has Islam failed to change muslims?

[Baygham]

Islam can be interpreted on two different levels - the individual and the state level. Islam aims to reform the individual but it also maps out a political system whereby a 'utopia' can be created, under which the entire Ummah would be united.

On the state level, Islam failed right after the prophet's death. Abu Bakr had to crush many rebellions, false prophets as well as followers of Ali. Ali's followers got the upper hand later on when they killed Usman. Then Usman's kinsmen killed almost every member of Ali's family at Karbala. Within a hundred years, the Islamic world, instead of being under a Caliph or Imam, was fragmented into city-states, ruled by different Turkic warlords, who were often at war with each other. It wasn't much different from what the 'god-appointed' kings of Christendom were doing to each other.

At the individual level, however, it's debatable whether or not 'Islam has failed'. The reasons are obvious - many adhere to very strict moral principles while a good number of people in our societies are almost openly corrupt. In any case, morality doesn't come from religion alone. That's another discussion altogether.

The failure of Islam as at the level of state or the individual dependents on the individual.
If you are the king or his close circle, It is a great religion to subjugate and exploit a large group of people and establish a complete hegemony of a minority subgroup (your kinship) on a vast majority. Even in mohammads time if you were a nomad in northern arabia (non quresh), nobody cared. you did not get the same percentage as mohammad got from loot of war (10% went to one person - the commander in chief). So the original 10% was not zardari, this is likely an even older doctrine probably inplace much before islam.
In the ensuing expansion accross a vast stretch of humanity the top 1% remained a closed circle (much like todays banking cartels). In a similar way in the modern developed world of today the vast majority of the public, basking in the glory of democracy and capatilism, has no realistic chance of ever making it to the top 1%.

Islam thus is a simple illusionary tale to soothe the state of slavery that the majority of us experience in real life. In this respect it is no different than any other religion or dogma.

[ډګروال]

the failure of islam as at the level of state or the individual dependents on the individual.
If you are the king or his close circle, it is a great religion to subjugate and exploit a large group of people and establish a complete hegemony of a minority subgroup (your kinship) on a vast majority. Even in mohammads time if you were a nomad in northern arabia (non quresh), nobody cared. You did not get the same percentage as mohammad got from loot of war (10% went to one person - the commander in chief). So the original 10% was not zardari, this is likely an even older doctrine probably inplace much before islam.
In the ensuing expansion accross a vast stretch of humanity the top 1% remained a closed circle (much like todays banking cartels). In a similar way in the modern developed world of today the vast majority of the public, basking in the glory of democracy and capatilism, has no realistic chance of ever making it to the top 1%.

islam thus is a simple illusionary tale to soothe the state of slavery that the majority of us experience in real life. In this respect it is no different than any other religion or dogma.

وا وا
پښتون فرمز سخه سمه یوه ټوکه جوړه شوی ده
هر څوګ راځې اوپښتنو او اسلام باندی تو کوی
دا لا سنګه پښتون فورمز شو او دا لا په کښی کوم ډوله پښتانه دې
عجیبه ریشخند دی

[IamDZJ]

It's ajeeba not hajeeba and it's written with an ayeen as in, عجيبه, mister Pashtun, sir.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

The failure of Islam as at the level of state or the individual dependents on the individual.
If you are the king or his close circle, It is a great religion to subjugate and exploit a large group of people and establish a complete hegemony of a minority subgroup (your kinship) on a vast majority. Even in mohammads time if you were a nomad in northern arabia (non quresh), nobody cared. you did not get the same percentage as mohammad got from loot of war (10% went to one person - the commander in chief). So the original 10% was not zardari, this is likely an even older doctrine probably inplace much before islam.
In the ensuing expansion accross a vast stretch of humanity the top 1% remained a closed circle (much like todays banking cartels). In a similar way in the modern developed world of today the vast majority of the public, basking in the glory of democracy and capatilism, has no realistic chance of ever making it to the top 1%.

Islam thus is a simple illusionary tale to soothe the state of slavery that the majority of us experience in real life. In this respect it is no different than any other religion or dogma.

That's simply historically false.

[Baygham]

That's simply historically false.

You have archeological data to support the existense of Jesus, moses, let alone all the tales. Parting of the moon. etc etc.
Please youtube your video of Baraks flight to the outer solar system with M on board, or just atleast Upload the flight data recorder.

Give me a break.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You have archeological data to support the existense of Jesus, moses, let alone all the tales. Parting of the moon. etc etc.
Please youtube your video of Baraks flight to the outer solar system with M on board, or just atleast Upload the flight data recorder.

Give me a break.

What does that have to do with your claims? It's Historically false; read Tarikh Al tabari' it's one of the MOST unbiased sources of History from that era, Even with all the Dirt and Smut in Tabari nothing even comes close to the narrative you gave.

You're an intellectually dishonest liar.....but I will forgive you, as I assume you're running your mouth without actually reading sources of history and merely parroting nonsense you heard.

[Afghanistan2010]

Tarikh Al Tabari

I read through found nothing....

if he is reffering to the battles like the battle of the camel...than he is lying.

[khushal]

Islam can be interpreted on two different levels - the individual and the state level. Islam aims to reform the individual but it also maps out a political system whereby a 'utopia' can be created, under which the entire Ummah would be united.

On the state level, Islam failed right after the prophet's death. Abu Bakr had to crush many rebellions, false prophets as well as followers of Ali. Ali's followers got the upper hand later on when they killed Usman. Then Usman's kinsmen killed almost every member of Ali's family at Karbala. Within a hundred years, the Islamic world, instead of being under a Caliph or Imam, was fragmented into city-states, ruled by different Turkic warlords, who were often at war with each other. It wasn't much different from what the 'god-appointed' kings of Christendom were doing to each other.

At the individual level, however, it's debatable whether or not 'Islam has failed'. The reasons are obvious - many adhere to very strict moral principles while a good number of people in our societies are almost openly corrupt. In any case, morality doesn't come from religion alone. That's another discussion altogether.

I would agree with what you say for the most part but every political system no matter how perfect you make it has one flaw that eventually brings down its fall and that is its eventual monopolization of the political system. Where a group of people collude and strive to control everything for their own interests, to bring forth the tyranny. Jefferson himself admitted that only the tribal system where there is no government prevents total tyranny because there is no government, every other one can not prevent it permenantly as long as government exists, there will be people that will tryo to take control of it. That is why he was a supporter of limited government, the smaller the government, the less control the tyrants will have when(not if) they get control of the government and hence its people..

[Baygham]

What does that have to do with your claims? It's Historically false; read Tarikh Al tabari' it's one of the MOST unbiased sources of History from that era, Even with all the Dirt and Smut in Tabari nothing even comes close to the narrative you gave.

You're an intellectually dishonest liar.....but I will forgive you, as I assume you're running your mouth without actually reading sources of history and merely parroting nonsense you heard.

from wikepedia:
Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (Arabic: أبو جعفر محمد بن جرير بن يزيد الطبري) (224 – 310 AH; 838–923 CE) was a prominent and influential scholar, historian and exegete of the Qur'an from Tabaristan, modern Mazandaran in Persia/Iran.
His most influential and best known works are his Qur'anic commentary known as Tafsir al-Tabari and his historical chronicle Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings), often referred to Tarikh al-Tabari. Al-Tabari founded his own madhhab which is usually designated by the name Jariri.[citation needed]

He wrote the stuff almost 300 years later, probably narrating fables he heard from around.

You try writing something about 1700-1712 from pakhtunkhwa, go around talk to folks and see what you will write. It will be an amalgam of stories, falbles, myths and customs; and thats what he wrote.
You will also write whats pleasing to your audience in 2012 not what happened in 1712 as you will be making it up. So in short you will be creating and perpetuating a myth that is supporting an agenda today.
If you are a slave it will be to mitigate your pain, if you are a master it will be to justify your actions.

[Tjanaparh]

He wrote the stuff almost 300 years later, probably narrating fables he heard from around.

You try writing something about 1700-1712 from pakhtunkhwa, go around talk to folks and see what you will write. It will be an amalgam of stories, falbles, myths and customs; and thats what he wrote.
You will also write whats pleasing to your audience in 2012 not what happened in 1712 as you will be making it up. So in short you will be creating and perpetuating a myth that is supporting an agenda today.
If you are a slave it will be to mitigate your pain, if you are a master it will be to justify your actions.

That are claims not generalizable - for that You should at least know the person!
Sure histroians wrote with orders and with restrictmens, but sorry, even I as not christian can state the armenian christin historians telling something like "people like Mr.Arevapasht are black devils of shaytan", but the words he use , the conclusions he make still give facts on what really happened.
Also if you use time as a fctor you should discard all scripturs almost!

[Baygham]

That are claims not generalizable - for that You should at least know the person!
Sure histroians wrote with orders and with restrictmens, but sorry, even I as not christian can state the armenian christin historians telling something like "people like Mr.Arevapasht are black devils of shaytan", but the words he use , the conclusions he make still give facts on what really happened.
Also if you use time as a fctor you should discard all scripturs almost!

Than dont say they are historical and anthropological facts. They are not.

[Tjanaparh]

Than dont say they are historical and anthropological facts. They are not.

What did I say? Some facts You can however still understand , at least comparing different sources. History is not an exact sience, but what is exact generally? You cannot deny neither everything neither you can use a source as complete trouth!

[faye]

some are historical facts and some may not be.
we have no proof of what is claimed to NOT be true.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I read through found nothing....

if he is reffering to the battles like the battle of the camel...than he is lying.

Prove to me you read it; tell us what does it say regarding the Ascension of 'Ali?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

He wrote the stuff almost 300 years later, probably narrating fables he heard from around.

You try writing something about 1700-1712 from pakhtunkhwa, go around talk to folks and see what you will write. It will be an amalgam of stories, falbles, myths and customs; and thats what he wrote.
You will also write whats pleasing to your audience in 2012 not what happened in 1712 as you will be making it up. So in short you will be creating and perpetuating a myth that is supporting an agenda today.
If you are a slave it will be to mitigate your pain, if you are a master it will be to justify your actions.

Most Historians write history AFTER the time of the events that they write about; the fact is his history i9s UNBIASED as it has taken into account ALL Historical Data from before their time. He didn't just siphon off the stuff that sounded good according to Religious Dogma of the time; he put ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING in there. And I mean everything, that's why his History is Volumes Long.

You have never ever even READ a History book on the matter; NEVERMIND any account from that era.

Comparing Pashtuns who are predominantly illiterate and had no established historical tradition is not the same as comparing a Scholar of History who had documentation from the earliest times.

The fact is you're ignorant and speak from ignorance. Islamic History is not clean and pretty; but it's also not Sensational and Tabloid as you make it

Next time come back with references to support your assertions