Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Insaanistan]

Oh, and before I go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_ ... _of_Persia

[Washington Resistance Army]

Oh, and before I go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_ ... _of_Persia

Zoroastrians were made to pay an extra tax called jizya, failing which they were either killed, enslaved or imprisoned. Those paying jizya were subjected to insults and humiliation by the tax collectors.[62][63][64] Zoroastrians who were captured as slaves in wars were given their freedom if they converted to Islam.[62][65] While giving freedom of choice, the Arab conquerors designated privileges for those who converted to Islam.[66] The conversion process was slow and never fully completed, stretching over many centuries, with a majority of Persians still following Zoroastrianism at the turn of the millennium.[67]

Muslim leaders in their effort to win converts encouraged attendance at Muslim prayer with promises of money

Those aren't the actions of tolerant regimes I'm afraid. That's allowing an image of freedom to mask the reality of the situation.

I do hope you come back though. If nothing else I enjoy the discussions this thread produces.

[Diarcesia]

Oh, and before I go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_ ... _of_Persia

Zoroastrians were made to pay an extra tax called jizya, failing which they were either killed, enslaved or imprisoned. Those paying jizya were subjected to insults and humiliation by the tax collectors.[62][63][64] Zoroastrians who were captured as slaves in wars were given their freedom if they converted to Islam.[62][65] While giving freedom of choice, the Arab conquerors designated privileges for those who converted to Islam.[66] The conversion process was slow and never fully completed, stretching over many centuries, with a majority of Persians still following Zoroastrianism at the turn of the millennium.[67]

Muslim leaders in their effort to win converts encouraged attendance at Muslim prayer with promises of money

Those aren't the actions of tolerant regimes I'm afraid. That's allowing an image of freedom to mask the reality of the situation.

I do hope you come back though. If nothing else I enjoy the discussions this thread produces.

Tbf this is not something unique to the Arabs. Conquering people do this kind of thing all the time in earlier history.

[Dahyan]

The Crusades were retaliation after centuries of Muslim invasion of Christian lands. Many of the actions taken under the banner of "Crusade" were unjust, but as a whole they were less unjust than, say, the Umayyad conquest of Iberia, or the Seljuk invasion of Anatolia.

I won't deny: No one is infallible. Not even Muslims. The Caliphates I don't consider real Caliphates. The reason is that a true Caliph is one who reforms Islam and guides the Muslims back to the Holy Qur'an & Sunnah. For instance, the Umayyads often deviated from this. Their kings wanted wealth & power. Same with the Abbasids even if they tolerated the ulama more than the Umayyads as the Arab slave trade started under them.

No one is infallible nor do two wrongs make a right.

This. The Umayyads and Abbasids were illegitimate claimants to the Caliphate. They were in violation of the Sunnah of the Prophet and even of the Sunni precedent of electing Caliphs.

Not to mention that, according to my Zaydi convictions, they were illegitimate due to the fact that they weren't elected Sayyid descendants of Imam Ali and Sayyida Fatimah al-Zahra.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Those aren't the actions of tolerant regimes I'm afraid. That's allowing an image of freedom to mask the reality of the situation.

I do hope you come back though. If nothing else I enjoy the discussions this thread produces.

Tbf this is not something unique to the Arabs. Conquering people do this kind of thing all the time in earlier history.

Oh absolutely and I've never claimed otherwise. But any serious study of history does do a lot of damage to the whole "the caliphates were tolerant" thing. You can sorta make that claim in regard to their relations with the other Abrahamic faiths, but beyond that you'd be out of luck if the local Muslim lord decided he didn't want your faith around anymore.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Those aren't the actions of tolerant regimes I'm afraid. That's allowing an image of freedom to mask the reality of the situation.

I do hope you come back though. If nothing else I enjoy the discussions this thread produces.

Tbf this is not something unique to the Arabs. Conquering people do this kind of thing all the time in earlier history.

Oh absolutely and I've never claimed otherwise. But any serious study of history does do a lot of damage to the whole "the caliphates were tolerant" thing. You can sorta make that claim in regard to their relations with the other Abrahamic faiths, but beyond that you'd be out of luck if the local Muslim lord decided he didn't want your faith around anymore.

[Dahyan]

No no no. You’re wrong on so many levels. The message is for all of mankind, but it was sent to the Arabs in a way they could understand because they were the ones who needed the most. Whenever God sends a messenger to a people, it means they (at the time it is being revealed to them) are the worst out of all of mankind and need God’s guidance the most. Hence, why when I prophet is sent to a people, he is the most righteous from amongst the people. His rules are still clear. You don’t have to say something in exact words for it to be what you are saying.

Islam calls for slavery’s abolition, and abolishes the ways slaves are normally taken. It also improves the lives of the slaves for the time being, until the time for the slave’s mukataba is over and the slave has gained freedom. Nothing I have ever said glorifies or sugarcoats slavery. I have just been explaining mukataba, explanation you refuse to acknowledge. If Islam says that we should submit only to God, all people are equal, and bans the ways of getting slaves, then imposes mukataba (a contract of manumission), then it’s clear it’s saying slavery is bad.

Have you never heard of a Hadith? Many are told by Sahaba (Companions of the Prophet peace be upon him).

So Islam simultaneously calls for slavery's abolition yet still permits the taking of slaves.

Do you really not see the hypocrisy here?

It does not permit the taking of slaves. The Arab slave trade is an invention of later rulers, and a violation of Islamic principles in and of itself.

[Jolthig]

So Islam simultaneously calls for slavery's abolition yet still permits the taking of slaves.

Do you really not see the hypocrisy here?

It does not permit the taking of slaves. The Arab slave trade is an invention of later rulers, and a violation of Islamic principles in and of itself.

I'll be explaining this concept with my post tomorrow.

[Jolthig]

Tbf this is not something unique to the Arabs. Conquering people do this kind of thing all the time in earlier history.

Oh absolutely and I've never claimed otherwise. But any serious study of history does do a lot of damage to the whole "the caliphates were tolerant" thing. You can sorta make that claim in regard to their relations with the other Abrahamic faiths, but beyond that you'd be out of luck if the local Muslim lord decided he didn't want your faith around anymore.

It honestly depended on the ruler. Not that much different than any other king around the world to be quite fair.

