Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Islamic History

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:04:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is a four-part set (the fourth part forthcoming) of an extended analysis of the years of Islamic history following Muhammad's death. It covers the rule of the Rashidun Caliphs, the birth of the Ulama, the compilation of the Qu'ran, the conquests of Byzantium and Sassanid Persia, the rise of the Umayyads, and the Sunni/Shi'a schism.

To most people in the West, this is a grey area. We know nothing of the heritage, the political power plays, the social upheavals, and the religious beliefs of this age. These videos are done by CaspianReport, a YouTube channel run by Shirvan, a political scientist based in secular, but largely Shi'a demographically, Azerbaijan. His perspective is pretty balanced and detached, and his graphics and visuals are great for understanding all of the intrigues going on. They are long, but you will leave with a good understanding of what, precisely, early Islam was, and how it evolved from a local religious revolution into an empire which eventually spanned the known world. It will humanize a comprehensive history which it has become fashionable to categorically and myopically malign.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:38:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:04:14 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a four-part set (the fourth part forthcoming) of an extended analysis of the years of Islamic history following Muhammad's death. It covers the rule of the Rashidun Caliphs, the birth of the Ulama, the compilation of the Qu'ran, the conquests of Byzantium and Sassanid Persia, the rise of the Umayyads, and the Sunni/Shi'a schism.

Excellent, Skeps! I know you've read extensively in this, and I've read somewhat in it too. It's fascinating in its own right, and very topical. I look forward to watching the videos, and reading the subsequent discussion.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:42:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:33:27 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Have you seen his video on the Pre-Islamic history of the Middle East? Very interesting.

YES. Isn't he great?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:45:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:42:59 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 12:33:27 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Have you seen his video on the Pre-Islamic history of the Middle East? Very interesting.

YES. Isn't he great?

Utterly brilliant, though especially his videos on geo-politics and the origins of various conflicts.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:59:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I recently completed a course on civilizations of the world and one of the topics we discussed was the historical emergence and spread of Islam. I believe most Americans are unaware of this information and often times dismiss the fact that many of the things we rely on today come directly from the Islamic empire. For example, the very first encyclopedia of contagious diseases, rubbing alcohol used to clean and disinfect injuries, the first advanced observatory and lunar calendar all originated in the Abbasid Caliphate during the "Golden Age" of Islam.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 3:23:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The most interesting thing to me when studying the first Caliphs is seeing how quickly things seemed to derail afterwords. Were the first Caliphs rightly guided? Maybe they were, but it is easy to look from a distance without having all the information and conclude that they all fell short. I read the Qur'an, and I find it difficult to put my faith in human institutions. I get the impression that we are not to have these partners with God.

Interestingly enough, this might make a case for the Shi'a for how things would have been better off from the beginning if they put Ali in charge, but we'll never know, and the situation he inherited was already by that point so messed up beyond repair that nothing really could be done.

I personally believe that it illustrates a point. The Ummah cannot show favoritism to anyone except those who support the Ummah. Even then, those who do not support the Ummah should be respected, allowed to practice their faith, to form their own communities if they willed, allowed to have their own representation, allowed to have the protection of the Ummah, and to live in peace from persecution. When I say support the Ummah, I mean supporting the state of peace between everyone. Those who do not support the state of peace rightly deserve the very modest tax that they have to pay, which goes towards protecting them, allowing them to practice their religion in peace. Convert or die by the sword is not prescribed by the Qur'an. The Qur'an specifically states in warfare that if a people ask for peace and do not convert, they are to shipped away to safety and looked after. What are they obligated to do? Respect the rule of the conquering state, and pay taxes. Oh you don't want to do that? Well, you deserve to get your head chopped off, because this is how war works. It's ugly. You know why people are getting their heads chopped off? Because they refused to pay taxes. Is that not a just form of discrimination? Until they accept peace, they gotta pay taxes. You know what Muslims pay instead of taxes? CHARITY, which is supposed to be non-discriminatory between Muslims and non-Muslims.

The Ummah is something separate from the deen. The Constitution of Medina makes this clear. The way of life we practice is different from the way of life other people practice. Let them have their ways, and let us have our ways. Government and way of life are separate.

God is the True Leader, always was, always will be. This is how things are to be understood. State and Church are separate. You know who does a pretty good job at this? The United States, and contrary to what people believe, the United States does not persecute people for being Muslim. The United States is the closest thing you are going to get to anarchy in the world, and it is by far the most pagan country on the planet. While this may be, they do not burn down Mosques, it is not respected to kill someone for their beliefs, and the idea that everyone should really just mind their own business is so ingrained in the culture that the people you do hear speak are just the people who don't have that type of respect. The United States is a country that is founded on freedom and respect that Church and State are separate. The United States goes a step further, and gives Churches and Mosques tax exemption status. The United States is the most thoroughly pagan country in the world, but it allows people to practice their beliefs without persecution. People are allowed to say whatever they want, no matter how ignorant, blasphemous, or hateful it might be. The United States, despite being thoroughly pagan, actually represents an ideal Islamic State.

