Islamic Discussion Thread ٣

[Painisia]

What do you all think about the Boko Haram?

Is this a serious question?

Its obvious, they are bastards

[Unit 23]

Sorry, I'm talking about Avicenna and his modal logic where Allah is the eternal One, which was the basis for all Islamic thought for the majority of its history.

I'm wondering if Islam reformed its position on this, and if so, when. I'm idly curious if this is reflected by maps/atlases/etc. Particularly focusing on Turkey because it was so well documented, but any instance of Islam is fine.

[The Parkus Empire]

The "Will of the Creator", which made the world, wasn't part of Allah?

Where else was he?

Do you even Schopenhauer?

[Unit 23]

Regularly, with video evidence.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Sorry, I'm talking about Avicenna and his modal logic where Allah is the eternal One, which was the basis for all Islamic thought for the majority of its history.

That still has nothing to do with "Allah is one with the universe"

I'm wondering if Islam reformed its position on this, and if so, when. I'm idly curious if this is reflected by maps/atlases/etc. Particularly focusing on Turkey because it was so well documented, but any instance of Islam is fine.

1st off, Al-Islam is as it was since the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). It was us, Muslims, who have changed. We all need to go back to the way of the Prophet (SAWS) and Sahaba (RA). So no, there never should have been any 'reform', aka bid'ah.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Unit 23, you sound like you're talking more about Islamic history, not so much Islamic theology.

[Mujahidah]

Unit 23, you sound like you're talking more about Islamic history, not so much Islamic theology.

Which isn't necessarily outside of the realm of this thread. The Christian Discussion Thread has a decent amount of historical discussion as well, if my couple visits over there are any evidence.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Unit 23, you sound like you're talking more about Islamic history, not so much Islamic theology.

Which isn't necessarily outside of the realm of this thread. The Christian Discussion Thread has a decent amount of historical discussion as well, if my couple visits over there are any evidence.

Well yeah, of course.
I love me some Islamic history

[Unit 23]

They're different?

Given since the time of Muhammad, you said yourself Muslims have changed. What's the nature of Islam before and after the change in relation to the One, Allah?

The answer to this appears to mark where Islamic beliefs and history are distinguished.

Further to this marking between belief and history is the question of why the distinction exists.

Also, the metaphysics of the One is central to Islamic thought. This is entirely a theological issue. We're discussing theological logic and being in the world, which is given to be Allah, something I don't contend.

Allah is the origin and the essence of all things, I wonder, how is this not theological?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

They're different?

Given since the time of Muhammad, you said yourself Muslims have changed. What's the nature of Islam before and after the change in relation to the One, Allah?

The answer to this appears to mark where Islamic beliefs and history are distinguished.

Further to this marking between belief and history is the question of why the distinction exists.

Also, the metaphysics of the One is central to Islamic thought. This is entirely a theological issue. We're discussing theological logic and being in the world, which is given to be Allah, something I don't contend.

Allah is the origin and the essence of all things, I wonder, how is this not theological?

Idk, it sounds you're going all over the place, idk what you're trying to ask.
Anyway, Muslims have deviated off as-siratal-mustaqeem (the straight path), and we need to go back. The only way we can do so, is coming back to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.

[Unit 23]

I have an alternative explanation. Despite requesting emphasis in theology, you may actually currently lack the means to answer my questions. I get it. It's a big ask, and I was slightly brutal. Sorry for this.

That being said, I'm currently focusing my attention on the Ottomans, but I'm looking for an explanation as to why Islam was so popular so quickly, way before. Historically speaking, the growth really was impressive.

I get the Ottomans were essentially Turkic, but their legacy in interesting because it seems to contain a lot of extremes, and Islam was part of this. It may be factorial.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I have an alternative explanation. Despite requesting emphasis in theology, you may actually currently lack the means to answer my questions. I get it. It's a big ask, and I was slightly brutal. Sorry for this.

That being said, I'm currently focusing my attention on the Ottomans, but I'm looking for an explanation as to why Islam was so popular so quickly, way before. Historically speaking, the growth really was impressive.

I get the Ottomans were essentially Turkic, but their legacy in interesting because it seems to contain a lot of extremes, and Islam was part of this. It may be factorial.