[Dahyan]

Oh, and before I go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_ ... _of_Persia

Zoroastrians were made to pay an extra tax called jizya, failing which they were either killed, enslaved or imprisoned. Those paying jizya were subjected to insults and humiliation by the tax collectors.[62][63][64] Zoroastrians who were captured as slaves in wars were given their freedom if they converted to Islam.[62][65] While giving freedom of choice, the Arab conquerors designated privileges for those who converted to Islam.[66] The conversion process was slow and never fully completed, stretching over many centuries, with a majority of Persians still following Zoroastrianism at the turn of the millennium.[67]

Muslim leaders in their effort to win converts encouraged attendance at Muslim prayer with promises of money

Those aren't the actions of tolerant regimes I'm afraid. That's allowing an image of freedom to mask the reality of the situation.

I do hope you come back though. If nothing else I enjoy the discussions this thread produces.

I for one am not going to deny the violence that accompanied the conquest of Persia.
Interestingly, modern Iranian historiography tends to be quite open about the massacres that were committed by some of the invaders, and tends to be quite critical of the conquests, despite being written by Islamic historians.

[Dahyan]

Oh absolutely and I've never claimed otherwise. But any serious study of history does do a lot of damage to the whole "the caliphates were tolerant" thing. You can sorta make that claim in regard to their relations with the other Abrahamic faiths, but beyond that you'd be out of luck if the local Muslim lord decided he didn't want your faith around anymore.

It honestly depended on the ruler. Not that much different than any other king around the world to be quite fair.

Indeed. And that's the point. Muslims aren't infallible. There have been horrible rulers who professed to be Muslim, and there still are. Their punishment will be all the worse.

[Jolthig]

It honestly depended on the ruler. Not that much different than any other king around the world to be quite fair.

Indeed. And that's the point. Muslims aren't infallible. There have been horrible rulers who professed to be Muslim, and there still are. Their punishment will be all the worse.

Insha'Allah

[North German Realm]

Those aren't the actions of tolerant regimes I'm afraid. That's allowing an image of freedom to mask the reality of the situation.

I do hope you come back though. If nothing else I enjoy the discussions this thread produces.

I for one am not going to deny the violence that accompanied the conquest of Persia.
Interestingly, modern Iranian historiography tends to be quite open about the massacres that were committed by some of the invaders, and tends to be quite critical of the conquests, despite being written by Islamic historians.

It was essentially their own way of rebelling against Muslims actually. The thing about old Iranian Muslims is that well, the "Muslim-ness" of a lot of them is heavily exaggerated and not at all true (most of the Iranian scientists during the Golden Age of Islam, for example, got as far as nearly getting Takfir'd. Razi, Farabi and Ibn Sina being some examples.) Tabari in particular, who's history most of us find as a primary source for early Islamic History in Iran, probably wrote his detailed history as a way of demonizing the Umayyads [who Iranians hated for a variety of reasons] than any so-called honesty to Islamic tradition.

[Jolthig]

That's not necessarily my experience. While everyone is capable of comprehending a thing provided they do not have a defect in their minds, according to our psychology, people will be biased. I am not excluded from this, but I feel from my experience, my own bias on this subject is justified as I do not find faults with any of the Quranic verses cited by those who question Islam. Why? Not because I feel my religion says so, but because as I've told you yesterday, there is context behind everything.

Some Quranic verses are clear & others are not. Given the Quran an eternal book according to the beliefs of Muslims, it is required for a Muslim to take everything into account when interpreting a quranic verse. Thus, I reject the notion that the Quran abrogates itself as proposed by some Muslim scholars the past 14 centuries as pointed out by others, these are grounded in unfounded narrations.

If you feel the faith is flawed for these reasons, then note that again, it is a difference between both of our biases. We are both capable of reading the verse, but the only way to demonstrate the differences, is if we discuss any Quranic verse that you feel are unclear or make absolutely no sense as I don't know how else to explain it within simple words.

Given my discussions with you, you seem uninterested in the Quran, which can be a flaw when analyzing the Quran. One must be willing to read the verse word for word, and not out of reluctance if it does not fit the interests of whoever is reading. Perhaps I could be wrong, assuming you are an ex Muslim, but still, this is generally what I've noticed when I compare what I've read out of the Quran to those who have as well, but find issues with it.

I don't say this to single you out alone as this is my experience as well with reading books I am not interested in as my own bias also clouds my willingness to read them.

Perhaps I'm saying the same thing as Insaanistan now, but I can only demonstrate the burden of proof from myself if we both go over the verses you find questionable together in here.

Alright. To return to the issue of slavery - the Quran does to explicitly say "slave", but rather utilises the phrase "that which your right hands own" (4:36). This itself is a problem, because while the meaning may have well been clear at the time the tribesman decided to write these words onto parchment, but today, the fact that there is a debate regarding what this means, precisely, demonstrates to us that the deity of this religion has not seen it fit to make it any clearer to those who might doubt it. It is a convoluted explanation, one which sacrifices legibility in favour of an artistic demonstration of language. Good, perhaps, for demonstrating one's capacity to write; not as good if you mean to explain something definitely to a large audience, in this case, the entirety of mankind. Once more, the fact that there is a debate as to what this phrase is supposed to mean itself is a failing of the Quran and its proposed deity, as it is unclear, whereas one would expect that the rules and standards by which this deity is going to judge his creations would be crystal clear, and kept crystal clear throughout the ages.

This is not what the Quranic Arabic intends to convey regarding the phrase: ما ملکت ایمانکم Ma Malakat Aimanukum ("what your right hands possess"). The Qur'an is absolutely clear that "what your right hands possess" means "slavery" and has no other meaning. If any scholar says anything contrary to the clear meanings conveyed by the Qur'an, then, their analysis of the verse, ما ملکت ایمانکم (what your right hands possess) cannot be taken as true. Having brought up the topic of linguistics, I will present some evidence behind the phrase: Ma Malakat Aimanukum ("what your right hands posses"). The first part of the phrase (emphasis bolded) "Ma Malakat Aimanukum" I want to talk about is the word ملک Malaka.

The definition provided by Lane's Lexicon of the Arabic Language with English definitions is as follows:

مَلَكَهُ He possessed it, or owned it, [and particularly] with ability to have it to himself exclusively: (M, Ḳ:) [and he exercised, or had, authority over it; for] مُلْكٌ signifies the exercise of authority to command and to forbid in respect of the generality of a people [&c.]: (Er-Rághib, TA:) or the having possession and command or authority: and the having power to exercise command or authority. (TA.) مِلْكٌ, as inf. n. of مَلَكَهُ meaning He possessed it, is more common than مَلْكٌ and مُلْكٌ.

