Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I mean there's a bunch of ayaat and aHaadith about peace, so Al-Islam and peace go hand in hand.

Much Hadith, much ayat, little history.

Well yeah, we're talking about Al-Islam's teachings of peace, not history.

[Zizou]

I mean there's a bunch of ayaat and aHaadith about peace, so Al-Islam and peace go hand in hand.

I’ll quote something I said in a region I was in, before I was banned for free speech:
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/88/5
Yeah, not peaceful at all

First of all, in no way were you banned for free speech. If I remember correctly, you left on your own from the region in question. Secondly, as I told you in that region, the narrator is of dubious authenticity, and is most likely fabricated or altered. As said by Mirza Tahir Ahmad:

Dhahbi states that because lkramah was a Kharijite, his traditions were unreliable and dubious. An expert on the Punishment for Apostasy, Imam Ali b. Al-Medaini, is of the same opinion. Yahya b. Bekir used to say that the Kharijites of Egypt, Algiers and Morocco were strongly allied to Ikramah.

[Jolthig]

I'll be joining the debate with NGR to refute his claims later tonight after work despite being 4-5 days late

except evrytuigbhes said is true, and Islam and peace go together as well as oil and water
I’ll be happy to debate you now

Exactly what is he correct on?

[Jolthig]

Let's pray that the Gambia truly achieves true Shariah inshallah. Ameen.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Let's pray that the Gambia truly achieves true Shariah inshallah. Ameen.

Aameen

[Jolthig]

Ironically, muslims themselves seem to not really believe that since they find it necessary to rewrite history to make Muhammed look better - instead of aiming to be as accurate as possible.

That's the problem with considering historical individuals infallible. Humans are -or at least should be- judged by the standards of their times. Morality -especially in cases that actually fucking matter- was really lax until like, less than 180 years ago. Even then, we as a collective didn't actually start realizing obvious stuff like "Slavery is an irredeemable evil" or "Humans are by their very nature equal" and "Don't fucking commit genocide" until way after 1945. In many cases, we still haven't.
The standards of morality in Muhammad's time were really lax. The fact that Muhammad lived in one of the least civilized territories in the known world at the time only makes it worse. You can't expect Muhammad the person to be infallible, because he was -like almost everyone of his era- extremely immoral. Muslims -like other people considering historical individuals to be infallible- understand this, and so attempt to revise history for it.

Except that you have absolutely no proof that Muslims somehow revive history when the most authentic of Muslim historical books agree that Muhammad had the best morals out of all the Arabians at the time whether you reject it or not. History simply demonstrates you to be in the wrong. To say otherwise is what I view as paranoid accusations of supposed "historical revisionism".

[Jolthig]

By the "Jews of Medina", I actually refer to the Banu Qurayza.
I should make it clear before.
However, the decision of collective punishment was decided by one man of Banu Aws and not the Prophet himself, as probably you have already knew. The tribe was accused of treachery during the Battle of the Pitch, and it's said that the punishment for the kind of offense was acceptable in that era.

Which is even more hilarious because by modern standards they're not moral or acceptable for any form of offense. So, either the idea that "Genocide and mass murder is wrong" is wrong, or Muhammad's inaction -as the commander of the faithful and a man of influence- and Ali's action -as a mass murderer- are. I'm willing to say Muhammad's inaction is what's wrong.

Sure, yeah, what the Muslims did to the Banu Quraziya was terrible indeed, and quite frightening, but they received their damnation in this world for their own hardships they imposed upon the entrenched muslims during the Battle of Ditch. For anyone who overdid their evil deeds, all of them received their terrible fate in the end after being given many chances for mercy. So rather, than focusing on the killings themselves, maybe realize that it's for excessive treachery and hardships they've afflicted on the muslims. This isn't some kind of made up excuse, NGR, but history demonstrates this to be true. All they had to do was not participate in the battle nor participate in conspiracies against Muhammad, and they would not have received their fate.

[The Archregimancy]

Egypt has finally caught up, so - a day later than expected - Eid Mubarak to the Muslims of NationStates.