But I tell you that the True Islamic State, The True United States, The True United Kingdom, The True Catholic Church, is not that far. The Kingdom of God is at hand. Do you not know that God is the highest sovereign? God is King! God is the savior. The Revelation of Jesus Christ is one that topples all principalities, it abolishes all idols. There is a reason why we must allow free exercise of religion, and that is because through them, God can be witnessed. If God is The Ultimate Reality, the Highest Truth, then there is nothing to fear by allowing the tower of babel to fall. Surrender the pagans over to Satan! After all, as it is written, Truth stands clear apart from error! Let everyone shout, quarrel, and bicker! When their voices are horse and tired, Truth will sing above them. Truth can not be silenced. God is All Powerful, but God is full of many mercies, and is patient like none other. So we should model ourselves. Imitating God is the source of the law. Be the embodiment of Truth.

Who is the successor to Mohammed? Who is the real Caliph? You are. Now understand what gets in between you and God. Cleanse the sacred shrine of all its idols. The body is the temple of God! Purify your heart, and your intentions will follow. Be worthy to walk among the children of God. Be worthy of that title! Embody peace, embody truth, embody love. All fall short of the glory of God, but understand that God forgives, and is most merciful, and we can move on without being enslaved to our mistakes.

The rightly guided Caliphs were perhaps good Muslims who did what they were able to do at the best of their own abilities. They were human beings. All of these caliphs have sayings attributed to them that can be very inspirational.

Abu Bakr on becoming he first caliph said during his first speech, "If I am on the straight path, doing as God commands me, then please support me. If you find that I am straying from the way of God, and am in error, please rebuke me and help me back on the straight path.". Certainly, these are the words of a man with integrity!
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 4:08:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are his videos going to extend to cover Ummayads or is the series just going to stick with the Rashidun?
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 4:17:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 4:08:58 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Are his videos going to extend to cover Ummayads or is the series just going to stick with the Rashidun?

I think the last one will deal with Ali and the rise of the Ummayads, but won't cover through to the assassination and the Cordoban Caliphate. He's already gone into a lot of detail when it comes to Muawiyah.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 4:19:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 4:08:58 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Are his videos going to extend to cover Ummayads or is the series just going to stick with the Rashidun?

They don't extend to cover the Ummayads.

The videos cover the first 3 caliphs.

I watched them, they are pretty good videos. I think a lot of important little details are left out, so I would encourage anyone who is interested in this subject to do independent reading on it.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 4:20:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 4:17:34 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:08:58 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Are his videos going to extend to cover Ummayads or is the series just going to stick with the Rashidun?

I think the last one will deal with Ali and the rise of the Ummayads, but won't cover through to the assassination and the Cordoban Caliphate. He's already gone into a lot of detail when it comes to Muawiyah.

It would be interesting if he made a series like this but on the fall of the Ottomans (Kind of like his original video on the decline of the Ottomans, but in more detail)
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 5:45:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 4:20:10 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:17:34 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 4:08:58 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Are his videos going to extend to cover Ummayads or is the series just going to stick with the Rashidun?

I think the last one will deal with Ali and the rise of the Ummayads, but won't cover through to the assassination and the Cordoban Caliphate. He's already gone into a lot of detail when it comes to Muawiyah.

It would be interesting if he made a series like this but on the fall of the Ottomans (Kind of like his original video on the decline of the Ottomans, but in more detail)

Yeah, that would be great. He does a video on the Turkish military and the overall decline, but I'd really like to see him dig into it, and the role which Western pressures played.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 12:31:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:59:36 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I recently completed a course on civilizations of the world and one of the topics we discussed was the historical emergence and spread of Islam. I believe most Americans are unaware of this information and often times dismiss the fact that many of the things we rely on today come directly from the Islamic empire. For example, the very first encyclopedia of contagious diseases, rubbing alcohol used to clean and disinfect injuries, the first advanced observatory and lunar calendar all originated in the Abbasid Caliphate during the "Golden Age" of Islam.