This is the same word that is used in the first chapter of the Qur'an when we say: Malik-i-Yaum-i-deen (Master of the Day of Judgement. It also used to refer to kings, lords, or as we are discussing right now, slave-owners. Thus, it can refer to anyone that holds dominion over anything. Moreover, a word that is derived from Malaka to refer to "slaves" other than the more commonly known word 'Abd is مملوك Mamluk:

مَمْلُوكٌ A slave; a bondman; syn. عَبْدٌ, (Ṣ,) or رَقِيقٌ. (TA.)

As explained above, Mamluk is a synonym of 'Abd. To add an example from the books of hadith, is Sunan Dawud #5156. The chapter heading that Imam Abu Dawud adds is باب فِي حَقِّ الْمَمْلُوكِ (Chapter: Regarding the rights of slaves). Note that it contains the word, Mamluk in the sentence. The hadith then goes on to state:

‏ الصَّلاَةَ الصَّلاَةَ اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ فِيمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ‏(The last words which the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) spoke were: Prayer, prayer; fear Allah about those whom your right hands possess.)

It is clear that what your right hands possess means slaves. Since the right hand is often viewed as a symbol of power & dominion within Islam & other Abrahamic faiths, the linguistic evidence I've provided should debunk anyone who argues "what your right hands possess" means something else. Regardless of the era, the verse is still clear it refers to slavery. Literally, Mamluk means "possession", which in turn is derived from the phrase: Ma Malakat Aimanukum. I don't think there's any debate on this subject tbh as the Arabic is quite clear. Not just to the tribesmen of the era this verse was revealed, but for the modern era as well. This does not mean, I am advocating for slavery. Rather, I am conveying the clear meanings of the Arabic words. I will explain why I do not advocate for slavery from the text of the Qur'an later on within this post.

The commonly held view is that Islam is accepting of slavery, but encourages that slave-owners be kind to their slaves, and to treat them well. However, it, by no means, emancipates slaves. It gives them no freedom, it does not command that there shall be no slaves; rather, it merely "encourages" slave-owners to be "kind" to their slaves. It, in the end, leaves it to the conscience and judgement of the slave-owner as to how he shall deal with his slave. Should the slave-owner desire, he may keep his slave bereft of his freedom for his entire life, in spite of a slave wishing to be free. Islam has no qualms with this: It accepts the power imbalance between two humans.

Yes, it's true that Muslims should be kind to their slaves, but that is not all of it. You are incorrect in your analysis of the Qur'an that there is no freeing of slaves prescribed. To the contrary, the Holy Qur'an has prescribed various methods for the freeing of slaves: The freeing of a slave if a Muslim commits a major sin such as accidentally killing a fellow Muslim, killing a Muslim from a tribe of mainly disbelieving people, killing someone from whom the Muslims have a treaty with, calling his wife his mother, etc. or the Qur'an prescribes a system known as Mukaatabat, where a contract is made between a master & his slave where it is proven that the slave is skillful enough for business & if he is mature enough to take to be financially independent. This is not to the discretion of the master, but rather, the intervention of the Islamic State. As for the source of slavery itself, Islam destroys the root of slavery. That being the stealing of free people from lands, even after a war has ended, is strictly forbidden by Islam, thus, debunking the justification of the Arab slave trade of later centuries of Islamic history.

when you have overcome them, bind fast the fetters — then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom — until the war lays down its burdens.

Captives (or depriving any free man of their freedom into slavery) can only be taken in war, but after the war finishes, they must be released or ransomed.

As for the form of slavery that has already existed with the advent of Islam, two systems of how to free a slave is made by the Qur'an:

And such as desire a deed of manumission in writing from among those whom your right hands possess, write it for them if you know any good in them; and give them out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you.

The above verse is what prescribes Mukaatabat. Commentating on this word from Lane's Lexicon:

كاتبهُ, inf. n. مُكَاتَبَةٌ (Az, Ḳ, Mṣb) and كِتَابٌ, (Az, Mṣb,) ‡ He (a slave) made a written [or other] contract with him (his master), that he (the former) should pay a certain sum as the price of himself, and on the payment thereof be free: (Ḳ, &c. also he (a master) made such a contract with him (his slave): (Az, Mṣb, &c. andتكاتبا↓ They two made such a contract, one with the other. (Mṣb.) The slave in this case is called مُكَاتَبٌ (Ṣ, Mṣb) and also مُكَاتِبٌ; and so is the master; the act being mutual. (Mṣb.) [But the lawyers in the present day call the slave مُكَاتَبٌ only; and the master, مُكَاتِبٌ.] الكِتَابَةُ, signifying “what is written,” is tropically used by the professors of practical law as syn. with المُكَاتَبَةُ, because the contract above mentioned was generally written; and is so used by them when nothing is written. It was thus called in the age of el-Islám, accord. to Az. These two words are said by Z to be syn.; but it is thought that he may have written the former by mistake for الكِتَابُ, adding the ة by a slip of the pen. (Mṣb.)

As for the freeing of slaves when a Muslim commits a major sin:

It does not become a believer to kill a believer unless it be by mistake. And he who kills a believer by mistake shall free a believing slave, and pay blood money to be handed over to his heirs, unless they remit it as charity. But if the person slain be of a people hostile to you, and be a believer, then the offender shall free a believing slave; and if he be of a people between whom and you is a pact, then the offender shall pay blood money to be handed over to his heirs, and free a believing slave. But whoso finds not one, then he shall fast for two consecutive months — a mercy from Allah. And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.

No matter how ones such as Insaanistan and no doubt others may try to spin the institution of slavery by sugar-coating and double-thinking it, slavery - including the "slavery is freedom" idea paraded around by the aforementioned person - is widely regarded today, in whatever shape it may take, to be against human dignity. The nature of the work a slave is required to undertake as part of his role is of absolutely no relevance, rather, the fact that a slave has no freedom to live as he may desire without the permission of his master is the focal point. He lives and dies at the behest of his master, and not of his volition, inherent to his status as a slave. I'll underline once more that Islam, at its foundation, has no problems with this relationship.

Well, for me, I don't really sugar-coat it. I state what the Qur'an says, and that's it. Within Islam, slaves should be viewed as brothers to their masters. This is especially the case for those that are Muslims themselves. Matter of fact, during the early Meccan period, the majority of Meccans who accepted Islam were slaves, including the famous companion, Bilal, who called the Adhan (call to prayer). So while on paper, as shown in the lexicon definitions above, the master is above the slave and may do as he wishes since the slave is his possession, according to Muhammad, a master should not feel superior over his slave:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "You should not say, 'Feed your lord (Rabbaka), help your lord in performing ablution, or give water to your lord, but should say, 'my master (e.g. Feed your master instead of lord etc.) (Saiyidi), or my guardian (Maulai), and one should not say, my slave (Abdi), or my girl-slave (Amati), but should say, my lad (Fatai), my lass (Fatati), and 'my boy (Ghulami).