[Jolthig]

Egypt has finally caught up, so - a day later than expected - Eid Mubarak to the Muslims of NationStates.

Khair Mubarak, my orthodox Christian friend!

[Samudera Darussalam]

Egypt has finally caught up, so - a day later than expected - Eid Mubarak to the Muslims of NationStates.

Khair Mubarak, thank you very much!

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's the problem with considering historical individuals infallible. Humans are -or at least should be- judged by the standards of their times. Morality -especially in cases that actually fucking matter- was really lax until like, less than 180 years ago. Even then, we as a collective didn't actually start realizing obvious stuff like "Slavery is an irredeemable evil" or "Humans are by their very nature equal" and "Don't fucking commit genocide" until way after 1945. In many cases, we still haven't.
The standards of morality in Muhammad's time were really lax. The fact that Muhammad lived in one of the least civilized territories in the known world at the time only makes it worse. You can't expect Muhammad the person to be infallible, because he was -like almost everyone of his era- extremely immoral. Muslims -like other people considering historical individuals to be infallible- understand this, and so attempt to revise history for it.

Except that you have absolutely no proof that Muslims somehow revive history when the most authentic of Muslim historical books agree that Muhammad had the best morals out of all the Arabians at the time whether you reject it or not. History simply demonstrates you to be in the wrong. To say otherwise is what I view as paranoid accusations of supposed "historical revisionism".

Not to make any insinuations but neo-Nazis use the same sort of logic to claim the Third Reich was an absolute paradise.

[Jolthig]

Except that you have absolutely no proof that Muslims somehow revive history when the most authentic of Muslim historical books agree that Muhammad had the best morals out of all the Arabians at the time whether you reject it or not. History simply demonstrates you to be in the wrong. To say otherwise is what I view as paranoid accusations of supposed "historical revisionism".

Not to make any insinuations but neo-Nazis use the same sort of logic to claim the Third Reich was an absolute paradise.

And compared with the Muslims, the Nazis did far worse, and for illogical reasons. Neo-Nazis and the Muslims of Arabia far differ in what methods they used to deal with the Jews.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not to make any insinuations but neo-Nazis use the same sort of logic to claim the Third Reich was an absolute paradise.

And compared with the Muslims, the Nazis did far worse, and for illogical reasons. Neo-Nazis and the Muslims of Arabia far differ in what methods they used to deal with the Jews.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the Muslims of Arabia were good or moral people by any means. All I was getting at is saying "our history says our guy was great!" is a pretty lousy sort of thinking to try and use in debate that anyone could utilize to try and cast their figures in a good light.

[Jolthig]

And compared with the Muslims, the Nazis did far worse, and for illogical reasons. Neo-Nazis and the Muslims of Arabia far differ in what methods they used to deal with the Jews.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the Muslims of Arabia were good or moral people by any means. All I was getting at is saying "our history says our guy was great!" is a pretty lousy sort of thinking to try and use in debate that anyone could utilize to try and cast their figures in a good light.

It isn't lousy because the sources I get this information from is from the most reliable books of Islamic history. A proper study of Muhammad's life through various sources can prove that Muhammad was better than most of Arabia. It's not just because "my sources say so". Its when you cross-reference, and look at various sources is when we can conclude that what I say is in fact true. Mirza Bashir Ahmad's Life and Character of the Seal of Prophets for examplex takes from Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, and Bukhari, to prove that Muhammad was a good man. So your objection to my arguments being "lousy" in no way refutes the facts I presented.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sure, but that doesn't mean the Muslims of Arabia were good or moral people by any means. All I was getting at is saying "our history says our guy was great!" is a pretty lousy sort of thinking to try and use in debate that anyone could utilize to try and cast their figures in a good light.

It isn't lousy because the sources I get this information from is from the most reliable books of Islamic history. A proper study of Muhammad's life through various sources can prove that Muhammad was better than most of Arabia. It's not just because "my sources say so". Its when you cross-reference, and look at various sources is when we can conclude that what I say is in fact true. Mirza Bashir Ahmad's Life and Character of the Seal of Prophets for examplex takes from Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, and Bukhari, to prove that Muhammad was a good man. So your objection to my arguments being "lousy" in no way refutes the facts I presented.