Precursors to the theory of evolution were also tossed around, and proto-Machiavellian political theory, courtesy of Ibn Khaldun. While Islam did make advances in the sciences, what really staggers me is the cultural and artistic development, which many in the West are ignorant of. They created spaces for living and worshiping that were both staggeringly beautiful and soberingly austere. The calligraphy, the poetry, and the music are also very impressive. And while Islamic conquests are often seen as some horrible thing (but Western and Eastern ones were a-Okay) the Caliphates also produced men of impressive military genius.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 11:29:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 3:23:33 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
The most interesting thing to me when studying the first Caliphs is seeing how quickly things seemed to derail afterwords. Were the first Caliphs rightly guided? Maybe they were, but it is easy to look from a distance without having all the information and conclude that they all fell short. I read the Qur'an, and I find it difficult to put my faith in human institutions. I get the impression that we are not to have these partners with God.
What do you mean by human institution, & how do they count as partners with God? This is idea isn't Islamic at all. Yes if you refer that all institutional & law-order power belongs to God alone, then that's true, thus fine. But this rather would imply that state rules must me of Islamic [to implement the God's law], thus your idea that state & religion are separate is flawed, & not Islamic at all.

Interestingly enough, this might make a case for the Shi'a for how things would have been better off from the beginning if they put Ali in charge, but we'll never know, and the situation he inherited was already by that point so messed up beyond repair that nothing really could be done.
So this imply that all four caliphs [ALLAH is pleased with them & may ALLAH bless them all] are on right & were elected by consensus [people of authority took oath on their hands]. Thus the electoral system was democratic, & state law or parliamentarian rule was also through Shura [suggestive committee of major companions]. Thus caliph government was not anarchy or monarchy, rather democratic parliamentary [no matter which institutional development to introduce later on]. Islam allows all what is not forbidden. Thus secularism is allowed as long as it don't transgress or contradict Islamic law [defining crime, for example]. Hence secular state would follow what is ethical to define crime, it may & may not ban wine consumption depending upon human calculation. So you need human institutions to implement God's law, that provides state & religion can be separate [in Islam, for operations & management or for strategy too] as long as religious violations are not made, & this is against the definition of secularism. So I don't know where are you getting these ideas from which don't represent Islamic judgement.

The Ummah is something separate from the deen. The Constitution of Medina makes this clear. The way of life we practice is different from the way of life other people practice. Let them have their ways, and let us have our ways. Government and way of life are separate.


But I tell you that the True Islamic State, The True United States, The True United Kingdom, The True Catholic Church, is not that far. The Kingdom of God is at hand. Do you not know that God is the highest sovereign? God is King! God is the savior. The Revelation of Jesus Christ is one that topples all principalities, it abolishes all idols. There is a reason why we must allow free exercise of religion, and that is because through them, God can be witnessed. If God is The Ultimate Reality, the Highest Truth, then there is nothing to fear by allowing the tower of babel to fall. Surrender the pagans over to Satan! After all, as it is written, Truth stands clear apart from error! Let everyone shout, quarrel, and bicker! When their voices are horse and tired, Truth will sing above them. Truth can not be silenced. God is All Powerful, but God is full of many mercies, and is patient like none other. So we should model ourselves. Imitating God is the source of the law. Be the embodiment of Truth.

Who is the successor to Mohammed? Who is the real Caliph? You are. Now understand what gets in between you and God. Cleanse the sacred shrine of all its idols. The body is the temple of God! Purify your heart, and your intentions will follow. Be worthy to walk among the children of God. Be worthy of that title! Embody peace, embody truth, embody love. All fall short of the glory of God, but understand that God forgives, and is most merciful, and we can move on without being enslaved to our mistakes.

The rightly guided Caliphs were perhaps good Muslims who did what they were able to do at the best of their own abilities. They were human beings. All of these caliphs have sayings attributed to them that can be very inspirational.
I don't know what's the link of OP with all you displayed here, but you misrepresented Caliphs ignoring the fact that they sustain utmost rank for being mere a companion [according to direct Quranic evidence], irrespective of how one analyze their political decisions & personal life.

Abu Bakr on becoming he first caliph said during his first speech, "If I am on the straight path, doing as God commands me, then please support me. If you find that I am straying from the way of God, and am in error, please rebuke me and help me back on the straight path.". Certainly, these are the words of a man with integrity!
Every man you find in Islamic history to be of distinguished integral position, would render you the same style of modesty, it doesn't propose any doubt if they were rightly guided or not. For, if you doubt, you are eventually doubting the continuity chain & that's like demolishing the whole deen structure.

Secondly those words suggests that caliphs are not monarchs, & "straying from the way of God" suggests that state head [caliph] has to implement law of God that is Islam, & this rejects secular state idea. But don't mix up secularism with freedom of religion [that Islam gives surely], but secularism means no influence of God's law or any religion in state matters. I hope you're clear now.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 12:52:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 11:29:02 AM, Dazz wrote:
What do you mean by human institution, & how do they count as partners with God? This is idea isn't Islamic at all. Yes if you refer that all institutional & law-order power belongs to God alone, then that's true, thus fine. But this rather would imply that state rules must me of Islamic [to implement the God's law], thus your idea that state & religion are separate is flawed, & not Islamic at all.