This hadith indicates that slavery according to the Qur'an should be like that of treating your relatives; you treat them kindly (4:36; 37 in the translation I use). The reason being is that since the Arabs economically had nothing, with the exception of herding, & bartering, slavery was used. The Qur'an only - as mentioned above - favored a progressive abolition of slavery (i.e. captives can only be captured during warfare, then released or ransomed (47:5), if a Muslim commits a major sin, freeing of slaves is required if he has the means (4:93), & the system of Mukaatabat (contracting) where a slave works to pay off his master & become a freed man (24:34)). So unlike, alcohol, pork, idolatry, & anal sex as you've mentioned below, as I've consistently argued the past 2 years, it favors a more progressive approach to the abolition of slavery, with the first thing being that people can only be captured in war, then released or ransomed, as well as the other two verses mentioned after.

This supposedly benevolent deity, which demonstrates a willingness to forbid other things to humans for one reason or another (e.g. forbidding the consumption of pork, forbidding anal sex, forbidding idolatry, etc.) sees it fit to merely "discourage" slavery, as opposed to outright forbidding it, as it has seen fit to do so for other elements of human life. Therefore, putting the two together, the god of Islam accepts slavery. Why? Muslims might come up with all sorts of explanations for it - indeed, Insaanistan and others have already done so - but it is my belief that it is a simple matter of political economy, and nothing to do with some deity. If you are trying to spread a faith under which people shall be organised into a large in-group and you need political and economic support, it would be best to keep those who have power - economic power, primarily - on your side. One would expect that those with economic power also own plenty of slaves, and to mandate that they be all emancipated would serve only to drive them away from you.

sees it fit to merely "discourage" slavery, as opposed to outright forbidding it, as it has seen fit to do so for other elements of human life

Given the time when the Qur'an was revealed, slavery wasn't really discarded throughout much of the world until later on. Although the United Nations Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 4, & the Qur'an favor mankind as being one universal brotherhood, the approaches of both the UN & Qur'an differ on how to abolish slavery. Now that I am transitioning to the modern era, I will explain how the Quranic verses I've just mentioned apply to this modern era or even relevant.

As I've mentioned earlier in this post:

As for the source of slavery itself, Islam destroys the root of slavery. That being the stealing of free people from lands, even after a war has ended, is strictly forbidden by Islam, thus, debunking the justification of the Arab slave trade of later centuries of Islamic history.

when you have overcome them, bind fast the fetters — then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom — until the war lays down its burdens.

Captives (or depriving any free man of their freedom into slavery) can only be taken in war, but after the war finishes, they must be released or ransomed.

The Qur'an only - as mentioned above - favored a progressive abolition of slavery (i.e. captives can only be captured during warfare, then released or ransomed (47:5)

as I've consistently argued the past 2 years, it favors a more progressive approach to the abolition of slavery, with the first thing being that people can only be captured in war, then released or ransomed

Historians have stated that slavery started during war, and various nations including the more well known ones of the Egyptian, Roman, & Persian empires, captured people they conquered, and used as slaves to serve their empires. The verse I've mentioned returns to the root of this institution. Let's take a brief analysis of this verse:

And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, bind fast the fetters — then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom — until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if Allah had so pleased, He could have punished them Himself, but He has willed that He may try some of you by others. And those who are killed in the way of Allah — He will never render their works vain.

And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve ... until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance.

In addition:

It does not behove a Prophet that he should have captives until he engages in regular fighting in the land. You desire the goods of the world, while Allah desires for you the Hereafter. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Thus, slavery is not allowed when the Islamic State is not at war with an entity. Now that we are in the modern era, much of the world, based off the constitutions of various nations the past few centuries, with the additions of the UN Charter & the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4, slavery is no longer in use, and now, Muslims cannot take slaves. With factions such as ISIS, & the gang groups in Africa, they are actually going against this verse. As did the Arabs past the 9th century.

It is interesting that Wikipedia states in its article on Arab slave trade:

Islamic sharia law allowed slavery but prohibited slavery involving other free men, allowing only the enslavement of prisoners of war;[78] as a result, the main target for slavery were the people who lived in the frontier areas of the Muslim world. Slaves initially came from various regions, including Central Asia (such as mamluks) and Europe (such as saqaliba), but by the modern period, slaves came mostly from Africa.[79]

The first part of the passage of Wikipedia is correct. However, given the aggressive expansion of the caliphates, they deviated from the Qur'an that war can only be defensive:

Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them —Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty —Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.

And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is freely professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.

It does not behove a Prophet that he should have captives until he engages in regular fighting in the land. You desire the goods of the world, while Allah desires for you the Hereafter. And Allah is Mighty, Wise. And fight them until there is no persecution and religion is wholly for Allah. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Watchful of what they do.

Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.

It seems from what I've read on the Zanj, they even stayed slaves even after the wars with their tribes ended which is also in violation of the above verses. Nevertheless, it should be clear, from the perspective of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, and more importantly, the Qur'an & ahadith, that the enslavement of prisoners of wars is not in force today as a result of the abolishing of slavery. It should also be recognized as indicated by the fact, 47:5 says there should be "ransom", this indicates the enemy also did slavery, and enslaved captive Muslims. So while the Qur'an does not outright abolish slavery through the stroke of the pen, it is most surely discouraged, and that its progressive abolishing through the freeing of slaves if a Muslim commits sins, the system of contracting (Mukaatabat) between a master & slave by orders of the government, freeing of slaves following the conclusion of a peace treaty, exchanging enslaved captives for enslaved Muslim captives of the party whom a treaty is made, & the freeing of slaves in general to gain the pleasure of Allah, is what is proposed by the Qur'an. As for other forms of slavery, other than that of prisoners of war to the conclusion of a treaty, these forms of slavery are abolished, and it is against the Qur'an to subjugate the poor & needy in society as slaves.

