitely not happening as we all know for sure. There are people of all religions living in the Arabian peninsula, although no public places of worship for them are present. Smaller places are present in living compounds and even churches in UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain.

Maher is one of my best friends, if not the best. The cornerstone of our relationship is mutual respect. He is a devout Muslim and I am an atheist, yet we fully respect each other and we firmly uphold and defend each other's right to disagree. Maher is a true Muslim - he is tolerant, respectful, and follows Verse 256 to the letter.

Difference in religion or opinions shouldn't be an obstacle to mutual respect. 

[scarface]

Well, once again, I will give advice to aa1234779, before going to bed.

You said you were unemployed, but do you really need a job (in fact, do you need money?). What's more, are you ready to do a "shitty job", for example dustman, or cleaning the @ss of the old people? Those jobs are useful, but few people are brave enough to do that, and there are manpower shortages. Nowadays, if you are looking for a job of good-for-nothing lurking in a open space office, well, chances are you won't find anything. The period where some people were paid to do nothing is over, I mean today you'll find something if you accept to get your hands dirty.

[humbert]

aa12345779 -> I'm not too clear as to what your opinion is. You believe the legal systems of Iran and Saudi Arabia do NOT represent Sharia and are in effect dictatorships set up by governments who misinterpret the Koran to suit their needs. It seems to me everyone disagrees on what is Sharia law really is. I'll say this: if true Sharia law guarantees that everyone's beliefs are respected, then I'm totally in favor.

You quoted Verse 256 which, as I understand it, says Islam is a religion of peace and respect. This runs contrary to the notion of a government which favors one religion over another. In a secular government (one that leaves religion out) you are free to follow Islam as you wish and others are also free to follow their beliefs (or lack of them). The government's duty is to protect everybody's rights. I am under the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the Islamic Caliphate you mentioned favors Islam over other religions. No good! Take a pencil and scratch out Verse 256, the 2 concepts can't coexist.

[scarface]

Well, tonight I'm going to hold a conference. But first a thought for humbert who may have feet in the water at this moment.
I will talk about oil, and reassure aa1234779, who is unemployed.

In its medium-term annual report (2017-2022), the International Energy Agency (IEA) has formalized what its executive director, Fatih Birol, has been saying for months, in unison with the bosses of large companies: The world supply of crude oil will remain abundant by the end of the decade, but it will be hard for production to meet demand soon after 2020. Since Investment in exploration and production halved since their peak in 2014, it could lead to shortages and a new surge in prices.

And I’m going to reassure aa1234779, because I think the end of oil is nearing, at least we have more and more clues suggesting that it's the case (oil sands development, the fact we discover less and less oil), and it’s going to trigger drastic changes in our societies. In Paris, for example, I can see more and more Bicycle couriers in the street. It’s probable that cars will disappear too, by the end of the next decade. It also means that the capitalist world is going to crumble, somehow. And it's probable we won’t have the same jobs in 10 or 15 years, if we have no more energy. In my opinion, we will need more people in rural areas, to produce food for example.

[aa1234779]

aa12345779 -> I'm not too clear as to what your opinion is. You believe the legal systems of Iran and Saudi Arabia do NOT represent Sharia and are in effect dictatorships set up by governments who misinterpret the Koran to suit their needs. It seems to me everyone disagrees on what is Sharia law really is. I'll say this: if true Sharia law guarantees that everyone's beliefs are respected, then I'm totally in favor.

Sharia law is a complete & just system that suits humanity's needs. You may differ with me on this.

You quoted Verse 256 which, as I understand it, says Islam is a religion of peace and respect. This runs contrary to the notion of a government which favors one religion over another. In a secular government (one that leaves religion out) you are free to follow Islam as you wish and others are also free to follow their beliefs (or lack of them). The government's duty is to protect everybody's rights. I am under the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the Islamic Caliphate you mentioned favors Islam over other religions. No good! Take a pencil and scratch out Verse 256, the 2 concepts can't coexist.

This is the meaning of the whole verse 256 of Surrah 2:
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing

There is also another verse worth noting in Surrah 18 (The Cave) Verse 29:
And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." Indeed, We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose walls will surround them. And if they call for relief, they will be relieved with water like murky oil, which scalds [their] faces. Wretched is the drink, and evil is the resting place.

It says believe in what you wish in life, and you will be dealt with accordingly in the afterlife. Forcing belief upon people is not the Islamic way or practice. If some Muslims do that then it's their wrongdoing and Islam should not be responsible for that.

I don't know what you mean by favoring Islam over other religions, but Muslims have lived along with Christians, Jews, and the Magi (fire worship) for hundreds of years. The Non-Muslims pay the Jizya which is 2% of income & no other taxes should be imposed on them, and they live freely within the true Islamic state with all their rights respected same as Muslims. In fact, there have been cases where the poor Non-Muslims were given benefits to buy food, clothing, and a place to stay like a modern day welfare system. All of this happened 1400 years ago. Try reading about the Pact of Umar which dictated how things will go on after the Caliphate took Palestine from the Romans. I wish it could come back into practice once again and the whole Palestinian/Israeli issue will be solved, and Jerusalem (Al Quds) will once again bring people of many faiths under the right & just system of rule.

[scarface]

I wish you were right aa1234779. But I'm a bit puzzled. If God was so powerful, I'm wondering if there would be as many problems on the planet.
You should tell us where the Islamic caliphate and the generous caliph are, there are Syrian panhandlers sit on mattresses or sleeping in tents strewn with garbage on the avenue de Clichy who are waiting for your answer.
Well, I'm sure Maher is reading this topic with interest, not to say impatience. And I remember he was saying in a topic a few years ago that God had no son. He seemed a bit abashed when he was asked: what about Jesus? (at least that's the case for both Muslims and Protestants who think Jesus is not the son of God). Actually, you are a bit like him: you have a literary interpretation of religion, but it seems you don't feel free to give constructive criticism.
Frankly, do you think that a Caliphate forcing some communities to pay the Jizya would be attractive?
I also know that Judas Iscariot is not quoted in the Koran. Then do you believe Judas was crucified on the cross, in a case of mistaken identity instead of Jesus (I'm going to call him Issa, his Arabic name, in case you don't know him). Muslims teach that Judas Iscariot, the betrayer and thief, is the real saviour of Christians: it was actually Judas who actually died on the cross and because Judas had a similar physical appearance to Jesus even his own mother didn't recognize him at the foot of the cross. For 600 years Christians had been preaching Christ crucified. Then Muhammad comes along, jumps off his camel and gets a direct revelation from God that the universal record of history and the 10,000 manuscripts of the Bible, are all wrong. The idea that Judas was crucified instead of Christ is a bit outrageous, what do you think about it?