Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Diarcesia]

Fucking Hell, who is gullible enough to believe this nonsense that you believe?

Mohammed was a warlord who did wage wars of conquest though? How exactly do you think the first Caliphate came to be? And he did through the sword wipe out entire populations in ways that would, if done right now, be classified as genocides.

Muhammad himself seems to be debatable. Personally, I see him more like Joshua, a unifier of the land where Arabs live. His successors? No one disputes that they are conquerors and at the head of an empire.

[Redeemed Britannia]

Mohammed was a warlord who did wage wars of conquest though? How exactly do you think the first Caliphate came to be? And he did through the sword wipe out entire populations in ways that would, if done right now, be classified as genocides.

Muhammad himself seems to be debatable. Personally, I see him more like Joshua, a unifier of the land where Arabs live. His successors? No one disputes that they are conquerors and at the head of an empire.

Keep in mind, whether Mohammed himself even existed is subject to debate given, among other reasons, there is little evidence of him existing in contemporary Byzantine and Persian texts and the earliest actual historical proof there is for Kaaba Or Mecca belongs to Umayyad era (Of course, part of this can be put to the fact that Contemporary Arabs did not keep text records given their tribal and mostly illiterate way of life); but if we are to take the orthodox Islamic historiography as true, Mohammed is pretty much the definition of a warlord who unified the Arabs, waged wars of aggression against (at the very least) the Byzantine Empire and committed, ordered, or allowed to happen at least a few acts that, if they were committed today, would be considered genocidal. That's to speak nothing of his other, somewhat unrelated vices.

[The Alma Mater]

Muhammad himself seems to be debatable. Personally, I see him more like Joshua, a unifier of the land where Arabs live. His successors? No one disputes that they are conquerors and at the head of an empire.

Keep in mind, whether Mohammed himself even existed is subject to debate given, among other reasons, there is little evidence of him existing in contemporary Byzantine and Persian texts and the earliest actual historical proof there is for Kaaba Or Mecca belongs to Umayyad era (Of course, part of this can be put to the fact that Contemporary Arabs did not keep text records given their tribal and mostly illiterate way of life); but if we are to take the orthodox Islamic historiography as true, Mohammed is pretty much the definition of a warlord who unified the Arabs, waged wars of aggression against (at the very least) the Byzantine Empire and committed, ordered, or allowed to happen at least a few acts that, if they were committed today, would be considered genocidal. That's to speak nothing of his other, somewhat unrelated vices.

I thought Mohammed had several kids and also left a corpse when he died ? Both seem reasonable indicators of existence as a man.

[Genivaria]

In the real world there really isn't a third option tbh, at least not in the pre-modern age.

War mongers don’t usually get Gandhi to absolutely love them.

???
Can I get you to expand on that?

[The Alma Mater]

In the real world there really isn't a third option tbh, at least not in the pre-modern age.

War mongers don’t usually get Gandhi to absolutely love them.

Gandhi as in "black people are inferior and should be led by whites" Gandhi? Or as in "I like to sleep in the nude with prepubsecent girls" Gandhi?

Not sure you want him as a moral reference.

[Insaanistan]

War mongers don’t usually get Gandhi to absolutely love them.

Gandhi as in "black people are inferior and should be led by whites" Gandhi? Or as in "I like to sleep in the nude with prepubsecent girls" Gandhi?

Not sure you want him as a moral reference.

Believe me, as an African, I’ve spared no words about Gandhi’s racial views to classmates and creepy habits who view him as some sort of Messiah.

Nonetheless, the guy was in fact committed to peaceful means of ensuring the subcontinent’s independence.

[Lady Victory]

Gandhi as in "black people are inferior and should be led by whites" Gandhi? Or as in "I like to sleep in the nude with prepubsecent girls" Gandhi?

Not sure you want him as a moral reference.

Believe me, as an African, I’ve spared no words about Gandhi’s racial views to classmates and creepy habits who view him as some sort of Messiah.

Nonetheless, the guy was in fact committed to peaceful means of ensuring the subcontinent’s independence.

Peaceful means like saying nice things about a minority religion's prophet so they don't rebel and throw your pan-Indian unity into the trash by calling him the genocidal warlord he was.

[Insaanistan]

Believe me, as an African, I’ve spared no words about Gandhi’s racial views to classmates and creepy habits who view him as some sort of Messiah.

Nonetheless, the guy was in fact committed to peaceful means of ensuring the subcontinent’s independence.

Peaceful means like saying nice things about a minority religion's prophet so they don't rebel and throw your pan-Indian unity into the trash by calling him the genocidal warlord he was.

I am reminded of when I asserted that while Victoria had a tolerance and respect for Muslims it wouldn’t have been practical for her to not do so anyway, and Old Tyrannia among other expressed great displeasure.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Peaceful means like saying nice things about a minority religion's prophet so they don't rebel and throw your pan-Indian unity into the trash by calling him the genocidal warlord he was.

I am reminded of when I asserted that while Victoria had a tolerance and respect for Muslims it wouldn’t have been practical for her to not do so anyway, and Old Tyrannia among other expressed great displeasure.