The enslavement of prisoners of war is both a punishment & retaliation to the enemy who do the same thing is the Law of War proposed by the Qur'an. I would also add, that there was no prisons in the era of Muhammad, and that state prisons did not come until much later. Why did the Qur'an not propose this system of imprisonment 1400 years ago? Because it was unrealistic for that time. It was incumbent on the Muslims themselves to enforce the laws of the Qur'an. When you're in a state of war, and your enemy is capturing & enslaving your people, especially the most weak, there is no other choice, but to capture enemy soldiers, and whoever is with them, in turn. War isn't about physical fighting. It's also, mental & psychological. By capturing members of an enemy tribe or nation, this is intended to get the enemy to come to their senses, and come to a peace treaty, to exchange captives; to conclude the war.

There are various ways of the Qur'an to get those who oppose Islam to desist from going to war or persecuting the Muslims. Even then, not all members of an enemy nation are to be enslaved. If anyone wants to learn about Islam without harm, the 6th verse of the 9th chapter states:

And if anyone of the idolaters ask protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah; then convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a people who have no knowledge.

So it is clear that only an combatant (مقاتل) & anyone who gives aid to them, are to be enslaved. But for those who don't wish to fight, one has no right to enslave them. Thus, Islam has a balanced system regarding the institution of slavery, its progressive abolishment, and an ability to adapt to modern change. Otherwise, it is clear slavery is forbidden, and it's better that slavery is not practiced, at all. The Qur'an agrees with the Universal Declaration that all men are one brotherhood, and no one should be subjected. Humanity must work together to build a better society.

This is based on a secular, i.e. scientifically testable reasoning, not religious rubbish which cannot be corroborated or cross-analysed with contemporary resources, or generally has no way of standing up to rigorous scientific study. Hence, I discard and disregard arguments based around the Quran itself, because in essence, it is a work of circular argument: it boils down to being correct because the Quran is correct, and yet, there is no evidence to suggest that the Quran has not been altered, modified, parts of it omitted, or otherwise tampered with.

This is simply not the rules of my argument nor the reasoning of what I argue. No Muslim informed in the matters of the Shariah (even with little knowledge) including myself will ever listen to your argument if you say: This is based on a secular, i.e. scientifically testable reasoning, not religious rubbish which cannot be corroborated or cross-analysed with contemporary resources, or generally has no way of standing up to rigorous scientific study. I will simply dismiss this approach much like how you dismiss mine. Calling a book religious rubbish is a personal incredulity fallacy because if one arguments they do not believe or understand why the Qur'an says this, but the Muslims don't practice that. does not disprove the injunctions set forth by the Qur'an. The example of Muhammad & his companions as stated above should suffice, and Muslims are required to follow the above injunctions of the Shariah. The Muslims mentioned earlier that do not follow suit, are going against the Shariah, and according to the Qur'an & Sunnah, their example should be rejected as it is not in line with the Shari'at. This hadith summarizes my approach on this subject which is the stance of the Hanafi school of thought in which the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as well probably some of my non-Ahmadi brothers in here follow as well:

Some men who were companions of Mu'adh narrated from Mu'adh that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent Mu'adh to Yemen, so he (ﷺ) said:
"How will you judge?" He said: "I will judge according to what is in Allah's Book." He said: "If it is not in Allah's Book ?" He said: "Then with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)." He said: "If it is not in the Sunnah of Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)?" He said: "I will give in my view." He said: "All praise is due to Allah, the One Who made the messenger of the Messenger of Allah suitable."

This is, if we need to make a judgement:

1. Appeal to the Qur'an.
2. Appeal to the Sunnah if it's not mentioned in Qur'an.
3. Give one's own view.

In my experience of debate, these are the methods I have used which includes this debate. Thus, if our approaches to a debate or making judgements differ, that's fine, but your standard of arguing cannot hold against Islamic Jurisprudence if you propose another method as it simply does not exist in this scenario.

The earliest reliable sources we have regarding Muhammad as a person, aside from the Quran - which is irrelevant - come from the 9th century-ish, a good two centuries after his death. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence that he supposedly lived the way Muslims claim he did: such aspects of his life could well have been fabricated later on in order to buttress the faith constructed around him.

The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate why there is no evidence Muhammad lived the way he did according to us. As for mine, according to the rules of Quranic Qira'at (recitation) & hadith science, the Arabs, mainly used oral transmissions to pass down their traditions or Quranic verses. There was a system of writing, yes, but most of those manuscripts have either not been found or they withered away with age. However, some including the Birmingham & Sana'a Codexes are proven to lie within the lifetime of Muhammad (especially his prophethood: 610-632) despite being dated 545 to 669. This is no problem in my humble opinion.

Next I wish to provide an example of the oral transmission of the Hafs qira'at, which is what most Muslims around the world use:

Qirâ'a from Kûfah:The reading of Aasim Ibn Abî an-Najûd (Aasim Ibn Bahdalah Ibn Abî an-Najûd):

He died in the year 127 or 128 H. He reported from Abû Abd ar-Rahmân as-Solammî and Zirr Ibn Hubaysh.

Abû Abd ar-Rahmân reported from Uthmân and Alî Ibn Abî Tâlib and 'Ubayy (Ibn Kab) and Zayd (Ibn Thâbit).

And Zirr reported from Ibn Masud.

To summarize, the transmitters were: Hafs --> Aasim Ibn Abi an-Najud --> Abu Abdur-Rahman as-Solammi & Zirr Ibn Hubaysh. In turn, Abdur-Rahman as-Solammi reported from Uthman & Ali, the 3rd & 4th caliphs, as well as Ubayy ibn Kab & Zayd bin Thabit.

This is proven to be an Uthmanic manuscript as it calls to mind the hadith, and I will quote a piece of it:

So `Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to `Uthman. `Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, `Abdullah bin AzZubair, Sa`id bin Al-As and `AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. `Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, `Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. `Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

In turn, the Quranic manuscripts that were based off the manuscript of Hafsa, wife of Muhammad & daughter of Umar, the second Caliph, which he inherited from Abu Bakr, the first Caliph:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailima). (I went to him) and found `Umar bin Al- Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "`Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to `Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" `Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project." `Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which `Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and `Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palme stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is: 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (at-Tauba) (9.128-129). Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with `Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of `Umar.

