Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread ٢

[Mahdistan]

I still do not see contradiction; it must be considered that this prophecy refers to one who meets all of these qualities. While the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his companions may have met some of the qualities described here, they were neither cruel nor feeble. And that Dawla refers to a state in the modern sense, not one like the one the Prophet or his progeny ran and run. As well, it's important to note that Hazarat Ali was the closest in contact with the Prophet throughout his life, and even with my belief of him being the legitimate Imam aside, it is believable that in that time of close contact, the Prophet told Hazarat Ali things that he told no one else, for him, being among those wielding the most respect among Muslims for his whole life, to spread and warn at his discretion. The Prophet put immense amounts of trust into Hazarat Ali, and rightly so, I declare, and I don't find it hard to believe that he would trust him with this sort of information.

If they met even one qulity of evil as described the description is wrong.

The only thing in the prophecy indicating that this group being described is evil is their cruelty. As both non-believers trying to say all Muslims must kill non-believers to follow their religion, and terrorists who want to kill all non-believers have proven, if you take just bits and pieces out of anything and exclude the rest, rules and prophecy are meaningless, and give incorrect ideas. The whole thing must be considered when applying it to a group, and ISIS fits the whole prophecy, while no one else does.

[Ghuraba Al-Khorusani]

If they met even one qulity of evil as described the description is wrong.

The only thing in the prophecy indicating that this group being described is evil is their cruelty. As both non-believers trying to say all Muslims must kill non-believers to follow their religion, and terrorists who want to kill all non-believers have proven, if you take just bits and pieces out of anything and exclude the rest, rules and prophecy are meaningless, and give incorrect ideas. The whole thing must be considered when applying it to a group, and ISIS fits the whole prophecy, while no one else does.

A better Hadith for ISIS is
"There will be in my Community a dissent and a faction, a people with excellent words and vile deeds. They will read Qur'an, but their faith does not go past their throats. They will pass through religion the way an arrow passes through its quarry. They will no more come back to the religion than the arrow will come back to its original course. They are the worst of human beings and the worst of all creation. The one who kills them or is killed by them is blessed. They summon to the book of Allah but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever kills them is closer to Allah than they."

[The Smith Protectorate]

Finally, I found this. I read this awhile ago, and it blew my mind. Now, I've found it again whilst in a different argument, and I've got a link here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1043604/pg1

Perhaps one of the most convincing, irrefutable Hadith of all time. This is the one predicting the rise of ISIS, right down to their flag, the way they act, and their level of experience.

After reading this 'prophecy' I can only come to the conclusion of its allusion directly to Muhammad why;

1. The prophecy starts with 'black flags', ISIS's flag is black and white, while the Rashiduns flag was 100% black.
2. Muhammad initially was very feeble, he gained few followers in his 10 years in Mecca, and during that time none cared for his existence - but his heart was like iron for his commitment to god and the few followers he did gain were committed, and in the battle of Badr when the Quraysh attacked Muhammad he only had a force of 313 men - hardly a great strength.
3.The idea that the word Dawul was not used makes little sense, if it wasn't in use the Hadith writers wouldn't understand what it meant and therefore would not be able to write it down, the word was obviously in use.
4. Muhammad was notorious for breaking truces he originally signed with the Pagan arabs, and Quraysh. (Bukhari 3.891 and Sahih Muslim V3, 4405)
5. Muhammad died in 632 A.D. (after being poisoned) and then his Rashidun was ruled by Abu-bakr (who he chose to be his successor, potentially self fulfilling this 'prophecy'), who uses a) Kuniya b) a town (just because a town does not exist today does not mean it has never existed with the name Bakr, towns come and go just like Jericho). Also I just checked to see who currently leads ISIS; Abu-Musab Al-Zarqawi, (apparently my incompetence made me click the wrong link and the real leader is Al-Baghdadi. (would I be human without imperfections?)
6. Seeing as ISIS stick to Islamic clothing and hair practices the fact they have uncut beards and hair is the same convention as the early Muslims and in fact was instituted by Muhammad, therefore Islamic teaching have proved Islamic teachings. Circular reasoning.
7. The 'prophecy' suggesting the group would be indifferent is hardly prophetic power, for example; I predict that when I bring up the topic of Brexit to my father, his opinion will be indifferent to mine, ergo the family will be indifferent. (I then tested this and he did disagree with me - I assume i will be crowned a prophet now?)

You also have to remember than ISIS want to be like the first Caliphate, they want to be like the Rashidun, this is more than enough reason to see the similarities between them.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

You sure bout that?