I would say that of all countries, on paper, The United States is actually a pretty decent example of an Islamic government. I am sure that many will be puzzled by this statement.

I must point back to the constitution of Medina.

So this imply that all four caliphs [ALLAH is pleased with them & may ALLAH bless them all] are on right & were elected by consensus [people of authority took oath on their hands]. Thus the electoral system was democratic, & state law or parliamentarian rule was also through Shura [suggestive committee of major companions]. Thus caliph government was not anarchy or monarchy, rather democratic parliamentary [no matter which institutional development to introduce later on]. Islam allows all what is not forbidden. Thus secularism is allowed as long as it don't transgress or contradict Islamic law [defining crime, for example]. Hence secular state would follow what is ethical to define crime, it may & may not ban wine consumption depending upon human calculation. So you need human institutions to implement God's law, that provides state & religion can be separate [in Islam, for operations & management or for strategy too] as long as religious violations are not made, & this is against the definition of secularism. So I don't know where are you getting these ideas from which don't represent Islamic judgement.

Believe it or not, I don't think I'm ultimately in disagreement with you.

Every man you find in Islamic history to be of distinguished integral position, would render you the same style of modesty, it doesn't propose any doubt if they were rightly guided or not. For, if you doubt, you are eventually doubting the continuity chain & that's like demolishing the whole deen structure.

Secondly those words suggests that caliphs are not monarchs, & "straying from the way of God" suggests that state head [caliph] has to implement law of God that is Islam, & this rejects secular state idea. But don't mix up secularism with freedom of religion [that Islam gives surely], but secularism means no influence of God's law or any religion in state matters. I hope you're clear now.

The "American" idea of secularism more has to do with the thought that the state does not sponsor a particular religion or get in the way of religious freedom. This does not mean that there is no influence of God's law or religion in state matters. This of course is absurd, because the people who take office have their own religions! A government can't be free from these things. Indeed, the government itself is a type of religion. In America, religions are practically respected as governments on their own.

Europeans seem to have a different idea of this, but I really do think that The United States has the right idea. People in the United States are rather apathetic when it comes to government though, and not many people actually vote. When you don't vote, it's like a vote for money. Money has a great deal of influence in America, and you don't necessarily have to like money for its influence to hit you. Why is it like this though? Because people are allowed to practice their religion freely, even if their religion is about making money. Yes, even Satanists are allowed to practice their religion freely. If you truly have faith, you should be able to practice true religion in America. Truth stands clearly apart from error.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:21:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:59:36 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I recently completed a course on civilizations of the world and one of the topics we discussed was the historical emergence and spread of Islam. I believe most Americans are unaware of this information and often times dismiss the fact that many of the things we rely on today come directly from the Islamic empire. For example, the very first encyclopedia of contagious diseases, rubbing alcohol used to clean and disinfect injuries, the first advanced observatory and lunar calendar all originated in the Abbasid Caliphate during the "Golden Age" of Islam.

Is that because of their religion, or their culture?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 12:16:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:04:14 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is a four-part set (the fourth part forthcoming) of an extended analysis of the years of Islamic history following Muhammad's death. It covers the rule of the Rashidun Caliphs, the birth of the Ulama, the compilation of the Qu'ran, the conquests of Byzantium and Sassanid Persia, the rise of the Umayyads, and the Sunni/Shi'a schism.

To most people in the West, this is a grey area. We know nothing of the heritage, the political power plays, the social upheavals, and the religious beliefs of this age. These videos are done by CaspianReport, a YouTube channel run by Shirvan, a political scientist based in secular, but largely Shi'a demographically, Azerbaijan. His perspective is pretty balanced and detached, and his graphics and visuals are great for understanding all of the intrigues going on. They are long, but you will leave with a good understanding of what, precisely, early Islam was, and how it evolved from a local religious revolution into an empire which eventually spanned the known world. It will humanize a comprehensive history which it has become fashionable to categorically and myopically malign.





Hi! How have you been doing?

- Sorry I wasn't able to answer you sooner. I am swamped with stuff, personal & school related. I've been virtually absent from the site lately.

- That been said, I am not quite sure what is it I am supposed to bring to this topic. It says: "Islamic History"! In my head, that looks like dozens of sliding volumes of paper. It's not that I am not interested, it's just that I don't really know where to begin. If you would pin down specifics, that might help narrowing the scope of the discussion.

=> "... Muhammad's death. It covers the rule of the Rashidun Caliphs, the birth of the Ulama, the compilation of the Qu'ran, the conquests of Byzantium and Sassanid Persia, the rise of the Umayyads, and the Sunni/Shi'a schism." <<<< There goes 20 volumes already.