The situations aren't really comparable imo. Gandhi and people like him had much greater need for unity in the subcontinent to oppose British rule, it's not really outlandish to think he was simply extending an olive branch in the name of unity. He was very much trying to avoid the collapse of pan-Indian sentiment and religious warfare that ended up happening.

[Vistulange]

Okay, but the Fall is an exclusively Christian idea which isn't shared with other religions. Islam considers itself universal, with non-human beings such as animals and djinns being Muslim too. Hinduism and Buddhism have the concept of infinite worlds with their own inhabitants who transmigrate, so of course it would be relevant to them.

Do humans have a special place in Islam amongst all creation? I can imagine an alien race of squidbeings being unhappy if they are not "made in Allahs image".

Humans are not made in the image of God in Islam.

This entire post is disingenuous.

If Muhammad was the peace-loving person Islam claims he was he wouldn't have been a fucking warlord who waged wars of conquest and aggression against his neighbors while committing genocide against his opponents.

Fucking Hell, who is gullible enough to believe this nonsense?

Fucking Hell, who is gullible enough to believe this nonsense that you believe?

That reversal doesn't work as well as you think it does.

This entire post is disingenuous.

If Muhammad was the peace-loving person Islam claims he was he wouldn't have been a fucking warlord who waged wars of conquest and aggression against his neighbors while committing genocide against his opponents.

Fucking Hell, who is gullible enough to believe this nonsense?

You commit the fallacy of giving two choices: pacifism or being a violent warmonger.

Additionally, no, Muhammad (S) did not commit genocide.

That's not a response, though. I don't think Lady Victory is saying that Muhammad had a binary choice between being a complete pacifist or a warmongering warlord.

It reads more as an observation that Muhammad was, indeed, a violent warlord who did unify the Arabian peninsula through war and conquest. It's literally only the sterile, sugar-coated traditional Islamic historiography that says otherwise. And by now, we've established that—just as with others—Islamic sources are terrible objective sources on Islamic actions.

It's like Athenians writing about Sparta and/or Athens. We aren't quite sure just how shitty Sparta was since the Athenians may not have been entirely truthful about Sparta, and they may also have been exaggerating just how great Athens was.

Now, since the sources you're providing us—thus far—are Muslims writing about Islamic empires (and as a side-note, only a few of them actually seem to be from when Muhammad was alive and doing his conquering and forcibly converting people. This is important, because it's less history and more oral mythologising; the retrospective attribution of qualities which are based off of some line of teaching, as opposed to what truly occurred).

Then again, I daresay half of this thread was people trying to indirectly teach you why the scientific method is a thing, why the discipline of history also has a methodology, and you lot practically plugging your ears and going "la la la, I can't hear you, the Quran and hadith say otherwise" to everything.

[Redeemed Britannia]

I thought Mohammed had several kids and also left a corpse when he died ? Both seem reasonable indicators of existence as a man.

I mean, there's little contemporary evidence of that happening either. Of course, part of that is because Arabs generally didn't write things down until roughly the late Umayyad and early Abbasid period (i.e. when most Hadith start getting written down).

[Alkhilafa Rasullalah]

This raises some questions:

1. If God sent prophets to all peoples, does this extend to aliens? If so...
2. Do their religions taught from these prophets count as a sect of Islam?

1. Presumably yes, seeing as some jinns reverted to Islam.

2. If uncorrupted they would count as a sect of Islam.

[The Alma Mater]

Do humans have a special place in Islam amongst all creation? I can imagine an alien race of squidbeings being unhappy if they are not "made in Allahs image".

Humans are not made in the image of God in Islam.

But humans do have a special status. They are not deemed equal to other animals, correct ?

[Dowaesk]

Muhammad himself seems to be debatable. Personally, I see him more like Joshua, a unifier of the land where Arabs live. His successors? No one disputes that they are conquerors and at the head of an empire.

Keep in mind, whether Mohammed himself even existed is subject to debate given, among other reasons, there is little evidence of him existing in contemporary Byzantine and Persian texts.

No. Thats not up to debate. Prophet Muhammad being a fictional invention is a lie and can be dismissed without further arguments.

[Dowaesk]

Humans are not made in the image of God in Islam.

But humans do have a special status. They are not deemed equal to other animals, correct ?

Correct

[Redeemed Britannia]

Keep in mind, whether Mohammed himself even existed is subject to debate given, among other reasons, there is little evidence of him existing in contemporary Byzantine and Persian texts.

No. Thats not up to debate. Prophet Muhammad being a fictional invention is a lie and can be dismissed without further arguments.

I mean he's almost definitely a fictional character and his religion almost definitely an ex post facto justification for the Arab Conquests that had happened half century prior to when Islam as a religion started actually being developed through a syncretic mix of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and the Arab folk religion, but that's not the topic of debate here. Whether Mohammed, as his story is defined by Muslims, is a genocidal warmonger is.

[The Alma Mater]

But humans do have a special status. They are not deemed equal to other animals, correct ?