Yes, in (true) democracy each member is viewed equal by the state, whereas in Islam, Muslims have more rights than dhimmis (other religions). In this fact, the nature of this democracy does not give equal vote to each member. Dhimmis also cannot have high positions in government or form their own parties (which by its nature is anti democratic). At most it can be a Theocratic Democracy (?) if such a thing can exist because only Islam can rule the land, while true democracy is secular. The Arabian peninsula for example can have no other religious buildings built there (illegal to build churches, synagogues etc...) as it is the land of the prophet. I'm not saying Islamic countries can't be democratic i'm just saying it's limited and contradictory to the true nature of a democracy, unless they remove the limits on other religions but then it becomes contradictory to Islam.

That's not true. In the Osmanli (Ottoman) Empire, non-Muslims were governors. Besides, there's a lot of freedom in Islam to non-Muslims.

[Yaramaqui]

Yes, in (true) democracy each member is viewed equal by the state, whereas in Islam, Muslims have more rights than dhimmis (other religions). In this fact, the nature of this democracy does not give equal vote to each member. Dhimmis also cannot have high positions in government or form their own parties (which by its nature is anti democratic). At most it can be a Theocratic Democracy (?) if such a thing can exist because only Islam can rule the land, while true democracy is secular. The Arabian peninsula for example can have no other religious buildings built there (illegal to build churches, synagogues etc...) as it is the land of the prophet. I'm not saying Islamic countries can't be democratic i'm just saying it's limited and contradictory to the true nature of a democracy, unless they remove the limits on other religions but then it becomes contradictory to Islam.

That's not true. In the Osmanli (Ottoman) Empire, non-Muslims were governors. Besides, there's a lot of freedom in Islam to non-Muslims.

And some were more oppressive to non-Muslims. Like in Yemen against the Jews, for example.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That's not true. In the Osmanli (Ottoman) Empire, non-Muslims were governors. Besides, there's a lot of freedom in Islam to non-Muslims.

And some were more oppressive to non-Muslims. Like in Yemen against the Jews, for example.

They discriminate against Jews? Why? Also, many of these so-called 'Muslim' countries have lost their ways. It'd be nice if they turned back to embracing Al-Islam.

[Jochistan]

4. Muhammad was notorious for breaking truces he originally signed with the Pagan arabs, and Quraysh. (Bukhari 3.891 and Sahih Muslim V3, 4405)

Right.
http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muham ... quer-mecca

[Mahdistan]

4. Muhammad was notorious for breaking truces he originally signed with the Pagan arabs, and Quraysh. (Bukhari 3.891 and Sahih Muslim V3, 4405)

Right.
http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muham ... quer-mecca

^

As well, the use of 'hearts of iron' is implying cruelty, not bravery, and the Prophet had not been cruel. Among other factors, he just doesn't match up. And besides, why would he tell a prophecy about himself?

[Tamsien]

A Salafi scholar saying that? Oh my. Do you recall who or where you heard this?

Muhammad Nasiruddin Al-Albani, check more here.

Thank you very much.

[Darussalam]

That's not true. In the Osmanli (Ottoman) Empire, non-Muslims were governors. Besides, there's a lot of freedom in Islam to non-Muslims.

Do you have any source for this?
While Ottoman bureaucracy and military was indeed drawn from the non-Muslim populace, in my understanding this was done through devshirme, i.e tribute of blood, hardly a tolerant practice in itself, and the non-Muslim children later were forcefully converted to Islam.

4. Muhammad was notorious for breaking truces he originally signed with the Pagan arabs, and Quraysh. (Bukhari 3.891 and Sahih Muslim V3, 4405)

Right.
http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muham ... quer-mecca

This is correct, the Fathu Mekkah occurred only after an ally of the Quraish, Banu Bakr, attacked Banu Khuza'a, Medina's ally, nullifying the truce in the process. I think a more...objectionable policy of the Prophet can be seen in his treatment on Medina Jewish tribes, especially Banu Qurayza.

[Jochistan]

That's not true. In the Osmanli (Ottoman) Empire, non-Muslims were governors. Besides, there's a lot of freedom in Islam to non-Muslims.

Do you have any source for this?
While Ottoman bureaucracy and military was indeed drawn from the non-Muslim populace, in my understanding this was done through devshirme, i.e tribute of blood, hardly a tolerant practice in itself, and the non-Muslim children later were forcefully converted to Islam.

And then brought up to live a life of luxury and status alongside the Sultan.

Strange paradox there.

[Jochistan]

Right.
http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muham ... quer-mecca

This is correct, the Fathu Mekkah occurred only after an ally of the Quraish, Banu Bakr, attacked Banu Khuza'a, Medina's ally, nullifying the truce in the process. I think a more...objectionable policy of the Prophet can be seen in his treatment on Medina Jewish tribes, especially Banu Qurayza.