- As for the videos, I've scrolled over the content, nothing surprising so far. Though, if I may add, a proper analysis of the birth of Islam is impossible to be done in such short videos!!! A proper analysis can only be done when these three necessary elements are known:
1. Arabs: one must understand Arab culture & Arabic language extremely well before one can even begin to imagine those times. & truth be said, westerners & most others as well failed SPECTACULARLY in this regard. There are elements in the linked videos that make absolutely no sense if one considers the Arab identity & culture. If you see me reading western historians on Islam, I often have a smirk on my face that says: "these idiots understand nothing of Arabs".
2. Islam: one must understand Islam extremely well to even begin to understand its origins. From what I recollected from the videos, the guy seems more or less familiar with the basic Islamic elements involved in its origins, which I appreciate.
3. History: one must know Islamic History as it should be known. This step however is completely messed up when handled by westerners or seculars. & for the life of me I can't believe how negligent scholars have been towards this crucial aspect!!! I mean, you have a History that's been written in a certain way by a certain people for a certain human condition, why on earth is the point of forcing other ways through it, other people into it, for completely & radically different circumstances. This is the epitome of arrogance or stupidity, there isn't much difference between the two anyways.

- I can sympathise with not being able to understand Arabs. One must literally live in the desert among them to have to glimpse of their lifestyle, which is unique in its own right, know their language to its core, including Arabic poetry & literature, & have their character, in regards to honour, hospitality, pride, generosity... Let me give you few examples:
> In English (or even French), you say: "this warmed my heart". The same idiom can be expressed in Arabic as: "this froze my chest". Why? Because the Arabs lived in the desert, the good 'warm' feeling that europeans get is reciprocated with a 'cold' sensation for the Arabs.
> If you don't know virtually everything there is to know about camels, then you can not possibly understand Arabs. (I am evidently talking here about 7th century Arabs).

>> This concludes my runt for the day. I am less interested in discussing Islamic History itself than how Muslims view History. The gap between us doesn't lie in what information you or us have (bottom line it's the same, as it is obviously taken from our books), but rather on how we view the information. & trust me, we have fundamentally different approches to History. Often, what you consider to be stronger evidence, we consider weaker, what you consider more important, we consider less important... Here is an example:
> "For Patricia Crone, a single Greek text written at around the time of Muhammad's death provides "irrefutable proof" that he was a historical figure." <<< If muslim historians stumbled upon this, they would probably commit seppuku just to recover from the horror of this statement. For them, this Greek text, written by who knows who, who never personally met the prophet is immediately rejected as forged, by consensus. Whereas, apparently, for westerners this somehow constitute an "irrefutable proof"!!!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 1:42:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 12:16:44 AM, Yassine wrote:
Hi! How have you been doing?

- Sorry I wasn't able to answer you sooner. I am swamped with stuff, personal & school related. I've been virtually absent from the site lately.

- That been said, I am not quite sure what is it I am supposed to bring to this topic. It says: "Islamic History"! In my head, that looks like dozens of sliding volumes of paper. It's not that I am not interested, it's just that I don't really know where to begin. If you would pin down specifics, that might help narrowing the scope of the discussion.

=> "... Muhammad's death. It covers the rule of the Rashidun Caliphs, the birth of the Ulama, the compilation of the Qu'ran, the conquests of Byzantium and Sassanid Persia, the rise of the Umayyads, and the Sunni/Shi'a schism." <<<< There goes 20 volumes already.

- As for the videos, I've scrolled over the content, nothing surprising so far. Though, if I may add, a proper analysis of the birth of Islam is impossible to be done in such short videos!!! A proper analysis can only be done when these three necessary elements are known:
1. Arabs: one must understand Arab culture & Arabic language extremely well before one can even begin to imagine those times. & truth be said, westerners & most others as well failed SPECTACULARLY in this regard. There are elements in the linked videos that make absolutely no sense if one considers the Arab identity & culture. If you see me reading western historians on Islam, I often have a smirk on my face that says: "these idiots understand nothing of Arabs".
2. Islam: one must understand Islam extremely well to even begin to understand its origins. From what I recollected from the videos, the guy seems more or less familiar with the basic Islamic elements involved in its origins, which I appreciate.
3. History: one must know Islamic History as it should be known. This step however is completely messed up when handled by westerners or seculars. & for the life of me I can't believe how negligent scholars have been towards this crucial aspect!!! I mean, you have a History that's been written in a certain way by a certain people for a certain human condition, why on earth is the point of forcing other ways through it, other people into it, for completely & radically different circumstances. This is the epitome of arrogance or stupidity, there isn't much difference between the two anyways.