As one could see, Zayd bin Thabit, who is the man who created the manuscript of the Qur'an for Abu Bakr in the Quraish dialect in Bukhari 4986, and in turn, copied manuscripts from his manuscript he created for Abu Bakr, which through her father, Hafsa inherited from Umar, on orders of Uthaman within Bukhari 4987 to send to all the parts of the Caliphate to replace the 6 other ahruf (variations of words) that were originally made to avoid confusion among the Ummah. This field of science of the Qur'an and ahadith is very complex, and it would be too much to discuss on here, lest I bore all of you, but if one wishes for me to move forward in my next response, then I will do so. I also want to add that according to Wikipedia, quoted from Sadeghi & Goudarzi 2012's research paper on the Sana'a manuscript that:

The upper text largely conforms to the standard 'Uthmanic' Quran in text and in the standard order of suras

While the lower text seemed to be unchanged. So it seems the scribe or more than one scribe wrote this manuscript in the era of before and after Uthman, and that he did not have his manuscript burnt. Rather, they changed some of the wording of the upper text to conform to the Quraish dialect rather than the dialect of their area which is no problem according to the textual and oral transmission of the Qur'an because it it conforms to the Uthmanic standards, which in turn is derived from Zayd bin Thabit & Abu Bakr as Abu Bakr kept his own Quran written by Zayd bin Thabit. Keep in mind, Zayd bin Thabit was a scribe of Muhammad as well as indicted in the 4986 hadith of Bukhari:

Narrated Zayd bin Thabit:

Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Messenger (ﷺ).

And as I've said earlier regarding the Hafs qira'at (recitation) of the Quran:

To summarize, the transmitters were: Hafs --> Aasim Ibn Abi an-Najud --> Abu Abdur-Rahman as-Solammi & Zirr Ibn Hubaysh. In turn, Abdur-Rahman as-Solammi reported from Uthman & Ali, the 3rd & 4th caliphs, as well as Ubayy ibn Kab & Zayd bin Thabit.

So that is 4 sources of the pronunciation of the Quraish ahruf (dialect) of the Arabic language based off Bukhari, and with the evidence I've provided from the radio carbon dating of the Birmingham & Sana'a manuscripts and the style of the latter's Arabic Hijazi script and how the upper text is written in place over an old ahruf, it is in conformity with the Uthmanic codex. But I want to make it clear that Uthman did not change the Qur'an, but he simply preserved it from textual & oral corruption which is what happened to previous books. The ahruf of the Quraish dialect is nothing more than the textual work of Zayd bin Thabit, the scribe of Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, & Uthman.

The Qur'an is the same text & pronunciation as revealed to Muhammad, which in turn, given Muhammad is mentioned in the Qur'an, can point that Muhammad did in fact live in accordance with Islamic traditions. It is therefore, in accordance with history, that everything that I quoted as presented by Muslim sources is authentic & not fabricated, and there is no reason to reject them. Nor do you have any evidence whatsoever to say that Muhammad or the Muslims invented things to buttress the faith. What you have is only a hypothesis which is based on no historical or empirical evidence. However, the sources that we have provided strongly indicate that Islam is the same faith as revealed to Muhammad, and thus, the above is the demonstration of my own burden of proof.

If you have strong historical evidence to go against what I've posted above, then I challenge you to present it, and let's compare the authenticity of your references to mine. Remember, the only historians who documented Muhammad's life were Muslims. There was no 'secular' historians to document such things of Muhammad's life as is what you propose. You may dismiss my argument as Islamic bias, but you should know that I told you yesterday, no human is free without bias, and every historian throughout all of documented human history are biased one way or another. Thus, in order to distinguish between truth & falsehood, as you said, we must cross reference, and that's exactly what I have done in here, or at least close enough to the point my own evidence are related to one another. In the books of hadith science and the transmission of the Qur'an, this serves as no problem, but as stated earlier, this is field that requires a lot more to explain, and I do not wish for people to be bored by a long line of text as this post, even with the summaries I've provided of the transmission of the Qur'an is quite long in of itself so I will end my rebuttal to you here.

[Jolthig]

Salaamu Ālaykum everyone:

I have officially decided: I am leaving NationStates. I may come back every once in a while to say salaam to you all, but I’m not gonna be in any forums. I’ll spend the extra time I have gaining knowledge and reading Qur’ân, inshâAllah.
I’m gonna miss you all. Yes, even Trollzyn, Washington Resistance Army and Vistulange. And... maybe NGR. I pray God keeps all of you safe and well, whether you’re born Muslim or convert, Islam lover or Islamophobe, dark skinned or light skinned, I see you all as my brothers and sisters. Despite not really knowing any of you, I’m happy I got this experience to debate with you all.

PS: if you’re looking for a mildly funny story today, during Maghrib, my brother coughed in his hand. When I admonished him for it, he did it again and put his hand all over the prayer mat.

Peace to you all, love you guys, hope to argue with you sometime in the future ,

Insaanistan

Wa alaykum salaam.

I've made annoucements I'd leave nationstates in the past. similar to what you're saying, but I guarantee you'll be back within a month. NSG is like a black hole. You cannot escape it. Instead, I propose one should control their addiction to NSG. Keeping away from its most toxic parts, and if one catches themselves in a toxic situation, they must control it. Much like how I did with Vis yesterday. One should keep their interaction with any online site, moderate.

If you're committed to leaving, that's dedication, but you should not be unconfident brother. I wasn't the best at defending Islam either, but with experience, I've worked hard to know the perspective of my opponents, but also to research my own sources for my satisfaction. If you keep this in mind, nothing will stand in your way.

I may seem more knowledgeable than most of you brothers, but in truth, I am ignorant like everyone else. When one has much experience in reading, one will realize how ignorant one really is. Instead, one must speak the truth, and only the truth from what they found in the books they've read, when debating. This is what I do all the time.

Just some sincere advice.

[Jolthig]

Anyway, Trollzyn. You're next that I'm responding to. Your latest posts + your post from months ago in the misconceptions thread I am going to start making now, and will post by tonight.

[Vistulange]

-snip-

You miss my point entirely. I am not interested in the least bit under which circumstances slavery was admissible and who it was that was taken as slaves, such as prisoners of war. You engage in some mental gymnastics there, but all in all, the point is that unlike the consumption of pork, for example, which is strictly forbidden, slavery is not.

That's all there is to it. You aren't parroting the "slavery is freedom" line, which I appreciate, but you're still trying to work around the fact that slavery, in some shape or form, is permissible in Islam. This god, timeless and eternal as he is, saw fit to prohibit certain parts of human behaviour, but he chooses to refrain from banning slavery, because it was uncommon at the time? Congratulations, you've convinced me even further that this god is immoral and should not be worshipped.