Ooooh ok.
Well, the Islamic answer would be "Allah (SWT) blessed us to be superior".
The worldly answer has a lot of twists and turns. You'd have to read up on the early Islamic Khilafat to find your answer. In fact, I have a book that talks about just what you're looking for: Lost Islamic History by Firas AlKhateeb. It's a great book, I recommend much, and am currently reading it. Also, there's a website by the same name made by the same person: http://lostislamichistory.com

[Unit 23]

Thanks. I visited the link, these guys really loved their hats.

Let us know if your books turn up anything interesting.

[Negarakita]

Is this a serious question?

Its obvious, they are bastards

Funny name tho

[Genivaria]

I have something of a non-serious question.
And the inspiration of the question came from a fanfiction so be warned there.

In this story which was about the British Empire in the 2nd half there was an entire division of Muslim soldiers fighting and declaring their allegiance to the British Queen even going so far as to state that Allah blesses her.

While I found this to be an interesting addition by the author it made me question how likely this was.
My question isn't "Is it possible for Muslims to be loyal British citizens or soldiers?"
Because obviously they can.
The question is "do you think it feasible for Muslims to actually swear allegiance to the British Monarch who is also the head of the Church of England?"
Would that not be a contradiction?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I have something of a non-serious question.
And the inspiration of the question came from a fanfiction so be warned there.

In this story which was about the British Empire in the 2nd half there was an entire division of Muslim soldiers fighting and declaring their allegiance to the British Queen even going so far as to state that Allah blesses her.

While I found this to be an interesting addition by the author it made me question how likely this was.
My question isn't "Is it possible for Muslims to be loyal British citizens or soldiers?"
Because obviously they can.
The question is "do you think it feasible for Muslims to actually swear allegiance to the British Monarch who is also the head of the Church of England?"
Would that not be a contradiction?

Yeah, that's haram and they could be considered hypocrites.
Muslims should pledge allegiance only to Allah (SWT). We pledge allegiance to a Khalifah if he will rule fee sabeelillah (in the way of Allah [SWT]). Yes, Muslims can be loyal to non-Muslim leaders, but we should - in theory - only obey laws that don't contradict Al-Islam.

[Lower Nubia]

That being said, I'm currently focusing my attention on the Ottomans, but I'm looking for an explanation as to why Islam was so popular so quickly, way before. Historically speaking, the growth really was impressive.

Two words: Conquest and Jizya, literally the only land Islam occupies today is land they conquered 1,000 years ago, while also placing a tax on non-Muslims was definitely an easy method for an illiterate poor peasant to convert (hardly more than that). A central power comprised of Islamic ideals made Islam easy to convert to, because the highest power was of the same faith, hardly presenting a challenge for conversion in the peasantries eye. Muhammad himself experienced this: peaceful preaching in mecca, total failure, promise of riches in Medina, gains followers, from there his successors conquer most of Dar Al-Islam*. Even in Indonesia (one of the few regions outside this conquest zone) suffered low conversions in its land until specific kingdoms gained military power to apply the words outlined above. How much more evidence would you need other than the fact that after Muhammad himself there was a revolt, across the land he said as the cornerstone of Islam, against the faith forced upon them. Even with these two things Islam was slow, in Egypt (as shown by the large proportion of Coptics today) there was a distinct lack of Islamic conversion, even with the aforementioned pressures, outside of Cairo itself and many areas remained largely Christian for many centuries after the conquests.

*Many would claim that the rapid spread of Islam was a "sign from Allah", even though the conversion to Islam was the easiest religious swap of the day seeing as the state agreed with you! Yet the same conquest of Muslim lands by western countries in the 19th centuries, or the rapid spread of Atheism under communist regimes aren't seen as an equal denial of the very power Allah had apparently "bestowed upon his people".

[Mujahidah]

faith forced upon them

That's not how Islam works, dude.

Don't project Charlemagne onto us.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Al-Islam wasn't always forced on non-Muslims, that depends on the Islamic nation.
Also, jizyah wasn't just enforced on peaseants, nor was/should be a way to oppress non-Muslims, that depends on the Islamic nation also.

[Lower Nubia]

faith forced upon them

That's not how Islam works, dude.

Don't project Charlemagne onto us.

Wow, now that’s I’ve been shown the truth, I guess I’ll deny history. The issue of course is what I term for Christian interpretation as the ‘Evangelical effect’, “that’s not how you interpret it! The people of history merely added man made traditions and corruptions to the text, the [insert religious text here] clearly shows this tradition to be false as shown here [add this religious text verses].” The problem of course is that Islam did expand mainly through conquest and Jizya, (which is not necessarily forced conversion, but it definitely is an easy factor to convert) though It can be happily pointed out that many besieged cities had a convert or die event, though not exclusively across all conquests, thus, making either Caliphs contradictory or your interpretation off or twisted, and history points to a very clear answer.

