• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Christian-Muslim Relations In the Middle-East

Dark Angel

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
They are meant for our friend @Lebanese-Nationalist who thinks it is only Muslims who act differently or opposite to what their religion says.
and what do you think you will do when he reminds you of what voltaire said about islam?
 
  • Advertisement
  • Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    and what do you think you will do when he reminds you of what voltaire said about islam?
    Remember, the topic is on discrepancy between what the religion says and what the followers do. I quoted Voltaire to show him that reality, which apparently he is ignorant of.

    It wouldn't be something new for westerners to be critical of Islam or the Prophet. But when you hage enlightened western thinkers and intellectuals praise Islam and Muhammad, that would be of interest to consider. And when the same enlightened western thinkers and intellectuals criticize Christianity, it would amount to hearing it from the horse's mouth.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    For most of European history after the dawn of Islam, Prophet Muhammad has been demonized by Christian scholars, including the famous reformer Martin Luther, for example. This has not been because a critical understanding of the Prophet’s life was acheieved by European intellectuals – for the most part, they didn’t even try. Thus, more often than not it was preferable to them (and “they” at this time was the Roman Catholic Church) to utterly demonize Prophet Muhammad, because by doing so they could pinpoint him as the man who embodied everything that they, as Christians living the tough life in medieval Europe, ought to hate about the Muslims, be they Muslims in Spain, Sicily, or Anatolia.

    By the 18th century, however, the situation had changed drastically. Muslims were no longer the rulers of Spain or Sicily, and even in Anatolia the power of the once feared Ottoman Empire was starting to decline. But even more importantly, the Renaissance (c. 14th-17th centuries) and Protestant Reformation (c. 1517-1648) had occurred in Europe, leaving the Roman Catholic Church with a lot less influence over the European population than it once had. Intellectuals could now independently challenge beliefs that had been unquestioned in European society for centuries, and the long-held negative perception of Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam) in Europe finally began to be challenged as well. This period of intellectual rethinking came to be known as the Age of Enlightenment (c. 1620s-1780s), and was particularly popular in France (where it would culminate in the French Revolution in 1789).

    Henri de Boulainvilliers (1658-1722) was a French nobleman and historian, inspired by the famous philosophers René Descartes and John Locke, and an Enlightenment-era intellectual who wrote on physics, philosophy, theology and, of course, on history. In one of his more famous works, titled Vie de Mahomed (The World of Muhammad), he defended Prophet Muhammad against common allegations that he was inspired by a Christian assistant, that his doctrine was irrational, and that he was an imposter. Instead, Henri argued, Muhammad was a divinely-inspired messenger whom God had sent to liberate the Near East from the despotic rule of the Romans and Persians and to spread the message of tawhīd, or God’s indivisible unity, from India to Spain. Muhammad’s success, said Henri, was such that it “could only be from God.” About Islam, Henri said that Muhammad’s doctrine merely removed all that was irrational and undesirable about Christianity as it was practiced at the time. Muhammad “seems to have adopted and embraced all that is most marvelous in Christianity itself,” wrote Henri, “so that what he retrenched, relates obviously to those abuses alone, which it was impossible he should not condemn.” Henri de Boulainvilliers’ work was banned in Catholic France but was published in 1730, after his death, in Protestant Amsterdam and London.

    Henri de Boulainvilliers’ historical representation of Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam) had an effect on other Enlightenment-era thinkers, particularly the French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778). Voltaire, a renowned poet, essayist, playwright and also a historian, is most famous for his attacks on the established Roman Catholic Church, his advocacy of freedom of religion and of expression, and his advocacy of secularism. His opposition to Islam and his demonization of Prophet Muhammad, however, was carried out even more vehemently than his attacks on the Church and the Pope. In 1736, he wrote a play called Le Fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete (Fanaticism, or Muhammad the Prophet) and it was first staged in 1741. As the name suggests, it portrayed the Prophet as “an impostor desiring self-glorification and beautiful women who is willing to lie, to kill, and even to wage war against his homeland to get what he desires.” [3] He expressed similar views about the Prophet in two of his letters, one to Frederick II of Prussia in 1740 and the other to Pope Benedict XIV in 1745. Sometime after 1745, however, he read Boulainvilliers’ Vie de Mahomed, and it seems to have had a lasting impact on his perception of Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam). Later in life, particularly in his historical writings such as the Essay on the Customs and the Spirit of the Nations (1756), Voltaire praised the Prophet as an effective and tolerant leader and a successful conqueror, though he still maintained that Prophet Muhammad was not divinely inspired but was “so carried away [by his success as a leader] that he believed himself inspired by God.” [4]

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was yet another Enlightenment-era French philosopher who couldn’t help but comment on Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam), and that too in his magnum opus, The Social Contract (1762). Muhammad, he said, was neither an imposter nor a sorcerer, but an admirable legislator who successfully combined spiritual and worldly power. [5] In 1787, Claude-Emmanuel Pastoret (1755-c. 1830), a French author and politician, published his Zoroaster, Confucius and Muhammad, in which he compared and contrasted the careers of the three Eastern religious “great men”, “the greatest legislators of the universe.” He defended Prophet Muhammad against the allegations commonly made against him, and praised the Qur‘ān for the way it upholds the unity of God (tawhīd). [6]

    Henri de Boulainvilliers, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Claude-Emmanuel Pastoret all lived during the Enlightenment and all were French intellectuals, but Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), another Frenchman who was very interested in Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam), came to the stage after the French Revolution and is remembered far more as a military and political leader than as an intellectual or historian. In May 1798, he set out towards the Egypt and Syria leading 55,000 men of the French navy in an effort to challenge British control over the area, which was officially still part of the Ottoman Empire. On July 1, 1798, before landing at Alexandria, he sent the following written declaration to the Egyptian people:

    “In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful. There is no other God than God, [and] He has neither son nor associate to His rule. On behalf of the French Republic founded on the basis of liberty and equality, the General Bonaparte, head of the French Army, proclaims to the people of Egypt that for too long the beys [i.e. Ottoman governors] who rule Egypt insult the French nation and heap abuse on its merchants; the hour of their chastisement has come. For too long, this rabble of slaves brought up in the Caucasus and in Georgia [i.e. the ruling-class Mamluks of Egypt] tyrannizes the finest region of the world; but God, Lord of the worlds, [the] All-Powerful, has proclaimed an end to their empire. Egyptians, some will say that I have come to destroy your religion. This is a lie, do not believe it! Tell them that I have come to restore your rights and to punish the usurpers; that I respect, more than do the Mamluks, God, His prophet Muhammad and the glorious Qur‘ān… Qādī, shaykh, shorbagi, tell the people that we are true Muslims. Are we not the one who has destroyed the Pope [during the Italian Campaign of 1796-97] who preached war against Muslims? Did we not destroy the Knights of Malta, because these fanatics believed that God wanted them to make war against the Muslims?” [7]

    This definitely sounds very much like the self-serving, propagandistic rhetoric that is always used by imperialists, but it shows Napoleon’s cultural and historical awareness and the way he used it to his advantage. It also shows that, far from vilifying Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam) and trying to convince the Egyptian people that Islam was the cause of the tyrannical leadership from which he was supposedly here to liberate them, he actually used Islam to legitimize his cause. But nevertheless, this was most probably mere lip service. But many years later, as he was exiled to the remote island of Saint Helena after having lost the Napoleonic Wars, he wrote down his thoughts on Prophet Muhammad in his memoirs. Since there was no conceivable ulterior motive by this point for him to be saying about Prophet Muhammad what he did not actually believe, the following passage from his memoirs may show his genuine admiration for Prophet Muhammad:

    “Arabia was idolatrous when Muhammad, seven centuries after Jesus Christ, introduced the cult of the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Moses and Jesus Christ. The Arians and other sects that had troubled the tranquility of the Orient had raised questions concerning the nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Muhammad declared that there was one unique God who had neither father nor son; that the trinity implied idolatry. He wrote on the frontispiece of the Qur‘ān: “There is no other god than God.”

    He addressed savage, poor peoples, who lacked everything and were very ignorant; had he spoken to their spirit, they would not have listened to him. In the midst of abundance in Greece, the spiritual pleasures of contemplation were a necessity; but in the midst of the deserts, where the Arab ceaselessly sighed for a spring of water, for the shade of a palm where he could take refuge from the rays of the burning tropical sun, it was necessary to promise to the chosen, as a reward, inexhaustible rivers of milk, sweet-smelling woods where they could relax in eternal shade, in the arms of divine hūrīs with white skin and black eyes. The Bedouins were impassioned by the promise of such an enchanting abode; they exposed themselves to every danger to reach it; they became heroes. Muhammad was a prince; he rallied his compatriots around him. In a few years, his Muslims conquered half the world. They plucked more souls from the false gods, knocked down more idols, razed more pagan temples in fifteen years, than the followers of Moses and Jesus Christ did in fifteen centuries. Muhammad was a great man.”
    [8]

    “Muhammad was a great man.” Boulainvilliers, Rousseau and Pastoret would definitely agree, though none of them are known to have ever practiced Islam. ‘Umar, Khālid, and ‘Amr would definitely agree as well, whether you asked them before they embraced Islam or afterwards. But what do all of them have in common? The answer, I would argue, was their enlightened, which provided them with certain values which shaped their understanding of the life of Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam). They lived during periods of uncertainty and major social and intellectual shake-ups of society. The Frenchmen all lived during the Enlightenment, and so they challenged the traditional way of thinking about Prophet Muhammad using their shifting values (a shift towards objectivity when studying history, for example). The Arabs, for their part, were all relatively young at the time of the dawn of Islam, and therefore were not as caught up in the traditions of pre-Islamic Arabia as their elders were, so they challenged the traditional way of thinking about Prophet Muhammad as well, using their own shifting values (a shift from tribal identity to faith-based identity, for example).

    The reminder in this for Muslims today is that not all those who oppose Islam do so for the same reason or in the same way. There are always certain trends, yes, but Muslims should remain keenly aware of non-Muslim individuals who are attaining enlightenment through social, cultural and intellectual shifts, because these shake-ups in history often present excellent opportunities for fulfilling the obligation of da’wah to Islam. ‘Umar, Khālid, and ‘Amr all received this da’wah; Boulainvilliers, Voltaire, Rousseau, Pastoret and Napoleon almost certainly did not. And we will never know, given their general admiration for the Prophet, how close these enlightened French disbelievers may have been to embracing Islam if only they had been properly invited to it.

     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    @Dark Angel

    François-Marie Aroue (1694 – 1778), better known by the penname Voltaire, is a case in point. In 1742 he wrote “Fanaticism”, a play where he attacked Islam, and claimed that women are forced to accept the Islamic faith. He also raised doubts about the talk of Prophet Muhammad (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with Gabriel (Jibreel), (peace be upon him) and he (i.e. Voltaire) provided an abusive portrayal of the Messenger of Allah. One year after publication, the play was banned because the Church had reservations concerning the content. The Church thought that Voltaire wanted to criticize it from the Islamic perspective.

    Voltaire’s prejudiced description and attacks against Prophet Muhammad aimed to antagonize religious thought in general to cope with the trend of his time. Large-scale campaigns were launched against the Christian thoughts, in compliance with the principles of the so-called Age of Renaissance and Enlightenment that was prevalent in Europe at that time.

    Actually, Voltaire renounced fanaticism in the French society and called upon others to fight it. However, he committed a gross mistake by authoring his play “Fanaticism” or “Mahomet” which was primarily based on the principles of fanaticism, falsehood, and calumny. Indeed, he wanted to criticize the Church and profane all the sanctities, perceiving that both the church and the community would accept his attacks against Islam and Prophet Muhammad.. The contemplated reaction was revealed at the beginning until the play was presented to the Church, which consequently banned it again because the church realized that it was meant by the critique.

    Later on, Voltaire refuted these malicious allegations against Islam as he knew the truth about Islam, its guidelines, and lofty principles. He was affected by “The Life of Muhammad”, a book authored by Henri de Boulainvilliers and published in London in 1720. The book gloriously defended Prophet Muhammad and refuted the allegations that were raised against him. The author explained that Muhammad was a religious and rational innovator who deserved appreciation even by the West.