As for the bit about Muhammad, you don't get to call "proof of burden", Jolthig, because the proof of burden rests precisely on you: those who claim that Muhammad lived a certain way, not on those who are sceptical of accounts. There is a fundamental difference between religious rubbish and secular thinking, and do not ever make the mistake of thinking they are in any way equal. Religious thinking is based on myths and beliefs, and are hardly testable, boiling down to circular arguments using a holy text and some sayings from mythical figures who may not even have said them. Secular reasoning is based upon the scientific method, hypotheses, and the rigorous testing of these hypotheses; it is the latter that has brought our civilisation forward, not the former. Therefore, it is a given that I will not consider the Quran and supposed hadiths to be serious, because they are not the product of secular thinking, but rather, myths.

To take hadiths and the traditional historiography of Islam seriously is the equivalent of taking Homer seriously, in the context of the Trojan War, in that we know that there was such a city as Troy, and that some war occurred between Troy and the Greeks, and yet, the rest of Homer's writings such as Achilles and much of the Iliad and the Odyssey are myths and legends. More importantly, however, we have the capacity to corroborate what Homer tells us. He speaks of Troy, and had that been our only source, we would have been - rightfully - suspicious of its existence. However, archaeology - a secular science - has given us evidence that Troy did indeed exist, its process and findings completely independent of Homer.

Another example is the Seljuk pirate Çaka Bey, which presents an opposite example. What is told of him is told solely by the Alexiad, a volume by Anna Komnenos. As only one other independent and semi-historical work even mentions him, we simply don't know about the details of his life. There are many myths and legends circulating around him, but none can be confirmed.

In the case of Muhammad, it is certainly the latter. Your very argument relies on the Quran being perfectly preserved, which is once more reliant upon one's believing in the Quran.

The Qur'an is the same text & pronunciation as revealed to Muhammad

You don't know this. You believe in this, which are two very different things, Jolthig. This whole nonsense of sticking your fingers into your ears, and acting as though this massive circular argument makes sense, and then having the gall to smugly deny the superiority of the secular sciences, it's not winning you any favours.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Well actually, God sent angels to tell Lut about it first.

Yeah, I know. Still didn't ask him if he wanted the city burnt to ash. He just went and did it. Ergo, Him asking Muhammad if he wants Taif to be razed makes no logical sense given the context.

Still not justifying slavery.

Yes, you have. You have outright admitted that slavery exists in Islam just so slavers can score brownie points with God for freeing slaves. That sounds like justification to me.

The Union soldiers were at war.

Had the Muslims fought to liberate the slaves in Mecca, they would have been at war as well. Yet you claimed this was "stealing".

Historically speaking, while he had admirable efforts, John Brown has and will always be regarded as insane and a terrible planner. He did not have the strength to actually pull of the rebellion.

Which was irrelevant. He didn't care. He fought for what he believed in. He went to his death unashamed and without remorse. As he walked to the gallows to be hanged, surrounded only by men who despised him, he held his head high. Christ did the same thing, and unlike John Brown, He had a chance to flee. Yet He didn't. He walked to His death willingly. There was a movement of peaceful, anti-Nazi students who openly opposed the NSDAP. They walked to their deaths willingly.

All these people - and many more - were willing to die for what they believed was right. So then why was Abu Bakr and all the other Muslims who were supposedly against slavery, not? Why did Islam - which is supposedly against slavery - permit the taking of POWs as slaves anyway? Your argument doesn't add up.

The Muslims didn’t have the strength to fight the Makkans. Though, many Muslims actually were martyred for standing up for slaves and calling for their manumission, an organized slave revolt wouldn’t have ended well.

And? Rome had to put down three slave rebellions because of it's horrid abuse of slaves. It wasn't till after the Third Servile War - in which Spartacus threatened Rome itself - that the treatment of slaves across the Republic began to change drastically, culminating in securing rights for slaves through legal means. It wasn't emancipation but it was progress. The actions of John Brown (who believed slavery could only be abolished through force) and other militant Abolitionists ironically helped to start the American Civil War, which did in fact see the end of legal slavery in the United States. Terrified of his actions, Southern slave-owners pushed for radical measures to defend slavery that resulted in the foundations of rebellion and secession from the United States, thereby proving Brown's prediction right.

And yet, Spartacus died in battle. Brown was hanged for treason. Neither lived to see the success they had wrought. Even a lost battle can win a larger war - even unintentionally. It doesn't matter that it wouldn't have worked. If Islam was truly as opposed to slavery as you claim it is, then they would have tried.

Those few that you claim did? To them I say, "Inshallah". God bless them for having the courage their fellows seemed to have lacked.

Muhammad PBUH was the last Prophet.

Not to me he isn't.,

Unlike Moses, Abraham and Jesus (peace be upon them) before him, there would be no one to continue the message of God.

Not true. Muslims that had been expelled from Mecca didn't all follow Muhammad to Medina, some fled to Abyssinia where the Christian Ethiopian king welcomed them.

Islam was brought to India first by an Indian King visiting Arabia. Then by traders. THEN by the Caliphates army.

No, it was introduced by traders as there was already trade between Arab merchants and Indian merchants long before Islam was ever founded. No Indian kings ever visited Arabia. Islam was accepted only along the coast, mostly in Southern India (Malabar specifically), and until the Umayyads invaded Sindh there was little Islamic influence in India.

No No: Islamic empires generally were tolerant. There were ones like Timurids who weren’t, but they weren’t the majority.

Oh look, another outright lie.

I won't deny: No one is infallible. Not even Muslims. The Caliphates I don't consider real Caliphates. The reason is that a true Caliph is one who reforms Islam and guides the Muslims back to the Holy Qur'an & Sunnah. For instance, the Umayyads often deviated from this. Their kings wanted wealth & power. Same with the Abbasids even if they tolerated the ulama more than the Umayyads as the Arab slave trade started under them.

No one is infallible nor do two wrongs make a right.

This. The Umayyads and Abbasids were illegitimate claimants to the Caliphate. They were in violation of the Sunnah of the Prophet and even of the Sunni precedent of electing Caliphs.

Not to mention that, according to my Zaydi convictions, they were illegitimate due to the fact that they weren't elected Sayyid descendants of Imam Ali and Sayyida Fatimah al-Zahra.

Funny how the two most important Caliphates weren't "real" Caliphates because they were bad.

It does not permit the taking of slaves. The Arab slave trade is an invention of later rulers, and a violation of Islamic principles in and of itself.

Except your fellow Muslims have already pointed out that it was entirely permissible in Islam to take POWs as slaves.

So yeah, this is lie. There seems to be a lot of lies and myths going around in your arguments. It's hard to take you seriously when you're contradicting your own holy book and documented historical fact.