The issue with the Medievil conversions is that (and I agree they were contemptible) Christianity had spread for 300 years after Christ without state support. Islam has the exact opposite, it only expanded for the first 300 years under state support. Using another faiths stupidity doesn’t get Islam off the hook. The discussion is Islam, not Frankish kings. If I could use another groups expansion as the gauge of the limits or irrelevancy of the spread of Islam I could happily turn to the increase in Atheists in communist China, or the 1.1 billion Hindus living today, but what does this prove other than marking yourself on other accomplishments, hardly the Muhammed gauge described by Islam no?

Ultimately I responded to the question beyond an “Allah blessed his people” line of thinking and answered the question: Islam spread mainly, not exclusively, through conquest and Jizya during its juvenile development stages.

Edit: Mujahidah and Kabumba’s answers are different, which is interesting, nothing proven, just an odd observation.

[Proctopeo]

faith forced upon them

That's not how Islam works, dude.

Don't project Charlemagne onto us.

Just because the Quran says that they shouldn't doesn't mean people didn't, and that they don't.
You come off as rather gullible by claiming so.

Kubumba's answer was more realistic, saying "some did and some do, but not everyone, depends on the context really".

[Kubumba Tribe]

That's not how Islam works, dude.

Don't project Charlemagne onto us.

Wow, now that’s I’ve been shown the truth, I guess I’ll deny history. The issue of course is what I term for Christian interpretation as the ‘Evangelical effect’, “that’s not how you interpret it! The people of history merely added man made traditions and corruptions to the text, the [insert religious text here] clearly shows this tradition to be false as shown here [add this religious text verses].” The problem of course is that Islam did expand mainly through conquest and Jizya, (which is not necessarily forced conversion, but it definitely is an easy factor to convert) though It can be happily pointed out that many besieged cities had a convert or die event, though not exclusively across all conquests, thus, making either Caliphs contradictory or your interpretation off or twisted, and history points to a very clear answer.

The issue with the Medievil conversions is that (and I agree they were contemptible) Christianity had spread for 300 years after Christ without state support. Islam has the exact opposite, it only expanded for the first 300 years under state support. Using another faiths stupidity doesn’t get Islam off the hook. The discussion is Islam, not Frankish kings. If I could use another groups expansion as the gauge of the limits or irrelevancy of the spread of Islam I could happily turn to the increase in Atheists in communist China, or the 1.1 billion Hindus living today, but what does this prove other than marking yourself on other accomplishments, hardly the Muhammed gauge described by Islam no?

Ultimately I responded to the question beyond an “Allah blessed his people” line of thinking and answered the question: Islam spread mainly, not exclusively, through conquest and Jizya during its juvenile development stages.

Edit: Mujahidah and Kabumba’s answers are different, which is interesting, nothing proven, just an odd observation.

Again, jizya is not the only reasons Al-Islam expanded. It's not even the main reason.
Also, not all non-Muslims were forced into Al-Islam, that depends on the Muslim leader.

[Kubumba Tribe]

That's not how Islam works, dude.

Don't project Charlemagne onto us.

Just because the Quran says that they shouldn't doesn't mean people didn't, and that they don't.
You come off as rather gullible by claiming so.

Kubumba's answer was more realistic, saying "some did and some do, but not everyone, depends on the context really".

She's still right. That ain't how Al-Islam works. Muslims who force(d) Al-Islam are committing a sin.

[Proctopeo]

Just because the Quran says that they shouldn't doesn't mean people didn't, and that they don't.
You come off as rather gullible by claiming so.

Kubumba's answer was more realistic, saying "some did and some do, but not everyone, depends on the context really".

She's still right. That ain't how Al-Islam works. Muslims who force(d) Al-Islam are committing a sin.

However, Lower Nubia is also right - people did have Islam forced upon them, whether the Quran allowed it or not.

[Mujahidah]

She's still right. That ain't how Al-Islam works. Muslims who force(d) Al-Islam are committing a sin.

However, Lower Nubia is also right - people did have Islam forced upon them, whether the Quran allowed it or not.

Nubia rather misrepresented how things operated. The Jizyah was not intended as a forced conversion. Did such things happen? Sure. They were wrong. However they are neither condoned by my faith, nor are they a part of it, as was implied.