Islamic history is by its very existence biased and should always be treated as a secondary source to fill in gaps where possible imo. Even then, being "better than most of Arabia" doesn't really mean much when you're still a pillaging and slave taking warlord who does all sorts of nasty things. He was still a rather awful person, that he might have been better than the norm just shows how shitty the region was, not how perfect he was.

[The Archregimancy]

Ironically, muslims themselves seem to not really believe that since they find it necessary to rewrite history to make Muhammed look better - instead of aiming to be as accurate as possible.

That's the problem with considering historical individuals infallible. Humans are -or at least should be- judged by the standards of their times. Morality -especially in cases that actually fucking matter- was really lax until like, less than 180 years ago. Even then, we as a collective didn't actually start realizing obvious stuff like "Slavery is an irredeemable evil" or "Humans are by their very nature equal" and "Don't fucking commit genocide" until way after 1945. In many cases, we still haven't.
The standards of morality in Muhammad's time were really lax. The fact that Muhammad lived in one of the least civilized territories in the known world at the time only makes it worse. You can't expect Muhammad the person to be infallible, because he was -like almost everyone of his era- extremely immoral. Muslims -like other people considering historical individuals to be infallible- understand this, and so attempt to revise history for it.

This is a really odd historical argument.

I'll leave open the possibility that this wasn't your intent, but you seem to be simultaneously arguing that historical figures should be judged by the standards of their time and then arguing that Muhammed would be considered extremely immoral by 21st century standards, so he shouldn't be considered infallible. This is illogical. If you want to argue that Muhammed would have been considered immoral by the standards of the 7th century, in line with the 'should be judged by the standards of their times' statement, then you need to build a much more nuanced argument on comparative 7th-century morality, showing that you're aware of moral standards in the Byzantine Empire, Sasanian Empire, late Himyarite Yemen, and the Axumite kingdom, so we have a better understanding of the socio-historical context of your argument. Either that, or just admit you're judging Muhammed by modern standards. Either approach would have the benefit of greater coherence.

Also, it's farcical to claim that the Arabian peninsula was 'one of the least civilized territories in the known world at the time'. Clearly the Byzantine Empire and Sasanian Persia had more sophisticated state structures (though a fat lot of good it did them in the 630s through 650s), but I'm not sure that 7th-century Arabia would compare wholly unfavourably with, say, its English counterpart, the Avar Khaganate, or even Merovingian France. Looking at this from a purely historical - rather than theological - context, part of the reason for the success of early Islam is that the formation of the early Islamic communities occurred in a power vacuum. That the Byzantine and Persian empires had exhausted themselves through decades of conflict, facilitating the conquest of the eastern Mediterranean, is well-known. What's less well known is that the collapse of the sophisticated (though organisationally distinct) Kindite and Himyarite states in the 6th century in the wake of an Aksumite invasion of the Arabian peninsula - events that were easily have been within living memory when Muhammed was born - had left a power vacuum in the Arabian Peninsula itself. So taking the socio-political situation in Arabia at the beginning of the 7th century in isolation offers a highly partial and arguably inaccurate view of the state of Arabian 'civilisation', however we choose to define the latter highly problematic term.

[Jolthig]

It isn't lousy because the sources I get this information from is from the most reliable books of Islamic history. A proper study of Muhammad's life through various sources can prove that Muhammad was better than most of Arabia. It's not just because "my sources say so". Its when you cross-reference, and look at various sources is when we can conclude that what I say is in fact true. Mirza Bashir Ahmad's Life and Character of the Seal of Prophets for examplex takes from Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, and Bukhari, to prove that Muhammad was a good man. So your objection to my arguments being "lousy" in no way refutes the facts I presented.

Islamic history is by its very existence biased and should always be treated as a secondary source to fill in gaps where possible imo. Even then, being "better than most of Arabia" doesn't really mean much when you're still a pillaging and slave taking warlord who does all sorts of nasty things. He was still a rather awful person, that he might have been better than the norm just shows how shitty the region was, not how perfect he was.

Saying that sources are "biased" is in itself an invalid argument because everybody and every source regardless of where it comes from, has a bias. The reliability of these sources is in no way refuted. Muhammad never pillaged anyone and he never took slaves for himself. He did take POWs, however. As for the rest of the companions, yes, in some battles, they did get slaves, but at least they weren't treated harshly and they were given proper clothing.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Saying that sources are "biased" is in itself an invalid argument because everybody and every source regardless of where it comes from, has a bias,

Certainly, but bias is a scale, and Islamic history made by Muslims sits rather heavily at one end. I shouldn't have to explain why it would be in the interests of Muslim writers to portray Muhammad that way.

Muhammad never pillaged anyone and he never took slaves for himself.

Both of these points are just absurdly false. Muslim raids on caravans and traders at the time is well known and Muhammad was absolutely an active participant in the slave trade. Shit the Islamic slave trade was (or is, rather, given it's continuing status in parts of the Muslim world) arguably the worst in history, it even beats out the trans-Atlantic slave trade in terms of people sold.

[Jolthig]

Saying that sources are "biased" is in itself an invalid argument because everybody and every source regardless of where it comes from, has a bias,

Certainly, but bias is a scale, and Islamic history made by Muslims sits rather heavily at one end. I shouldn't have to explain why it would be in the interests of Muslim writers to portray Muhammad that way.

It still does not refute the reliability of the historical references especially when they consistently line up to point that Muhammad was a good man. That's not just Muslim writers who compile these narrators, but we have several sources that we can refer to for where those writers got their information from. From both the companions and those who opposed Muhammad. Heck, even his most bitter enemies admitted that Muhammad had several good qualities about him like being truthful.

Muhammad never pillaged anyone and he never took slaves for himself.

Both of these points are just absurdly false. Muslim raids on caravans and traders at the time is well known and Muhammad was absolutely an active participant in the slave trade. Shit the Islamic slave trade was (or is, rather, given it's continuing status in parts of the Muslim world) arguably the worst in history, it even beats out the trans-Atlantic slave trade in terms of people sold.

Yet, you fail to know why the caravans were even raised in the first place. Given that the Quraish were devising many ways to prepare for war against the Confederacy of Medina which happened to be Muhammad's new government which had at the time a weak and small army, Muhammad decided that the caravans that were carrying supplies to the Quraish to fuel their efforts against Islam were to be raided and captured. So yes, it's true the Muslims raised caravans, but what you alongside several other critics of Islam leave out, is why they were raided in the first place.

Regarding the Islamic slave trade, it had absolutely nothing to do with Muhammad, but with later kings and merchants who just wanted more money and wealth. Because at least with Muhammad, he sought to progressively stamp out slavery. He'd often heavily encourage his companions to free slaves, educate them to the levels of free men/women, give them proper clothing, and not to call them mere "servants" or "property" but one's "brother" or "sister" in faith. This right here, breaks at the heart of slavery since it's humiliation of a human being to the will of another which is against Islamic rules as humans are subservient to Allah instead.

[The Archregimancy]

Shit the Islamic slave trade was (or is, rather, given it's continuing status in parts of the Muslim world) arguably the worst in history, it even beats out the trans-Atlantic slave trade in terms of people sold.

Well, no doubt we all think that comparing gross figures - if comparable gross figures even exist - for something that lasted c.350 years to something that lasted over 1000 years will always prove to be a useful metric.

[Chularatchamontri]

I hope everyone had a good Eid. We had a big meal of curry with my family and visited a Wat after prayers to show our dedication to interfaith dialogue.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Do I need to break out the Islamic slavery articles again?

Also, bout to go celebrate Eid in a short while!

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Do I need to break out the Islamic slavery articles again?

Also, bout to go celebrate Eid in a short while!

Not unless those articles are Islamic arguments against slavery.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Do I need to break out the Islamic slavery articles again?

Also, bout to go celebrate Eid in a short while!

Not unless those articles are Islamic arguments against slavery.

There's both: against and for.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Egypt has finally caught up, so - a day later than expected - Eid Mubarak to the Muslims of NationStates.

Eid Mubaarak