Correct

So can we say if aliens would have that same status - or would they be deemed equal to cats, cattle or pigs ?

[Dowaesk]

Correct

So can we say if aliens would have that same status - or would they be deemed equal to cats, cattle or pigs ?

Lmao. Are Jinns of the same level as cats, cattle and pigs? The answer is No. Same applies in the case of Aliens. And by aliens I mean those of intelligence the same as us or more. Not just any extraterrestrial life.

[Vistulange]

Keep in mind, whether Mohammed himself even existed is subject to debate given, among other reasons, there is little evidence of him existing in contemporary Byzantine and Persian texts.

No. Thats not up to debate. Prophet Muhammad being a fictional invention is a lie and can be dismissed without further arguments.

Pretty much. We know that Muhammad, as a person, existed. A lot of stuff surrounding him, we do not. There's a whole bloody Wikipedia article about it.

[Dowaesk]

No. Thats not up to debate. Prophet Muhammad being a fictional invention is a lie and can be dismissed without further arguments.

Pretty much. We know that Muhammad, as a person, existed. A lot of stuff surrounding him, we do not. There's a whole bloody Wikipedia article about it.

Provide link please.

[Vistulange]

Pretty much. We know that Muhammad, as a person, existed. A lot of stuff surrounding him, we do not. There's a whole bloody Wikipedia article about it.

Provide link please.

Historicity of Muhammad

The earliest Muslim source of information for the life of Muhammad, the Quran, gives very little personal information and its historicity is debated.^[5][6]
...
[5] Encyclopaedia of Islam, Muhammad
[6] Nigosian, Solomon Alexander (2004). Islam: Its History, Teaching, and Practices. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21627-3.

[Mostrov]

Debate about the historicity of the prophet is absurd, that there were people in the historical record who claimed direct descent from him as well as physical possessions and when the very central points of dispute in early Islam, principally the Shia-Sunni divide, are entirely senseless without reference to him and his family.

Patricia Crone is an excellent scholar and she herself realized that her book Hagarism wasn't tenable.

[Vistulange]

Debate about the historicity of the prophet is absurd, that there were people in the historical record who claimed direct descent from him as well as physical possessions and when the very central points of dispute in early Islam, principally the Shia-Sunni divide, are entirely senseless without reference to him and his family.

Patricia Crone is an excellent scholar and she herself realized that her book Hagarism wasn't tenable.

It really isn't absurd. That is to say, did Muhammad, the individual person, exist? Yes, he did, we're fairly sure of that. I don't think anybody would argue otherwise at this point. What is not absurd is scepticism regarding the general history and historiography surrounding Muhammad. The Wikipedia article I linked to in my previous post gives a nice introduction to the debates surrounding the issue.

Crone is certainly not the sole individual who has written about the topic. Now, unless a considerable part of the sources are questionable, have erroneous methodology impacting their findings, or some other research-based flaw, the issue is a fair one to discuss.

[Redeemed Britannia]

Debate about the historicity of the prophet is absurd, that there were people in the historical record who claimed direct descent from him as well as physical possessions and when the very central points of dispute in early Islam, principally the Shia-Sunni divide, are entirely senseless without reference to him and his family.

Patricia Crone is an excellent scholar and she herself realized that her book Hagarism wasn't tenable.

It really isn't absurd. That is to say, did Muhammad, the individual person, exist? Yes, he did, we're fairly sure of that. I don't think anybody would argue otherwise at this point. What is not absurd is scepticism regarding the general history and historiography surrounding Muhammad. The Wikipedia article I linked to in my previous post gives a nice introduction to the debates surrounding the issue.

Crone is certainly not the sole individual who has written about the topic. Now, unless a considerable part of the sources are questionable, have erroneous methodology impacting their findings, or some other research-based flaw, the issue is a fair one to discuss.

We're not fairly sure of that either though? The same Wikipedia article includes that there are few mentions of Mohammed as a person that are contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous. Which is funny because we do have enough evidence to know many of his contemporaries (the Four Caliphs for one) existed.

[Dowaesk]

It really isn't absurd. That is to say, did Muhammad, the individual person, exist? Yes, he did, we're fairly sure of that. I don't think anybody would argue otherwise at this point. What is not absurd is scepticism regarding the general history and historiography surrounding Muhammad. The Wikipedia article I linked to in my previous post gives a nice introduction to the debates surrounding the issue.

Crone is certainly not the sole individual who has written about the topic. Now, unless a considerable part of the sources are questionable, have erroneous methodology impacting their findings, or some other research-based flaw, the issue is a fair one to discuss.

We're not fairly sure of that either though? The same Wikipedia article includes that there are few mentions of Mohammed as a person that are contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous. Which is funny because we do have enough evidence to know many of his contemporaries (the Four Caliphs for one) existed.

So... Fatima (RA)'s Father never existed? How about the grandchildren of Prophet Muhammad, Hassan and Husayn. They didnt exist either? Who was Aisha (RA) and Khadijah (RA) married to? How about the living descendants of Prophet Muhammad?