Islam is really the religion of the Hijazi Arabs only

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Mar 10, 2011 at 06:19

Our dear Max seems to be unawre that the islamic historical tradition is full of traditions that claim that as per Q14:4 Islam is really the religion of the Hijazi Arabs only but later on when there were too many mawali (or those that wanted to convert to the rleigion of the Arabs and who were told that they have to become Arabs first and this can be achieved by being sponsored by an Arab wali) and very few awlia' as in the case of India where there were to many Hindus to convert and very few real Arabs then Muslims allowed those Hindus to convert to Islam without having to find a wali! Now do you get it our dear Max whose Hindu ancestors were brutalized by Islam? and now you know why your likes were allowed to speak Urdu?

For the readers:

1. The word wali means an Arab who is supposed to sponsor a non Arab that wishes to covert to islam

2. he word mawla means a non Arab who wanted to convert to Islam and who had to find an Arab to sponsor him and make him an Arab

3. And this is the so called concept of al-wali wa al-mawali (the words here are in the plural form)

And this is for our dear max and more evidence from kutub al-turath al-islami that the Hijazi Arabs regarded early on that islam as per Q14:4 as the religion of the Hijazi Arabs only and this is as early as we can get and it is from Hasan al-Basri (D 110AH/727CE) and in his Risala fi al-Qadr (to Abd al-Malik of the Umayyads):

wa al-qur'an ya ameer al-mu'mineen 3arabi anzalahu allah ila qawm 3arab khatabahum bikalamihum al-ladhina ya3rifuun ma3naha

Let me help you and translate it for you:

The Qur'an O Prince of the faithful is Arabic (read this as written in Arabic) sent down (also read as revealed) by Allah to people that are Arabs and he addressed them in their language that they know its meaning

It is as clear as it can get that Islam is the religion of the Arabs because the Qur'an is written in Arabic and not Urdu and Hasan al-Basri was alluding to Q14:4

How come you did not know that our dear Max?

>Q14:4 its written "rasulin" and not "rasulan".

I cannot help it but feel sorry for you because you are debating a word in a language that you cannot speak read or write and I call this and you must pardon me STUPID

>I ask the reader to go see this for themselves.

Now I hope the readers have seen for themselves ...

>Why put "rasulan" where there is no "rasulan"?

And i also have proven the following:

1. You will not find neither the word rasulan or rasulin in the Quranic text

2. That the ulama edited Allah's Arabic

3. That the rasm of the word (or Allah's word here) is neither rauslan or rasulin but RSUL

4. That you have no clue about what is really I3rab

5. That you have no clue about the difference between the written text and the voclalized text

6. And that you are no more than a Fiqi which is the lowest on the totem pole of Shioukh

Now feel free to prove me wrong

>Why o Why?

How pathetic

I urge you to leave islam and be free again and go and find who was really the rasul that was sent to your Hindu ancestors because he ain't Muhammad

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".