You mean the ones who sold him out before a battle and were tried before Jewish law by their own leaders and approved/carried out by Muhammads forces?
Not exactly a very objectionable policy by the Prophet. (What he actually did)
https://youtu.be/kCgS5l4lv_4
http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/misc/qurayza.html
https://youtu.be/B5ekzcEolfY
http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muham ... ocent-jews

[Darussalam]

Do you have any source for this?
While Ottoman bureaucracy and military was indeed drawn from the non-Muslim populace, in my understanding this was done through devshirme, i.e tribute of blood, hardly a tolerant practice in itself, and the non-Muslim children later were forcefully converted to Islam.

And then brought up to live a life of luxury and status alongside the Sultan.

Strange paradox there.

True. The same goes to members of the Imperial Harem--sex slaves, essentially, yet many made prominent names in the Ottoman court, and highly revered when they became valide sultans. Middle Eastern slaves lived a different life from American chattel slaves, although it was hardly as pleasant as one would romanticize.

[Jochistan]

And then brought up to live a life of luxury and status alongside the Sultan.

Strange paradox there.

True. The same goes to members of the Imperial Harem--sex slaves, essentially, yet many made prominent names in the Ottoman court, and highly revered when they became valide sultans. Middle Eastern slaves lived a different life from American chattel slaves, although it was hardly as pleasant as one would romanticize.

European and Far Eastern rulers have always taken firstborn sons of their own and other peoples as soldiers. And held them to a much lower standard. In the Chinese case, to the point of castrating them.

The Ottomans treated the taken sons much better than that. And those of their own that were expected to serve in the military weren't as well treated as those from other territories.

In fact, the Jannissaries were treated so well and held to such a high standard in the military that they had even the Sultan on a leash when the checks and balances of the various class systems were under the supervision of less than masterful rulers. The expansionism was oftentimes to keep the elites in the military under control so they didn't threaten anyone else.

Same happened with members of the Harem. They too had extreme amounts of political power and prestige. Much more than mere concubines or slave girls. Looking through a very modern lense their situation even then seems oppressive. But it wasn't understood the same way.

[Darussalam]

True. The same goes to members of the Imperial Harem--sex slaves, essentially, yet many made prominent names in the Ottoman court, and highly revered when they became valide sultans. Middle Eastern slaves lived a different life from American chattel slaves, although it was hardly as pleasant as one would romanticize.

European and Far Eastern rulers have always taken firstborn sons of their own and other peoples as soldiers. And held them to a much lower standard. In the Chinese case, to the point of castrating them.

The Ottomans treated the taken sons much better than that. And those of their own that were expected to serve in the military weren't as well treated as those from other territories.

In fact, the Jannissaries were treated so well and held to such a high standard in the military that they had even the Sultan on a leash when the checks and balances of the various class systems were under the supervision of less than masterful rulers. The expansionism was oftentimes to keep the elites in the military under control so they didn't threaten anyone else.

Same happened with members of the Harem. They too had extreme amounts of political power and prestige. Much more than mere concubines or slave girls. Looking through a very modern lense their situation even then seems oppressive. But it wasn't understood the same way.

...Are you attempting to justify centuries of state sexual slavery, slave raids, and systemic discrimination of religious minorities? This is NOT the kind of traditionalism you advocated, right?
Also, Ottomans did have eunuchs.

[Jochistan]

European and Far Eastern rulers have always taken firstborn sons of their own and other peoples as soldiers. And held them to a much lower standard. In the Chinese case, to the point of castrating them.

The Ottomans treated the taken sons much better than that. And those of their own that were expected to serve in the military weren't as well treated as those from other territories.

In fact, the Jannissaries were treated so well and held to such a high standard in the military that they had even the Sultan on a leash when the checks and balances of the various class systems were under the supervision of less than masterful rulers. The expansionism was oftentimes to keep the elites in the military under control so they didn't threaten anyone else.

Same happened with members of the Harem. They too had extreme amounts of political power and prestige. Much more than mere concubines or slave girls. Looking through a very modern lense their situation even then seems oppressive. But it wasn't understood the same way.

...Are you attempting to justify centuries of state sexual slavery, slave raids, and systemic discrimination of religious minorities? This is NOT the kind of traditionalism you advocated, right?

No. And I'm saying that taking women and conscripting youths from conquered territory was something common with empires. And the Ottomans treated their captives better than most others at the time. Although the system was still unjust and soured by that.

I said it was a paradox. And not one sided. You agreed. Now you're shocked that I'm staying consistent to that view.