    In 1765, Voltaire authored “ A Treatise on Tolerance” where he praised Islam, extolled Muhammad, and appreciated the Qur’an. He said that Muhammad, Confucius, and Zoroaster were the greatest lawmakers of the world. In 1751, Voltaire authored his book “Essay on the Manners of Nations” where he defended Muhammad as a judicious political thinker and a wise founder of religion. He indicated that the Islamic countries always enjoyed tolerance, while the Christian tradition lacked tolerance throughout history.

    In light of that, it would have been fair and perfect that French intellectuals in particular, Western intellectuals in general, and the common people who admire Voltaire’s thought to give precedence to “Treatise on Tolerance” over “Fanaticism”, or do they prefer the latter out of bigotry?

    In the midst of the campaign launched by Western extremists against Islam and Prophet Muhammad, we would probably ask those extremists to reconsider their situation in this age of scientific advancement and amazing communication between nations and cultures. They are due to recheck themselves to match the spirit of the age with all of its facts, one of which is demonstrated by proofs of the truthfulness and virtue of Muhammad.

    This is the time, given the scientific advancement and the astonishing communication between nations and cultures, for the Western mind to resettle its accounts and take an attitude closer to the spirit of the age and more harmonious with its facts.

    This is an urgent demand as the world witnesses many disorders which induced blood shedding and claimed the souls of people unfairly. This has created a desperate need for promoting the causes of peace and justice and establishing respect for the Divine laws, Prophets, and Messengers. Following this approach will maintain the human necessities and keep people’s souls, honor, wealth, rights, and elements of a noble life.

    The offensive hostilities against the sanctities reinforce the wretchedness and misery of the world, because all people need mercy and guidance, and these two things were divinely provided by Prophet Muhammad. However, those who ridicule Prophet Muhammad and defame his life and message drive people away from virtue and deprive the world from stability and tranquility. These people are condemned and threatened by the Qur’an. Allah says in His Glrious Book, : {The ones who prefer the worldly life over the Hereafter and avert [people] from the way of Allah, seeking to make it (seem) deviant. Those are in extreme error.} [chapter of Abraham, 14:3]

    It is unfortunate for the humankind that progress has been achieved in different spheres of knowledge and amazing discoveries have been made. However, many world-class claimers of civilization profane the religious sanctities in writings which bring about the fall of their own societies due to the moral reflections involved.

    There is no doubt that Muslims assume a great responsibility to prevent the defamation of Islam, Prophet Muhammad, and the Qur’an. Each Muslim shares the responsibility, whether major or minor. Leaders, scholars, intellects, media professionals, communities, etc. are responsible according to the position that they hold.

    written by: Dr.Khalid Shaya

     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Remember, the topic is on discrepancy between what the religion says and what the followers do. I quoted Voltaire to show him that reality, which apparently he is ignorant of.

    It wouldn't be something new for westerners to be critical of Islam or the Prophet. But when you hage enlightened western thinkers and intellectuals praise Islam and Muhammad, that would be of interest to consider. And when the same enlightened western thinkers and intellectuals criticize Christianity, it would amount to hearing it from the horse's mouth.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    For most of European history after the dawn of Islam, Prophet Muhammad has been demonized by Christian scholars, including the famous reformer Martin Luther, for example. This has not been because a critical understanding of the Prophet’s life was acheieved by European intellectuals – for the most part, they didn’t even try. Thus, more often than not it was preferable to them (and “they” at this time was the Roman Catholic Church) to utterly demonize Prophet Muhammad, because by doing so they could pinpoint him as the man who embodied everything that they, as Christians living the tough life in medieval Europe, ought to hate about the Muslims, be they Muslims in Spain, Sicily, or Anatolia.

    By the 18th century, however, the situation had changed drastically. Muslims were no longer the rulers of Spain or Sicily, and even in Anatolia the power of the once feared Ottoman Empire was starting to decline. But even more importantly, the Renaissance (c. 14th-17th centuries) and Protestant Reformation (c. 1517-1648) had occurred in Europe, leaving the Roman Catholic Church with a lot less influence over the European population than it once had. Intellectuals could now independently challenge beliefs that had been unquestioned in European society for centuries, and the long-held negative perception of Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam) in Europe finally began to be challenged as well. This period of intellectual rethinking came to be known as the Age of Enlightenment (c. 1620s-1780s), and was particularly popular in France (where it would culminate in the French Revolution in 1789).

    Henri de Boulainvilliers (1658-1722) was a French nobleman and historian, inspired by the famous philosophers René Descartes and John Locke, and an Enlightenment-era intellectual who wrote on physics, philosophy, theology and, of course, on history. In one of his more famous works, titled Vie de Mahomed (The World of Muhammad), he defended Prophet Muhammad against common allegations that he was inspired by a Christian assistant, that his doctrine was irrational, and that he was an imposter. Instead, Henri argued, Muhammad was a divinely-inspired messenger whom God had sent to liberate the Near East from the despotic rule of the Romans and Persians and to spread the message of tawhīd, or God’s indivisible unity, from India to Spain. Muhammad’s success, said Henri, was such that it “could only be from God.” About Islam, Henri said that Muhammad’s doctrine merely removed all that was irrational and undesirable about Christianity as it was practiced at the time. Muhammad “seems to have adopted and embraced all that is most marvelous in Christianity itself,” wrote Henri, “so that what he retrenched, relates obviously to those abuses alone, which it was impossible he should not condemn.” Henri de Boulainvilliers’ work was banned in Catholic France but was published in 1730, after his death, in Protestant Amsterdam and London.