[Vistulange]

Funny how the two most important Caliphates weren't "real" Caliphates because they were bad.

Much of the last several pages of this thread has elements of this. Whenever a Muslim ruler isn't acting as Muhammad supposedly behaved (which, I'd like to reiterate, we have no contemporary sources of, meaning that literally all of his life could possibly have been embellished by later accounts, those in the 9th century onwards), he is immediately branded to be "not acting properly", or even "not a Muslim". Funny how all these Islamic empires never had proper Muslim leaders, then. People can be hypocritical, that's only natural, we are inconsistent creatures and we certainly are not perfect. Yet, it is interesting to see that so few mortals are capable of following this supposedly divine belief system as well as they should be.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Funny how the two most important Caliphates weren't "real" Caliphates because they were bad.

Much of the last several pages of this thread has elements of this. Whenever a Muslim ruler isn't acting as Muhammad supposedly behaved (which, I'd like to reiterate, we have no contemporary sources of, meaning that literally all of his life could possibly have been embellished by later accounts, those in the 9th century onwards), he is immediately branded to be "not acting properly", or even "not a Muslim". Funny how all these Islamic empires never had proper Muslim leaders, then. People can be hypocritical, that's only natural, we are inconsistent creatures and we certainly are not perfect. Yet, it is interesting to see that so few mortals are capable of following this supposedly divine belief system as well as they should be.

Claiming someone isn't a "real Muslim" because they're bad at being Muslim is a straight-up farcical argument akin to a Fascist that doesn't prescribe to Nordicist racial views saying Nazis aren't "real Fascists". You can disassociate yourself from people you don't like that are part of your demographic through better arguments than just writing them off as a fraud. I'm not going to put Jolthig in the same camp as Osama Bin Laden just because they're both Muslims, and likewise I don't expect people to put me in the same camp as Jim Jones just because we're both Christians.

Admittedly the extent of actual piety of both Bin Laden and Jones is for debate, and there is plenty evidence to suggest both men have used religion simply to further their own agenda.

[Dahyan]

Funny how the two most important Caliphates weren't "real" Caliphates because they were bad.

Much of the last several pages of this thread has elements of this. Whenever a Muslim ruler isn't acting as Muhammad supposedly behaved (which, I'd like to reiterate, we have no contemporary sources of, meaning that literally all of his life could possibly have been embellished by later accounts, those in the 9th century onwards), he is immediately branded to be "not acting properly", or even "not a Muslim". Funny how all these Islamic empires never had proper Muslim leaders, then. People can be hypocritical, that's only natural, we are inconsistent creatures and we certainly are not perfect. Yet, it is interesting to see that so few mortals are capable of following this supposedly divine belief system as well as they should be.

Most Christian realms in history never acted according to Christian doctrine either. Hate to burst your bubble, but many rulers basically sucked.

I never proclaimed they were "not good Muslims" because they commited sins. I never even said they were "not good Muslims" per se. I don't know their hearts and can't judge their souls.

All I'm saying, and what is quite obvious from just checking basic Islamic source materials, is that they violated basic Islamic principles. Starting first and foremost with the concept of offensive warfare.

It's striking how Islamophobes tend to immediately blow up whenever a Muslim denounces excesses perpetrated by other Muslims, just because it doesn't meet their worldview of evil Muslamics being evil.

[Dahyan]

Much of the last several pages of this thread has elements of this. Whenever a Muslim ruler isn't acting as Muhammad supposedly behaved (which, I'd like to reiterate, we have no contemporary sources of, meaning that literally all of his life could possibly have been embellished by later accounts, those in the 9th century onwards), he is immediately branded to be "not acting properly", or even "not a Muslim". Funny how all these Islamic empires never had proper Muslim leaders, then. People can be hypocritical, that's only natural, we are inconsistent creatures and we certainly are not perfect. Yet, it is interesting to see that so few mortals are capable of following this supposedly divine belief system as well as they should be.

Claiming someone isn't a "real Muslim" because they're bad at being Muslim is a straight-up farcical argument akin to a Fascist that doesn't prescribe to Nordicist racial views saying Nazis aren't "real Fascists". You can disassociate yourself from people you don't like that are part of your demographic through better arguments than just writing them off as a fraud. I'm not going to put Jolthig in the same camp as Osama Bin Laden just because they're both Muslims, and likewise I don't expect people to put me in the same camp as Jim Jones just because we're both Christians.

Admittedly the extent of actual piety of both Bin Laden and Jones is for debate, and there is plenty evidence to suggest both men have used religion simply to further their own agenda.

It's a good thing none of us few Muslims on this thread have used the argument "not real Muslims" then.

[Dahyan]

I appreciated the titanic amount of work and study you put into this, Jolthig. It's really quite amazing. I doubt it will have much influence on those who refuse to listen, but the effort is highly admirable.

[Jolthig]

I appreciated the titanic amount of work and study you put into this, Jolthig. It's really quite amazing. I doubt it will have much influence on those who refuse to listen, but the effort is highly admirable.

Brother, my only duty is the convey the message, and besides, I do these long posts to increase my own faith, and to inspire the other brothers to study more, and read for themselves.

[Vistulange]

Much of the last several pages of this thread has elements of this. Whenever a Muslim ruler isn't acting as Muhammad supposedly behaved (which, I'd like to reiterate, we have no contemporary sources of, meaning that literally all of his life could possibly have been embellished by later accounts, those in the 9th century onwards), he is immediately branded to be "not acting properly", or even "not a Muslim". Funny how all these Islamic empires never had proper Muslim leaders, then. People can be hypocritical, that's only natural, we are inconsistent creatures and we certainly are not perfect. Yet, it is interesting to see that so few mortals are capable of following this supposedly divine belief system as well as they should be.

Most Christian realms in history never acted according to Christian doctrine either. Hate to burst your bubble, but many rulers basically sucked.

I never proclaimed they were "not good Muslims" because they commited sins. I never even said they were "not good Muslims" per se. I don't know their hearts and can't judge their souls.

All I'm saying, and what is quite obvious from just checking basic Islamic source materials, is that they violated basic Islamic principles. Starting first and foremost with the concept of offensive warfare.

It's striking how Islamophobes tend to immediately blow up whenever a Muslim denounces excesses perpetrated by other Muslims, just because it doesn't meet their worldview of evil Muslamics being evil.

Dahyan, I'm an atheist. I don't have a particularly high regard of Christianity, either. Also, nice whataboutism.