Yeah, I myself don't really have a full grasp, I'm always learning about every sort of history. I just think that this might be a good introduction for those who have NO grasp.

- I can sympathise with not being able to understand Arabs. One must literally live in the desert among them to have to glimpse of their lifestyle, which is unique in its own right, know their language to its core, including Arabic poetry & literature, & have their character, in regards to honour, hospitality, pride, generosity... Let me give you few examples:
> In English (or even French), you say: "this warmed my heart". The same idiom can be expressed in Arabic as: "this froze my chest". Why? Because the Arabs lived in the desert, the good 'warm' feeling that europeans get is reciprocated with a 'cold' sensation for the Arabs.
> If you don't know virtually everything there is to know about camels, then you can not possibly understand Arabs. (I am evidently talking here about 7th century Arabs).

Haha, what do you mean about camels?

>> This concludes my runt for the day. I am less interested in discussing Islamic History itself than how Muslims view History. The gap between us doesn't lie in what information you or us have (bottom line it's the same, as it is obviously taken from our books), but rather on how we view the information. & trust me, we have fundamentally different approches to History. Often, what you consider to be stronger evidence, we consider weaker, what you consider more important, we consider less important...

Well, this is why I wanted your opinion. The author of the videos is a Shi'a Muslim, and you are a Sunni, so I also wanted to know how you think he did on putting forth an unbiased perspective of these events, considering how contentious some of them are on a sectarian level.

Here is an example:
> "For Patricia Crone, a single Greek text written at around the time of Muhammad's death provides "irrefutable proof" that he was a historical figure." <<< If muslim historians stumbled upon this, they would probably commit seppuku just to recover from the horror of this statement. For them, this Greek text, written by who knows who, who never personally met the prophet is immediately rejected as forged, by consensus. Whereas, apparently, for westerners this somehow constitute an "irrefutable proof"!!!

Yeah, it's a bit silly to discount a culture's own historical dialogue to such a staggering degree.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 2:57:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 12:16:44 AM, Yassine wrote:
1. Arabs: one must understand Arab culture & Arabic language extremely well before one can even begin to imagine those times. & truth be said, westerners & most others as well failed SPECTACULARLY in this regard. There are elements in the linked videos that make absolutely no sense if one considers the Arab identity & culture. If you see me reading western historians on Islam, I often have a smirk on my face that says: "these idiots understand nothing of Arabs".
2. Islam: one must understand Islam extremely well to even begin to understand its origins. From what I recollected from the videos, the guy seems more or less familiar with the basic Islamic elements involved in its origins, which I appreciate.
3. History: one must know Islamic History as it should be known. This step however is completely messed up when handled by westerners or seculars. & for the life of me I can't believe how negligent scholars have been towards this crucial aspect!!! I mean, you have a History that's been written in a certain way by a certain people for a certain human condition, why on earth is the point of forcing other ways through it, other people into it, for completely & radically different circumstances. This is the epitome of arrogance or stupidity, there isn't much difference between the two anyways.

You appear to be under the delusion that the historic past and origins of one civilization or society should be treated differently than others. Sorry, doesn't work that way. People are pretty much the same everywhere, Arabs are no different, they are not special in that regard.

- I can sympathise with not being able to understand Arabs. One must literally live in the desert among them to have to glimpse of their lifestyle, which is unique in its own right, know their language to its core, including Arabic poetry & literature, & have their character, in regards to honour, hospitality, pride, generosity... Let me give you few examples:

So what? You seem to believe that Arab's hold some kind of mystery that eludes the rest of the us.

> In English (or even French), you say: "this warmed my heart". The same idiom can be expressed in Arabic as: "this froze my chest". Why? Because the Arabs lived in the desert, the good 'warm' feeling that europeans get is reciprocated with a 'cold' sensation for the Arabs.

LOL. And, that's supposed to be a revelation of some sort? Are you trying to say the other people don't live in hot climates throughout the world and can't understand what that would mean?

> If you don't know virtually everything there is to know about camels, then you can not possibly understand Arabs. (I am evidently talking here about 7th century Arabs).

That's hilarious. Camels. LOL.

>> This concludes my runt for the day. I am less interested in discussing Islamic History itself than how Muslims view History. The gap between us doesn't lie in what information you or us have (bottom line it's the same, as it is obviously taken from our books), but rather on how we view the information. & trust me, we have fundamentally different approches to History. Often, what you consider to be stronger evidence, we consider weaker, what you consider more important, we consider less important... Here is an example:

Yes, you have decided to use confirmation bias on evidence, which is only valid if it supports your beliefs. Of course, that's not how evidence works but I suspect you wouldn't understand that, either.