    Henri de Boulainvilliers’ historical representation of Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam) had an effect on other Enlightenment-era thinkers, particularly the French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778). Voltaire, a renowned poet, essayist, playwright and also a historian, is most famous for his attacks on the established Roman Catholic Church, his advocacy of freedom of religion and of expression, and his advocacy of secularism. His opposition to Islam and his demonization of Prophet Muhammad, however, was carried out even more vehemently than his attacks on the Church and the Pope. In 1736, he wrote a play called Le Fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete (Fanaticism, or Muhammad the Prophet) and it was first staged in 1741. As the name suggests, it portrayed the Prophet as “an impostor desiring self-glorification and beautiful women who is willing to lie, to kill, and even to wage war against his homeland to get what he desires.” [3] He expressed similar views about the Prophet in two of his letters, one to Frederick II of Prussia in 1740 and the other to Pope Benedict XIV in 1745. Sometime after 1745, however, he read Boulainvilliers’ Vie de Mahomed, and it seems to have had a lasting impact on his perception of Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam). Later in life, particularly in his historical writings such as the Essay on the Customs and the Spirit of the Nations (1756), Voltaire praised the Prophet as an effective and tolerant leader and a successful conqueror, though he still maintained that Prophet Muhammad was not divinely inspired but was “so carried away [by his success as a leader] that he believed himself inspired by God.” [4]

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was yet another Enlightenment-era French philosopher who couldn’t help but comment on Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam), and that too in his magnum opus, The Social Contract (1762). Muhammad, he said, was neither an imposter nor a sorcerer, but an admirable legislator who successfully combined spiritual and worldly power. [5] In 1787, Claude-Emmanuel Pastoret (1755-c. 1830), a French author and politician, published his Zoroaster, Confucius and Muhammad, in which he compared and contrasted the careers of the three Eastern religious “great men”, “the greatest legislators of the universe.” He defended Prophet Muhammad against the allegations commonly made against him, and praised the Qur‘ān for the way it upholds the unity of God (tawhīd). [6]

    Henri de Boulainvilliers, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Claude-Emmanuel Pastoret all lived during the Enlightenment and all were French intellectuals, but Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), another Frenchman who was very interested in Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam), came to the stage after the French Revolution and is remembered far more as a military and political leader than as an intellectual or historian. In May 1798, he set out towards the Egypt and Syria leading 55,000 men of the French navy in an effort to challenge British control over the area, which was officially still part of the Ottoman Empire. On July 1, 1798, before landing at Alexandria, he sent the following written declaration to the Egyptian people:

    “In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful. There is no other God than God, [and] He has neither son nor associate to His rule. On behalf of the French Republic founded on the basis of liberty and equality, the General Bonaparte, head of the French Army, proclaims to the people of Egypt that for too long the beys [i.e. Ottoman governors] who rule Egypt insult the French nation and heap abuse on its merchants; the hour of their chastisement has come. For too long, this rabble of slaves brought up in the Caucasus and in Georgia [i.e. the ruling-class Mamluks of Egypt] tyrannizes the finest region of the world; but God, Lord of the worlds, [the] All-Powerful, has proclaimed an end to their empire. Egyptians, some will say that I have come to destroy your religion. This is a lie, do not believe it! Tell them that I have come to restore your rights and to punish the usurpers; that I respect, more than do the Mamluks, God, His prophet Muhammad and the glorious Qur‘ān… Qādī, shaykh, shorbagi, tell the people that we are true Muslims. Are we not the one who has destroyed the Pope [during the Italian Campaign of 1796-97] who preached war against Muslims? Did we not destroy the Knights of Malta, because these fanatics believed that God wanted them to make war against the Muslims?” [7]

    This definitely sounds very much like the self-serving, propagandistic rhetoric that is always used by imperialists, but it shows Napoleon’s cultural and historical awareness and the way he used it to his advantage. It also shows that, far from vilifying Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam) and trying to convince the Egyptian people that Islam was the cause of the tyrannical leadership from which he was supposedly here to liberate them, he actually used Islam to legitimize his cause. But nevertheless, this was most probably mere lip service. But many years later, as he was exiled to the remote island of Saint Helena after having lost the Napoleonic Wars, he wrote down his thoughts on Prophet Muhammad in his memoirs. Since there was no conceivable ulterior motive by this point for him to be saying about Prophet Muhammad what he did not actually believe, the following passage from his memoirs may show his genuine admiration for Prophet Muhammad:

    “Arabia was idolatrous when Muhammad, seven centuries after Jesus Christ, introduced the cult of the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Moses and Jesus Christ. The Arians and other sects that had troubled the tranquility of the Orient had raised questions concerning the nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Muhammad declared that there was one unique God who had neither father nor son; that the trinity implied idolatry. He wrote on the frontispiece of the Qur‘ān: “There is no other god than God.”

    He addressed savage, poor peoples, who lacked everything and were very ignorant; had he spoken to their spirit, they would not have listened to him. In the midst of abundance in Greece, the spiritual pleasures of contemplation were a necessity; but in the midst of the deserts, where the Arab ceaselessly sighed for a spring of water, for the shade of a palm where he could take refuge from the rays of the burning tropical sun, it was necessary to promise to the chosen, as a reward, inexhaustible rivers of milk, sweet-smelling woods where they could relax in eternal shade, in the arms of divine hūrīs with white skin and black eyes. The Bedouins were impassioned by the promise of such an enchanting abode; they exposed themselves to every danger to reach it; they became heroes. Muhammad was a prince; he rallied his compatriots around him. In a few years, his Muslims conquered half the world. They plucked more souls from the false gods, knocked down more idols, razed more pagan temples in fifteen years, than the followers of Moses and Jesus Christ did in fifteen centuries. Muhammad was a great man.”
    [8]

    “Muhammad was a great man.” Boulainvilliers, Rousseau and Pastoret would definitely agree, though none of them are known to have ever practiced Islam. ‘Umar, Khālid, and ‘Amr would definitely agree as well, whether you asked them before they embraced Islam or afterwards. But what do all of them have in common? The answer, I would argue, was their enlightened, which provided them with certain values which shaped their understanding of the life of Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wa sallam). They lived during periods of uncertainty and major social and intellectual shake-ups of society. The Frenchmen all lived during the Enlightenment, and so they challenged the traditional way of thinking about Prophet Muhammad using their shifting values (a shift towards objectivity when studying history, for example). The Arabs, for their part, were all relatively young at the time of the dawn of Islam, and therefore were not as caught up in the traditions of pre-Islamic Arabia as their elders were, so they challenged the traditional way of thinking about Prophet Muhammad as well, using their own shifting values (a shift from tribal identity to faith-based identity, for example).

