• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Deep into Druze faith

Dark Angel

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
I disagree. Al-hakim is a "maqam". A station to reflect gods truth onto the believers.
He isnt saying "i am the lord"
He is saying "approximate yourself with the lord."
Just like how a word is a station for its meaning. For example "Tree"
i am not sure what you are disagreeing with. i am not stating an opinion, it is rather a fact. so what exactly are you disagreeing with? nothing i have said relates to your reply.

أنشأ بعض اللاهوتيين الإسماعيليين حركةً دينية اعتبرت الحاكم بأمر الله شخصيةً إلهية. ومن المحتمل جداً أن يكون الحاكم بأمر الله من شجع وأيّد ذلك، إلا أنه ليس من المستغرب أن ذلك مهد الطريق لرد فعل قاسٍ من المؤسسة الدينية الفاطمية في ذلك الوقت. وعلى الرغم من أن السلطات الدينية الفاطمية أضفت الصفة الإلهية على الحاكم بأمر الله وأسلافه، إلا أنهم لم يكونوا مستعدين لإعتبارهم شخصيات إلهية في حد ذاتها. وعندما تم الإعلان عن هذه الفكرة المتناقضة علانيةً لأول مرة في عام 1017، تسببت في حدوث شغبٍ كبير في القاهرة.​

"like the notion of not accepting any converts into the faith, that was a compromise to appease some of the oppression from the islamic surroundings, same as not preaching, nor accepting any converts, nor even marying outside the sect"

This changes alot. You were suggesting that the faith stopped converting because of fear of oppression. Not true.
i have not changed anything in both posts, i simply reiterated the same idea.

However, thats not the case. The call was conclused because the job was done. End of proselytizing because they reached who they needed to reach.
the historical sources present it differently.

Divine incarnation is what ad-darazi was preaching. Which in the end had him killed.
according to the historic sources available, a feud developed between al-darazi and hamza al zourani as they were competing to be in the caliphe's favor. darazi simply disappeared and his fate is unknown. some speculate that he may have left egypt towards Lebanon or syria.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Saqar18

    Saqar18

    New Member
    i am not sure what you are disagreeing with. i am not stating an opinion, it is rather a fact. so what exactly are you disagreeing with? nothing i have said relates to your reply.
    I disagree with the picture it paints. It can be perceived as i.e. how beleivers in jesus view him as he is "God"
    I agree w/
    Saying someone is a passage (maqam) for god to reveal himself as much as our human minds allow us to understand, out of mercy, for his Lahut can not be understood.
    This is realistic to me, and this is backed up by sami makarams "the druze faith".
    the historical sources present it differently.
    Doesnt matter, my sources are druze based, from the authors of kitab l hikme during these times.
    Your sources have a high a** chance of rooting from non-druze based info.
    Hehe, i win
    according to the historic sources available, a feud developed between al-darazi and hamza al zourani as they were competing to be in the caliphe's favor. darazi simply disappeared and his fate is unknown. some speculate that he may have left egypt towards Lebanon or syria.
    My friend, allow me.
    Way before this feud, Hamza ibn ali (the great, since he's the man) won the caliph over in court. Where he was summoned by the caliph to explain his actions of lecturing.
    He won the caliphs approval, and he allowed hamza to continue his work. With the approval of the wise from the jews and the Christians, and resentment from those who were using religion as a way for control
    Hamza earned his title "imam" or "guide of the believers"
    Ad-darazi was jealous, and started to call himself "lord of the guides"
    Respectful, truthful leadership vs. Corrupt and jealous individuals.
    Ad-darazi also went against his leaders teachings.
     
    X

    Xynus87

    New Member
    Mohammed was busy in consolidating his rule inside of Arabia and after his death outside invasion were conducted by his disciples.
    No one denies the expeditions, but the question here comes in why did they happen. Also don't deflect.
     
    Last edited:
    X

    Xynus87

    New Member
    Doesnt matter, my sources are druze based, from the authors of kitab l hikme during these times.
    Your sources have a high a** chance of rooting from non-druze based info.
    Hehe, i win
    Considering the Druze sources come from much later times how can you claim they're actually grounded in history.
     
    Saqar18

    Saqar18

    New Member
    Considering the Druze sources come from much later times how can you claim they're actually grounded in history.
    They have new documentaries on alexander the great, cyrus the great, ancient carthage.
    The druze's religious book is only 1000 years old.
    Whats difficult is how the caliphates later on destroyed much of what the fatmids held. And erased much of their history. Thats probably one of the difficulties
     
    Saqar18

    Saqar18

    New Member
    Considering the Druze sources come from much later times how can you claim they're actually grounded in history.
    Abassid caliphate was the enemy of the fatmids. Probably more mad cause the fatmids controlled mecca and medina.
    So, just like CNN says things about trump and trump says things about CNN, differences of perspective are written, orally transmitted etc.

    Why doubt that they arent grounded in history? Its their own story.
     
    X

    Xynus87

    New Member
    They have new documentaries on alexander the great, cyrus the great, ancient carthage.
    The druze's religious book is only 1000 years old.
    Whats difficult is how the caliphates later on destroyed much of what the fatmids held. And erased much of their history. Thats probably one of the difficulties
    Where did you hear the claim that the Fatimid history was erased?
    Others documented history too, and something as a new daw'ah would've been documented at least by one historian back then. It's not a condition that it's written by the Fatimids themselves. The version which is that Al-Hakim accepted Hamza into his court which implies he accepted what the early Druze preachers taught about him, and that's very hard to accept bearing in mind that lots of what the early historians ascribed humility to him being one of the Nizari Imams, and the Nizaris (who also, surprise, documented history) reject this as they believe he was a divinely appointed Imam of rightful inheritance.

    Abassid caliphate was the enemy of the fatmids. Probably more mad cause the fatmids controlled mecca and medina.
    So, just like CNN says things about trump and trump says things about CNN, differences of perspective are written, orally transmitted etc.

    Why doubt that they arent grounded in history? Its their own story.
    The Abbasids ceased to be as powerful as they were in the 8th and 9th centuries. The Abbasids never even came into dominance ever again after then, and they were totally annihilated in 1258 only to be granted a symbolic position under the Mamlouks in Cairo until the Ottoman conquest. Do you know people disagree on things that happened only hundreds of years ago.


    I realized after your response id rather not reply to your weird question.
    It's not a weird question, I asked you to define violence so we can be clear on what term are we talking about. Lots of times people disagree because of different definitions/conceptions.
     
    Saqar18

    Saqar18

    New Member
    Where did you hear the claim that the Fatimid history was erased?
    Screenshot_20200413-150139_Drive.jpg the reign of al hakim bi amr allah bi ismaail saad.
    Others documented history too, and something as a new daw'ah would've been documented at least by one historian back then. It's not a condition that it's written by the Fatimids themselves. The version which is that Al-Hakim accepted Hamza into his court which implies he accepted what the early Druze preachers taught about him, and that's very hard to accept bearing in mind that lots of what the early historians ascribed humility to him being one of the Nizari Imams, and the Nizaris (who also, surprise, documented history) reject this as they believe he was a divinely appointed Imam of rightful inheritance.
    1.There are sources inside and outside the fatmid caliphate. We agree to look on the inside.
    2. The nizaris and al-mwhaiduun were in the same courts. But i beleive rivals as on mysobalanus's website that they exchanged letters. So of course, there are 2 perspectives.
    3. There was a court full of witnesses, and its how the freedom of religion under al-hakims reign came to be after hearing imam hamza speak, which also lead to abolishing slavery.
    4. Im not sure why you're jumping to conculsions quick times but have you read the questions hamza was asked by al-hakim and his court?
    5. personally feel al-hakim was closer to hamza, because al-hakim would walk the streets and chat with his people, and hamza would stand near, and eventually start a 1 on 1 convo. Thats how close hamza was to the king; i doubt really anoyne else had that connection.

    The Abbasids ceased to be as powerful as they were in the 8th and 9th centuries. The Abbasids never even came into dominance ever again after then, and they were totally annihilated in 1258 only to be granted a symbolic position under the Mamlouks in Cairo until the Ottoman conquest. Do you know people disagree on things that happened only hundreds of years ago.
    they were powerful at the time of al-hakim. Look at the swathes of land they use to control in 1020 a.d.
    It's not a weird question, I asked you to define violence so we can be clear on what term are we talking about. Lots of times people disagree because of different definitions/conceptions.
    Sure.
    -A sikh gathering in Afghanistan turned into a massacre as afghan extremists under the banner of islam killed 15-30 people, leaving a building full of damage.
    -Hulagu khan on baghdad. Sparing no muslim life except the christians who were spared.
    - roman catholic church with their residential schools.
    Violence against others. Imposing control over others, and resisting them. Kinda like conquering.
    Self defense is:
    When ad-darazi rode into Cairo with 20,000 people in chainmail laid seige to the mosque Hamza and his group were in. 12 people inside, 6 or 8 being able to fight (old age, sick were inside as well)
    the appointed imam hamza and his group whipped their candy ass all over, until al-hakim came from his retreat of 1 year and scattered them away. Ad-darazis dead corpse was the bonus as the reward was the continuation of the dawa.
     
    Last edited:
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    Define violence first.
    Sorry to chip-in here, but i'm really primarily interested in how your heads function on a basic level. So, instead of redundantly defining every other word one might use (i guess that weird request was unwarrantedly deployed, in an attempt to evade a charge), how about we go the straightforward route by you first naming one single act that ISIS has done and which you consider 'evil violence', and then demonstrating that it wasn't done by prophet Muhammad (or in imitation/emulation of him)?

    You see, if you are a good human being who's really having a genuine concern over the 'evil violence' happening in the world, and you are an innocent Muslim too (an ignorant, yet still well-intentioned one, i'll say), it follows that your problem actually is with those adhering to the Islamic scriptures and doing all the 'evil-violence' acts in proclaimed accordance to it, and not with those showing justified concern over actually and potentially being chased and killed because of that group and its kind. Yaane, given your supposedly genuine concern, you ought demonstrate how this group's adherence to the Quran is invalid, or how their 'evil violence' acts cannot be validly supported by the Quran they claim to operate by in effecting them, or how the Quran can validly oppose or condemn them said acts.

    May my post be moved to the Deep into Islam thread, and you address it there appropriately, with the company of @Lebmonage as well.
     
    Saqar18

    Saqar18

    New Member
    Sorry to chip-in here, but i'm really primarily interested in how your heads function on a basic level. So, instead of redundantly defining every other word one might use (i guess that weird request was unwarrantedly deployed, in an attempt to evade a charge), how about we go the straightforward route by you first naming one single act that ISIS has done and which you consider 'evil violence', and then demonstrating that it wasn't done by prophet Muhammad (or in imitation/emulation of him)?

    You see, if you are a good human being who's really having a genuine concern over the 'evil violence' happening in the world, and you are an innocent Muslim too (an ignorant, yet still well-intentioned one, i'll say), it follows that your problem actually is with those adhering to the Islamic scriptures and doing all the 'evil-violence' acts in proclaimed accordance to it, and not with those showing justified concern over actually and potentially being chased and killed because of that group and its kind. Yaane, given your supposedly genuine concern, you ought demonstrate how this group's adherence to the Quran is invalid, or how their 'evil violence' acts cannot be validly supported by the Quran they claim to operate by in effecting them, or how the Quran can validly oppose or condemn them said acts.

    May my post be moved to the Deep into Islam thread, and you address it there appropriately, with the company of @Lebmonage as well.
    Savage
     
    modesty

    modesty

    Well-Known Member
    No one denies the expeditions, but the question here comes in why did they happen. Also don't deflect.
    Giving references and details to support a fact is not deflecting, as for the reason of those military conquest they didn’t differ from other conquest in history, subdue other nations in order to exploit them and capture their wealth.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Top