> "For Patricia Crone, a single Greek text written at around the time of Muhammad's death provides "irrefutable proof" that he was a historical figure." <<< If muslim historians stumbled upon this, they would probably commit seppuku just to recover from the horror of this statement. For them, this Greek text, written by who knows who, who never personally met the prophet is immediately rejected as forged, by consensus. Whereas, apparently, for westerners this somehow constitute an "irrefutable proof"!!!

And yet, you refuse to accept that which is not sanctioned or acknowledged by your alleged licensed scholars, who also never personally met Muhammad. Of course, as I mentioned above, you probably didn't even look at that evidence before deciding it was bogus.

Obviously, it didn't even occur to you that we too might dismiss that particular evidence if we actually knew what it was and were able to see how it was determined to be authentic.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 2:23:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 1:42:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I myself don't really have a full grasp, I'm always learning about every sort of history. I just think that this might be a good introduction for those who have NO grasp.

- Alright, got it. If you like wanting to know more don't hesitate to ask :) . It takes a lot of dedication to learn about the History of any civilisation. From the outside one might assume that this or that region doesn't have a real History as opposed to his own region, but once one gets to digging then one finds himself overwhelmed. For instance, Chinese History. In my opinion, Chinese History is the most underrated History out there (aside from Islamic History, which I am particularly pretty familiar with). I mean this Civilisation is a world of its own. & it saddens me to tears how, in a mere damned century, they almost destroyed their unimaginably rich & extraordinary Tradition!!! WHYYYYYY!!!!!!!

Haha, what do you mean about camels?

- Exactly. If you didn't understand what I meant, then you can't really understand Arabs. It's very hard to explain. Let just say, if you want to really understand farmers then you have to know what exactly a farm is. Well, the same thing. If you wanna understand 7th century Arabs, then you have to know what camels are.

Well, this is why I wanted your opinion. The author of the videos is a Shi'a Muslim, and you are a Sunni, so I also wanted to know how you think he did on putting forth an unbiased perspective of these events, considering how contentious some of them are on a sectarian level.

- I am Sunni, that's true. But I am pretty familiar with Shi'a views as well. Regardless, the guy in the videos is what you expect from a person with an average understanding of those times. Truthfully, he is not well versed in the History involved, not in the views or Sunnah or even Shi'a on the subject. I'd say he is OK. I've heard much worse! Although, he messed up some pretty obvious things, especially in the last one. For example:
> The section about Ali being a closer companion to Muhammad (pbuh) than Abu Bakr. Well, the guy failed to mention that the Prophet (pbuh) knew Abu Bakr since they were 12/10, & from there on, they did everything together. . .
> The punishment of adultery was not initiated by Umar, nor does it have anything to do with Moses' Law!!! It was practiced by the Prophet (pbuh) & his successors as well, including Abu Bakr. Hudud (penalties) are, in Islamic Law, referred to as Ahkam Tawq'ifya (blocked rulings). Meaning, they are outside the jurisdiction of other than Allah (as decreed in the Qur'an). The Hudud are very few & extremely restricted (i.e. highly unlikely to actually take place, with the exception of Defamation) & they constitute the highest punishments for Transgressions against the 6 Sacred Necessities of Shari'a (which are: Religion, Life, Intellect, Lineage, Wealth & Honour). For instance, Wealth is sacred, thus stealing has a Hadd, though extremely restricted (there are 35 conditions to be met for such a punishment to take place). What I want to say by this is: 1. Umar does not have the authority to make up a penalty for Adultery to begin with, that would be against the decree of the Qur'an. 2. The penalty of adultery is death, i.e. seemingly a Transgression against Life, which is also sacred. Thus if it wasn't sanctioned by the Prophet (pbuh) himself, it couldn't have possibly have been sanctioned by anyone else.
> The whole section of Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb!! Well, I am not sure where this guy got his information from, but it's all sounded like hodgepodge to me (if that's the right word?!). He went on Umar did this, Umar did that! Needless to say, the guy has no idea what he was talking about then. In short, Dar al-Islam is the land where Islam is practiced freely, whereas Dar al-Harb is where Islam isn't. So, a muslim majority country can be both, as can be a non-muslim majority country. For instance, a nation in a Treaty with Muslims, where Muslims can practice their religion freely is considered Dar al-Islam even if its population is predominantly non-muslims. & the opposite is also true. Moreover, a nation/region/land can be called both Dar al-Harb & Dar al-Islam at the same time depending on what sense the term is used for. Not all muslim nations are alike in regards to Islam, nor are all non-muslim nations, so the term is largely relative & mostly ambiguous (for the ignorant mass of course). Nevertheless, there are instances where the terms are unambiguous. If a nation of muslims is governed by Shari'a Law then it's by definition Dar al-Islam. If a nation of non-muslims is currently at war with Muslims, then it's Dar al-Harb (which literally means "House of War"). Other than that, the term is used relatively depending on what situation the nation is in relation of Islam & Muslims, regardless if its population is muslim or not. There are also other more specific terms such as: Dar al-'Ahd ("House of Treaty"), which of course does not allow War ; or Dar ad-Da'wa ("House of Invitation") . . . etc.
> The section about Segregation between Men & Women!!! Here again the guy brings up Segregation in Prayer, which is also a Hukm Tawq'ifi (blocked rulings). There are three categories of Practices (bodily practices) in Islam: 1. 'Ibadat (Practices of Worship, including the 5 pillars of Islam) ; 2. 'Adaat (Practices of Habits, including customs, decorum & such) ; 3. Mu'amalat (Practices of Dealings, the bulk of Islamic Law, including contracts, property, marriage, inheritance, welfare...). The first category of practices, Worship, is based on rituals, & rituals are not subject to change, thus not outside the authority of other that the Prophet. The manners & rituals in which the Prayer is conducted can not be influence by any person other than the Prophet (pbuh) himself. If the Prophet did not segregate Men & Women in Prayer, then Umar does not have the authority to do that. Plus, it's a very known thing that Men & Women prayed separately during the time of the Prophet, anyone who says otherwise is clearly ignorant.
. . .etc.