    The reminder in this for Muslims today is that not all those who oppose Islam do so for the same reason or in the same way. There are always certain trends, yes, but Muslims should remain keenly aware of non-Muslim individuals who are attaining enlightenment through social, cultural and intellectual shifts, because these shake-ups in history often present excellent opportunities for fulfilling the obligation of da’wah to Islam. ‘Umar, Khālid, and ‘Amr all received this da’wah; Boulainvilliers, Voltaire, Rousseau, Pastoret and Napoleon almost certainly did not. And we will never know, given their general admiration for the Prophet, how close these enlightened French disbelievers may have been to embracing Islam if only they had been properly invited to it.

    finally, after long years of trying to get the idea across to you, you have now realized on some level that there is a distinction between what some christians do and what Christianity teaches. let's see how long this stance will last until you go back to blurring the lines.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    @Dark Angel

    François-Marie Aroue (1694 – 1778), better known by the penname Voltaire, is a case in point. In 1742 he wrote “Fanaticism”, a play where he attacked Islam, and claimed that women are forced to accept the Islamic faith. He also raised doubts about the talk of Prophet Muhammad (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with Gabriel (Jibreel), (peace be upon him) and he (i.e. Voltaire) provided an abusive portrayal of the Messenger of Allah. One year after publication, the play was banned because the Church had reservations concerning the content. The Church thought that Voltaire wanted to criticize it from the Islamic perspective.

    Voltaire’s prejudiced description and attacks against Prophet Muhammad aimed to antagonize religious thought in general to cope with the trend of his time. Large-scale campaigns were launched against the Christian thoughts, in compliance with the principles of the so-called Age of Renaissance and Enlightenment that was prevalent in Europe at that time.

    Actually, Voltaire renounced fanaticism in the French society and called upon others to fight it. However, he committed a gross mistake by authoring his play “Fanaticism” or “Mahomet” which was primarily based on the principles of fanaticism, falsehood, and calumny. Indeed, he wanted to criticize the Church and profane all the sanctities, perceiving that both the church and the community would accept his attacks against Islam and Prophet Muhammad.. The contemplated reaction was revealed at the beginning until the play was presented to the Church, which consequently banned it again because the church realized that it was meant by the critique.

    Later on, Voltaire refuted these malicious allegations against Islam as he knew the truth about Islam, its guidelines, and lofty principles. He was affected by “The Life of Muhammad”, a book authored by Henri de Boulainvilliers and published in London in 1720. The book gloriously defended Prophet Muhammad and refuted the allegations that were raised against him. The author explained that Muhammad was a religious and rational innovator who deserved appreciation even by the West.

    In 1765, Voltaire authored “ A Treatise on Tolerance” where he praised Islam, extolled Muhammad, and appreciated the Qur’an. He said that Muhammad, Confucius, and Zoroaster were the greatest lawmakers of the world. In 1751, Voltaire authored his book “Essay on the Manners of Nations” where he defended Muhammad as a judicious political thinker and a wise founder of religion. He indicated that the Islamic countries always enjoyed tolerance, while the Christian tradition lacked tolerance throughout history.

    In light of that, it would have been fair and perfect that French intellectuals in particular, Western intellectuals in general, and the common people who admire Voltaire’s thought to give precedence to “Treatise on Tolerance” over “Fanaticism”, or do they prefer the latter out of bigotry?

    In the midst of the campaign launched by Western extremists against Islam and Prophet Muhammad, we would probably ask those extremists to reconsider their situation in this age of scientific advancement and amazing communication between nations and cultures. They are due to recheck themselves to match the spirit of the age with all of its facts, one of which is demonstrated by proofs of the truthfulness and virtue of Muhammad.

    This is the time, given the scientific advancement and the astonishing communication between nations and cultures, for the Western mind to resettle its accounts and take an attitude closer to the spirit of the age and more harmonious with its facts.

    This is an urgent demand as the world witnesses many disorders which induced blood shedding and claimed the souls of people unfairly. This has created a desperate need for promoting the causes of peace and justice and establishing respect for the Divine laws, Prophets, and Messengers. Following this approach will maintain the human necessities and keep people’s souls, honor, wealth, rights, and elements of a noble life.

    The offensive hostilities against the sanctities reinforce the wretchedness and misery of the world, because all people need mercy and guidance, and these two things were divinely provided by Prophet Muhammad. However, those who ridicule Prophet Muhammad and defame his life and message drive people away from virtue and deprive the world from stability and tranquility. These people are condemned and threatened by the Qur’an. Allah says in His Glrious Book, : {The ones who prefer the worldly life over the Hereafter and avert [people] from the way of Allah, seeking to make it (seem) deviant. Those are in extreme error.} [chapter of Abraham, 14:3]

    It is unfortunate for the humankind that progress has been achieved in different spheres of knowledge and amazing discoveries have been made. However, many world-class claimers of civilization profane the religious sanctities in writings which bring about the fall of their own societies due to the moral reflections involved.

    There is no doubt that Muslims assume a great responsibility to prevent the defamation of Islam, Prophet Muhammad, and the Qur’an. Each Muslim shares the responsibility, whether major or minor. Leaders, scholars, intellects, media professionals, communities, etc. are responsible according to the position that they hold.

    written by: Dr.Khalid Shaya

    i neither discuss mulsims, nor am interested in discussing christians. i discuss the school of faith and the school of thought as they are intended.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    finally, after long years of trying to get the idea across to you, you have now realized on some level that there is a distinction between what some christians do and what Christianity teaches. let's see how long this stance will last until you go back to blurring the lines.
    I have never denied that nor have I ever mixed that up. But the same should be applied on what Islam teaches and what Muslims do. Otherwise, you'd be unjust and it would be reasonable, therefore, for me to point out the atrocities done in the name of spreading Christianity in pagan Europe and elsewhere and interpret them as "crimes of Christianity". Also, if you want to take Islamic scriptures and battles of the Prophet out of the context of self defense, then you will equally compel me to scrutinise the Bible and Christian history and rob certain passages in your faces. Islam is not a pacifist religion but neither should it be portrayed as violent. Self defense is a sacred tenet that brings reward and appraisal when upheld.

    By the way, Voltaire had no particular exposure to or experience of Islam and Muslim society.

    Therefore his views on the matter are not very relevant. They have to be taken in the context of his attitude to religion in general. He was against organized religion generally. His primary target was the religion of his own country (Christianity) which at the time imposed a number of restrictions, notably on freedom of expression, that he disagreed with it.
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I have never denied that nor have I ever mixed that up. But the same should be applied on what Islam teaches and what Muslims do. Otherwise, you'd be unjust and it would be reasonable, therefore, for me to point out the atrocities done in the name of spreading Christianity in pagan Europe and elsewhere and interpret them as "crimes of Christianity". Also, if you want to take Islamic scriptures and battles of the Prophet out of the context of self defense, then you will equally compel me to scrutinise the Bible and Christian history and rob certain passages in your faces. Islam is not a pacifist religion but neither should it be portrayed as violent. Self defense is a sacred tenet that brings reward and appraisal when upheld.
    none of that is on equal footing. when christendom resorts to violence it is against the nature of Christ and against the nature of Christianity. the same cannot be said about islam. nothing is taken out of context when the battles waged by the prophet of islam are pointed out and contrasted against the Peace that Christ called for, even towards enemies who are want you nothing but harm. these are two different schools of thoughts and two different perception of both the Divine and the human.

    By the way, Voltaire had no particular exposure to or experience of Islam and Muslim society.

    Therefore his views on the matter are not very relevant. They have to be taken in the context of his attitude to religion in general. He was against organized religion generally. His primary target was the religion of his own country (Christianity) which at the time imposed a number of restrictions, notably on freedom of expression, that he disagreed with it.
    nothing wrong with that. Christianity is not a call that everyone can answer. people however can learn about other religions without having to be exposed to them, in contrast to some others who refuse to learn anything despite having lived most of their lives with it.

    ba3dein do you think Christianity and judaism were depicted correctly in the quran?
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    none of that is on equal footing. when christendom resorts to violence it is against the nature of Christ and against the nature of Christianity. the same cannot be said about islam. nothing is taken out of context when the battles waged by the prophet of islam are pointed out and contrasted against the Peace that Christ called for, even towards enemies who are want you nothing but harm. these are two different schools of thoughts and two different perception of both the Divine and the human.


    nothing wrong with that. Christianity is not a call that everyone can answer. people however can learn about other religions without having to be exposed to them, in contrast to some others who refuse to learn anything despite having lived most of their lives with it.
    It would be a grave injustice to compare Muhammad and Jesus's approach to their contemporaries. You are comparing apples to oranges.

    They were two different individuals raised in different environments and six centuries apart. Arabia was under the control of rampaging and warring tribes. Palestine was under strict Roman authority. But one thing is certain, had Muhammad lived in Palestine around the same time Jesus lived, and had Jesus lived in Makkah around the same time Muhammad lived, both would have acted in exactly the same way because their source of inspiration is one.

    Jesus, during his time, was a simple preacher who was persecuted. Notwithstanding, at some points, he showed firmness, toughness, and strictness. For example, he attacked the money changers in the temple and beat them up with whip and overturned the tables and chased them out. This is someone who did not lead a nation, had no standing army and was not in the capacity of political leadership as Muhammad was.

    Muhammad would look in envy as Jesus stormed the temple with whip to beat people up. The entire prophetic mission of Jesus was less than 3 years. Muhammad preached in Makkah for 13 years before the hijrah peacefully and did not lift a finger against anyone. Muhammad could not do anything about the idols in the Kaabah for 20 years. Not once did he beat anyone with whip or use his hands to scatter objects because the Kaabah was desecrated with idols, which attracted pagan pilgrims and was a source of revenue for the Quraysh pagan elites.

    ba3dein do you think Christianity and judaism were depicted correctly in the quran?
    Yes, they were depicted correctly, accurately, truthfully, and exactly.
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    It would be a grave injustice to compare Muhammad and Jesus's approach to their contemporaries. You are comparing apples to oranges.

    They were two different individuals raised in different environments and six centuries apart. Arabia was under the control of rampaging and warring tribes. Palestine was under strict Roman authority. But one thing is certain, had Muhammad lived in Palestine around the same time Jesus lived, and had Jesus lived in Makkah around the same time Muhammad lived, both would have acted in exactly the same way because their source of inspiration is one.
    "one thing is certain"?
    judea was occupied by the romans, the jews hated the romans with a vengeance. if anything there was by far more reason for war in judea in the first century than there ever was in arabia. more to it, the jews have always awaited a warrior messiah, one who will subdue their enemies and give them a crushing dominion over all nations. Christ however was the King of Peace.

    Jesus, during his time, was a simple preacher who was persecuted. Notwithstanding, at some points, he showed firmness, toughness, and strictness. For example, he attacked the money changers in the temple and beat them up with whip and overturned the tables and chased them out. This is someone who did not lead a nation, had no standing army and was not in the capacity of political leadership as Muhammad was.
    and yet Christ was very pleased to heal the slave of the centurion instead of slitting his throat. i could easily tell you this is the duty of every person who's land is occupied, and i could find a thousand excuse for killing a roman centurion in first century judea. yet Christ healed his servant and praised the roman officer's faith.

    Matthew 8:5-13​
    5 When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant,[a] ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel[b] have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

    Muhammad would look in envy as Jesus stormed the temple with whip to beat people up. The entire prophetic mission of Jesus was less than 3 years. Muhammad preached in Makkah for 13 years before the hijrah peacefully and did not lift a finger against anyone. Muhammad could not do anything about the idols in the Kaabah for 20 years. Not once did he beat anyone with whip or use his hands to scatter objects because the Kaabah was desecrated with idols, which attracted pagan pilgrims and was a source of revenue for the Quraysh pagan elites.
    given the record, is it not more likely that the prophet muhammad would take the money to fund his army instead? is this not what the countless hadith say? is this not why the qureish caravans were raided?

    Yes, they were depicted correctly, accurately, truthfully, and exactly.
    this is a statement of faith, because you are certain there is nothing wrong in the quran. reality however is that the image presented of both the Christian and jewish faith in the quran is a very twisted one that bares very little resemblance to reality. any objective independent source will concur with my statement. i am quite sure that voltaire, if objective, would be able to depict islam much better than both judaism and Christianity are depicted in the quran..
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    "one thing is certain"?
    judea was occupied by the romans, the jews hated the romans with a vengeance. if anything there was by far more reason for war in judea in the first century than there ever was in arabia. more to it, the jews have always awaited a warrior messiah, one who will subdue their enemies and give them a crushing dominion over all nations. Christ however was the King of Peace.


    and yet Christ was very pleased to heal the slave of the centurion instead of slitting his throat. i could easily tell you this is the duty of every person who's land is occupied, and i could find a thousand excuse for killing a roman centurion in first century judea. yet Christ healed his servant and praised the roman officer's faith.

    Matthew 8:5-13​
    5 When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant,[a] ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel[b] have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.


    given the record, is it not more likely that the prophet muhammad would take the money to fund his army instead? is this not what the countless hadith say? is this not why the qureish caravans were raided?


    this is a statement of faith, because you are certain there is nothing wrong in the quran. reality however is that the image presented of both the Christian and jewish faith in the quran is a very twisted one that bares very little resemblance to reality. any objective independent source will concur with my statement. i am quite sure that voltaire, if objective, would be able to depict islam much better than both judaism and Christianity are depicted in the quran..
    Cherry picking one instance of peaceful conduct will not erase the fact that Jesus (as) beat some people up with a whip. :lol: That's quite funny in my view, for someone depicted as a harmless lamb. I am sure you believe in what's written in the New Testament and you read therein that he physically assaulted people, regardless whether he was right or wrong. The fact remains he raised his hand up violently against his opponents, using the available means he could lay hands on to physically assault people.

    Muhammad (s) preached peacefully for 13 years in Makkah and only abandoned his city of birth when his life became endangered by assassination. He then migrated. He was followed to Medina by his enemies to inflict more harm on him and his followers since they realized a nearby city had accepted him and people were still leaving Makkah to join the new faith in Medina. When another community is acting belligerent, do you really expect the Muslims not to seize their caravans? Especially that, the belligerent community acted first by attacking Muslims? Look at today. Britain seized an Iranian oil tanker in international waters because there are unilateral sanctions on Iran placed by the US. Iran responded and had to seize a British tanker to free it's own. Would you condemn the British or the Iranians for piracy? Which side would be acting on self defense therefore? After you answer, apply that to the days of the Prophet. That is how to be objective.

    One thing stands out. By the end of the Prophet's lifetime, and after divine protection in foiling out many assassination attempts to thwart his mission, he died victorious at a time all Arabia either believed in him or had submitted to his leadership. You may say, well, he fought. Yes, he did. For an orphan who started all by himself and then grow with supporters under persecution and then became a political and military leader, and a spiritual guide, all from scratch as an orphan, that is worth pondering on. He was not an heir and didn't belong to any dynasty or earthly kingdom which he inherited. His mission was nothing short of miraculous, and from the start, when he started out with 313 men in the battle of badr, God assured him nothing short of protection and victory and the surrender or retreat of his enemies. That promise contained in certain verses of the Quran would have been funny to the ears of the pagans of Quraysh because they were powerful.

    On the other hand, we have Jesus (as). FYI I believe in both men as my prophets and unlike you, I do not discriminate against anyone of them. I am only making an objective analysis to show how prejudiced your views are. Jesus, according to the New Testament "came unto his own and his own (people) rejected him". If his very own people did not view him as a worthy leader, even though he was, then how do you expect him to raise an army or liberate his people from Roman persecution or even get an army of angels to do some "nonviolent tricks" on Roman soldiers, when the people he would have been supposedly fighting to liberate didn't accept him at all, and some of them went as far as conspiring to get him crucified. So you are again comparing apples to oranges with your prejudiced analogy.

    As for how the Quran views Christianity and Judaism, if you are objective, you will see that the people of the book were divided into good people and bad people in the Quran. There were good people who are praised in the Quran as "closest to the believers" and "humble and godfearing" and there were bad people among Jews and Christians who are referred to "as mischief makers and transgressors". So you can see that in spite of differences in beliefs, the good deeds of the people of the book were still regarded and seen as worthy of praise. If you are a good person, regardless of your beliefs, in Islam, you would be considered as praiseworthy. When it comes to certain beliefs, the Quran made it clear that these beliefs certain Christians and Jews held were not of God. Same with some practices like priesthood, which is said in the Quran to be not a divine command or not divinely obligatory. As usual, it is either your way or the highway. Even Voltaire, supposedly a deist who could have been an atheist under taqiyyah for fear of church persecution, was more critical of Christianity than he was of Islam, and later on even changed views on Islam and issued praise for Islam. But you believe he was not objective. It isnt my fault if he was or was not objective and not my fault either if you dont regard him as objective or even if you do. There is nothing I can do about that. It is your view and you are free to believe that. It wont change the facts. :)
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    Member
    oh the irony.
    No irony. Muslims acknowledge and accept the darkness and violence and otherwise rogue elements of total existence. But it is Islam’s contention that Divine Mercy prevails over all that, and Muslims have reflected this particular belief.

    The same can’t be said about Christianity.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    No irony. Muslims acknowledge and accept the darkness and violence and otherwise rogue elements of total existence. But it is Islam’s contention that Divine Mercy prevails over all that, and Muslims have reflected this particular belief.

    The same can’t be said about Christianity.
    What are you saying? What darkness and whose darkness?
     
    Nevermore

    Nevermore

    New Member
    I don't believe so. For example Saudi Arabia was always Pan-Islamist, so are most of the GCC countries. King Faisal always dreamed of an Islamic union not an Arab one. There is a difference between the two. It was only among academics/left who floated the idea of Pan-Arab. We can't agree on an identity in Lebanon, that's why we have so many issues and it is one of the reasons why the civil war happened.
    Exactly! Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism are extensions of one another, hence the transformative nature I wrote about earlier. The nomenclature in the ideology doesn’t matter, nor, to a large extent, does the ethnic composition of the peoples occupying the relevant geographic territories. What matters in this scenario is that a once very dominant group regain the glory of its former empire. It’s manifested in Nasser, the Saudi state, al-Qa’ida, to seemingly innocent protests in Beirut (esp. the ones where they paraded the Turkish flag), to the discourse pushed in public life.

    There are two large components to achieving hegemony/dominance as an empire. 1) Establish enough military power and forge alliances that expand your territory to a comfortable, but controllable, degree, (Tilly, Mearsheimer) and 2) subjugate or placate local populations that might not oblige the rule of the majority, mainly to forge the semblance of a national identity, but also just to assert the dominance of the majority (Anderson).

    Since we’re concerned mainly with the latter here, I’ll just say a few things for brevity’s sake. It’s easy to hold out-group entities, like Christian minorities, in contempt of the extant majority identifier (Pan-Arabism, Pan-Sunnism) when they’ve adopted common characteristics with the majority, like language, names, or certain cultural elements or been forced to assimilate, but still carry a significantly distinguishing identifier, like religion. The Copts in Egypt, for example, were often not counted in the official census because the census counters (some cynically, some ignorantly) considered all of those with Arabic names to be Muslim (see attached). This effectively stripped those minorities of a status independent of their Muslim counterparts. I think this is being replicated today, including in Lebanon. The rhetoric to this effect is very often displayed through media affectations of what it means to be Arab and, of course, on social media, where one can find countless examples of people denying Christians an independent identity, insisting and asserting that they belong to some vague, imagined Arab identity.
     

    Attachments

    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Exactly! Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism are extensions of one another, hence the transformative nature I wrote about earlier. The nomenclature in the ideology doesn’t matter, nor, to a large extent, does the ethnic composition of the peoples occupying the relevant geographic territories. What matters in this scenario is that a once very dominant group regain the glory of its former empire. It’s manifested in Nasser, the Saudi state, al-Qa’ida, to seemingly innocent protests in Beirut (esp. the ones where they paraded the Turkish flag), to the discourse pushed in public life.

    There are two large components to achieving hegemony/dominance as an empire. 1) Establish enough military power and forge alliances that expand your territory to a comfortable, but controllable, degree, (Tilly, Mearsheimer) and 2) subjugate or placate local populations that might not oblige the rule of the majority, mainly to forge the semblance of a national identity, but also just to assert the dominance of the majority (Anderson).

    Since we’re concerned mainly with the latter here, I’ll just say a few things for brevity’s sake. It’s easy to hold out-group entities, like Christian minorities, in contempt of the extant majority identifier (Pan-Arabism, Pan-Sunnism) when they’ve adopted common characteristics with the majority, like language, names, or certain cultural elements or been forced to assimilate, but still carry a significantly distinguishing identifier, like religion. The Copts in Egypt, for example, were often not counted in the official census because the census counters (some cynically, some ignorantly) considered all of those with Arabic names to be Muslim (see attached). This effectively stripped those minorities of a status independent of their Muslim counterparts. I think this is being replicated today, including in Lebanon. The rhetoric to this effect is very often displayed through media affectations of what it means to be Arab and, of course, on social media, where one can find countless examples of people denying Christians an independent identity, insisting and asserting that they belong to some vague, imagined Arab identity.
    Your generalization is very inaccurate.

    Many Pan Arab or Pan Syrian figures have been Christians. The SSNP, the communists and Baath are very pan Arabic and were led or created by Christians. I can understand the urge to divorce your Arabic identity at later years as a rightwing Christian reaction because the Arabic identity presently is greatly influenced by Islam. But that urge is not reflective of a historical identity of Christians in the Levant. The Arab Christian migration to the Levant preceded the Arab Islamic migration. The Lakhmid, the Ghassanids, the Banu Amilah, Banu Judham, Banu Kalb etc. were all pre Islamic Arab Christian tribes of the Levant. The Arabic identity in the Levant did not start with the coming of Islam, it goes way to Biblicak times. The rulers of Syria during the time of the Byzantines were Arab Christians. So this imaginative history that the Arabic identity or influence or existence came with Islam to the Levant is wrong. The coming of Islam empowered the Arab identity above competing identities and eventually, there was increasing Arabization, Islamization, assimilation, acculturation, but that by no means make Christians aliens to the Arabic identity. Among the Arab tribes in the Levant before Islam who converted to Islam, they converted not in Arabia but in the Levant. Islam came and met Arabs already in the Levant many centuries before.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    They are meant for our friend @Lebanese-Nationalist who thinks it is only Muslims who act differently or opposite to what their religion says.
    That quote by Volaire, although not historically accurate, nevertheless concedes our main point:

    Christianity is peaceful; when Christians do the opposite of what their religion teaches, they become violent. Islam is violent; when Muslims do the opposite of what their religion teaches, they become peaceful.

    Anyway...I have been away for a while and did not respond to your replies to me. I saw that you only watched one of the videos partially and rushed to post your thoughts about it. I decided not to waste my time discussing your assumptions of a person and lecture you could not bother listening to completely. If you ever decide to complete the videos, let me know and we can resume our conversation.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    That quote by Volaire, although not historically accurate, nevertheless concedes our main point:

    Christianity is peaceful; when Christian do the opposite of what their religion teaches, they become violent. Islam is violent; when Muslim do the opposite of what their religion teaches, they become peaceful.
    I have already treated that supposition in my replies to @Dark Angel I dont think it would be fair for me to keep repeating the same thing when you can simply review those posts and comment on anything you dont agree on.

    Anyway...I have been away for a while and did not respond to your replies to me. I saw that you only watched one of the videos partially and rushed to post your thoughts about it. I decided not to waste my time discussing your assumptions of a person and lecture you could not bother listening to completely. If you ever decide to complete the videos, let me know and we can resume our conversation.
    I have watched some parts. And I have made a reply. If there are any points you want to raise or discuss, feel free any time you are free. It is not very useful to debate on public talks by questionable speakers. That would result in debating speakers and not ideas. You can present those ideas if you want to debate them with me and let us talk here. Otherwise, you can run searches on YouTube and you will get tons of videos replying the claims, postulations and arguments of the late Nabil Qurayshi.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I have already treated that supposition in my replies to @Dark Angel I dont think it would be fair for me to keep repeating the same thing when you can simply review those posts and comment on anything you dont agree on.



    I have watched some parts. And I have made a reply. If there are any points you want to raise or discuss, feel free any time you are free. It is not very useful to debate on public talks by questionable speakers. That would result in debating speakers and not ideas. You can present those ideas if you want to debate them with me and let us talk here. Otherwise, you can run searches on YouTube and you will get tons of videos replying the claims, postulations and arguments of the late Nabil Qurayshi.
    Ad Hominem.

    If one wishes to have a serious debate, one should refrain from using logical fallacies; the most basic ones, at the very least.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Ad Hominem.

    If one wishes to have a serious debate, one should refrain from using logical fallacies; the most basic ones, at the very least.
    Can you point out what is the logical fallacy I used, specifically without further beating around the bush?

    There is nothing personal here. Whatever you want to discuss, bring it on.
     
    Top