[Socialist Czechia]

True, compared to Xerxes, Diocletianus, Tamerlane or Ivan IV., many Ottoman sultans seems just and humane. But compared to average, common rulers of neighbouring cultures, they still looks sadistic and insane.

Even Vlad III. Tepes merely used Ottoman methods to fight them.

[Jochistan]

True, compared to Xerxes, Diocletianus, Tamerlane or Ivan IV., many Ottoman sultans seems just and humane. But compared to average, common rulers of neighbouring cultures, they still looks sadistic and insane.

Even Vlad III. Tepes merely used Ottoman methods to fight them.

A few Sultans were sadistic and insane. And all were marred by some practice of the time or another.

Their average neighbors in Eastern Europe were definitely not tame compared to them.
Vlad used Turkish weapons and formations. Not exactly methods

Also how was Xerxes particularly bad?

[Socialist Czechia]

True, compared to Xerxes, Diocletianus, Tamerlane or Ivan IV., many Ottoman sultans seems just and humane. But compared to average, common rulers of neighbouring cultures, they still looks sadistic and insane.

Even Vlad III. Tepes merely used Ottoman methods to fight them.

A few Sultans were sadistic and insane. And all were marred by some practice of the time or another.

Their average neighbors in Eastern Europe were definitely not tame compared to them.
Vlad used Turkish weapons and formations. Not exactly methods

Also how was Xerxes particularly bad?

For like, everything he did during his rule?

If we are discussing sadism: One of his loyal vassals dared to ask him, if one his son may stay at home. He already sent all of his adult sons to Xerxes' war.
Xerxes ordered to quarter that son, to remind his father to never ask such silly thing again.

[Jochistan]

True, compared to Xerxes, Diocletianus, Tamerlane or Ivan IV., many Ottoman sultans seems just and humane. But compared to average, common rulers of neighbouring cultures, they still looks sadistic and insane.

Even Vlad III. Tepes merely used Ottoman methods to fight them.

Never heard that one. But isn't most of the information we get anout him from the Greeks? That could have been propaganda very easily.

[Socialist Czechia]

True, compared to Xerxes, Diocletianus, Tamerlane or Ivan IV., many Ottoman sultans seems just and humane. But compared to average, common rulers of neighbouring cultures, they still looks sadistic and insane.

Even Vlad III. Tepes merely used Ottoman methods to fight them.

Never heard that one. But isn't most of the information we get anout him from the Greeks? That could have been propaganda very easily.

I heard that argument very often also about Roman sources, but you can't really use such modern terms - concepts in antiquity.

Sure, Greeks and Romans loved to exaggerate their success and some authors really disliked foreign customes, but there wasn't anything resembling modern nationalism or racism, therefore no propaganda.

Another example, many things about mentioned emperor Diocletianus is known only from single author, Lactantius. And he was Roman Emperor. While we have a many more sources about Xerxes.

[Jochistan]

Never heard that one. But isn't most of the information we get anout him from the Greeks? That could have been propaganda very easily.

I heard that argument very often also about Roman sources, but you can't really use such modern terms - concepts in antiquity.

Sure, Greeks and Romans loved to exaggerate their success and some authors really disliked foreign customes, but there wasn't anything resembling modern nationalism or racism, therefore no propaganda.

Right. You know what I mean.

[Darussalam]

Jochi, I noticed that you disliked Indonesia's Muhammadiya. Is that correct?

[Jochistan]

Jochi, I noticed that you disliked Indonesia's Muhammadiya. Is that correct?

Yes. Why?

[Darussalam]

...Are you attempting to justify centuries of state sexual slavery, slave raids, and systemic discrimination of religious minorities? This is NOT the kind of traditionalism you advocated, right?

No. And I'm saying that taking women and conscripting youths from conquered territory was something common with empires. And the Ottomans treated their captives better than most others at the time. Although the system was still unjust and soured by that.

I said it was a paradox. And not one sided. You agreed. Now you're shocked that I'm staying consistent to that view.

Apologies if my post was rather confrontational, I tend to be cautious to the point of paranoia over Islamic Empires' apologism.
But I would dispute your assertion that "..the Ottomans treated their captives better than most others". As far as I'm aware, "most other nations" don't practice state-institutionalized sexual slavery. Slavery in Ottoman Empire continued well into 20th Century, outlasting the practice even in the United States.

Nevertheless, I think what I primarily object is the whole "comparing it to others". In some ways, Middle Eastern slavery was "better" from Atlantic slavery. In some ways, it was more horrible. Both, however, were terrible on their own right, and that was all that mattered.