- Also, Transgressions that have penalties (aside from Defamation) are very hard to prove & also very easy to evade. If someone knows the Law well, he can pretty much get away from any penalty even if proven to be guilty (well, in most cases that is). Hadd/Hudud (penalty) literally means boundary - frontier - limitation. That is, Hudud are in principal meant to scare the sh*t out of people so they would stop transgression against what Shari'a considers sacred (such as Life & Wealth...), they are not meant to serve as actual punishments. Thus, they are rarely implemented (example: during the ~5 centuries of Ottoman reign in Istanbul, there has been only ONE incident of penalty for adultery). That's why we have this entire Corpus of Law called Ta'zir dedicated to punishments that replace the penalties. For example, a thief, if proven to be guilty, might very likely not get the penalty, but he still has to compensate the amount he stole. A prostitute, even if proven to be guilty, might likely not get the penalty, but she will receive some sort of punishment (strictly less than the penalty) nonetheless.

- Anyways, I get the sort of initiative the person on the videos is going for. His commentary is meant as an introduction to an era of History, not as a real scholarly presentation, which I am fine with.

Yeah, it's a bit silly to discount a culture's own historical dialogue to such a staggering degree.

- "Silly" is the word I am looking for. What this attitude does is freeze an eventual dialogue between two great scholarly traditions. On one hand, the westerners are doing a 'silly' job "studying" Islamic History, which would lead them nowhere, since they are being contemptuously dismissive. On the other hand, muslims are unimpressed, which eventually turns also into contempt.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
ironslippers
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 2:58:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Good call Thanx, looking forward to part 4
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 3:00:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 2:23:09 AM, Yassine wrote:

- Exactly. If you didn't understand what I meant, then you can't really understand Arabs. It's very hard to explain. Let just say, if you want to really understand farmers then you have to know what exactly a farm is. Well, the same thing. If you wanna understand 7th century Arabs, then you have to know what camels are.

Shouldn't it be that if we wanted to understand farmers, we need to know what a horse or tractor is if your analogy is valid?

The penalty of adultery is death,

Yet, more reasons to reject Islam as that is another act of barbarism.

That is, Hudud are in principal meant to scare the sh*t out of people so they would stop transgression against what Shari'a considers sacred (such as Life & Wealth...)

A religion with the intent to scare the sh1t of people. Yeah, that will work.

, they are not meant to serve as actual punishments. Thus, they are rarely implemented (example: during the ~5 centuries of Ottoman reign in Istanbul, there has been only ONE incident of penalty for adultery). That's why we have this entire Corpus of Law called Ta'zir dedicated to punishments that replace the penalties. For example, a thief, if proven to be guilty, might very likely not get the penalty, but he still has to compensate the amount he stole. A prostitute, even if proven to be guilty, might likely not get the penalty, but she will receive some sort of punishment (strictly less than the penalty) nonetheless.

- Anyways, I get the sort of initiative the person on the videos is going for. His commentary is meant as an introduction to an era of History, not as a real scholarly presentation, which I am fine with.

Yeah, it's a bit silly to discount a culture's own historical dialogue to such a staggering degree.

- "Silly" is the word I am looking for. What this attitude does is freeze an eventual dialogue between two great scholarly traditions. On one hand, the westerners are doing a 'silly' job "studying" Islamic History, which would lead them nowhere, since they are being contemptuously dismissive. On the other hand, muslims are unimpressed, which eventually turns also into contempt.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth