• 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

Thoma

New Member
Sorry but you cant tell me what topic I can raise and which I cant. You can only refuse to address the points I raise and evade. Especially that the two are related. And you dont tell me I "ought" to address anything. I'm not under any duress or obligation. If I dont accept to indulge your childish posts or I dont want to entertain your points or posts, your entire forum worth is the ignore button and I block you. Ha22ak kabset zer. Dont flatter yourself.

Your lord violated the Sabbath and was expressly accused of that. It's either the Jews got it wrong or he did.



Yes, your honor. The above is correct.



The above is partly correct, your honor.

But when or in the case Allah commands you to bow to a person, as was the case with the angels and Adam, that bowing is not called worship. God honoured Adam and demonstrated man's superiority to all creatures including the angels. Following the command of Allah and obeying Him becomes the "worship".



No. It does more mean that. For example, God does not break His promises. The most absolute principle in this case is "I am Allah and beside me there is no other". But you cant draw comparisons and say Allah does not honour His word. I brought the example of the obedience to Allah as the greatest form of worship because you kept using the word "violate" in reference to God and command to defend oneself even in the sacred months. That is fundamentally wrong because Allah cannot violate His own laws or words, since He is above every law and creation. The laws are for you and me to be under. It is impossible for Him to violate His laws since He makes, creates and disposes. I am actually proving the opposite of what you claim. He is the lawmaker and lawgiver. He can cancel a rule or suspend it based on our necessity. Cant He? Even when God says only fight in the sacred months for defense "when attacked in the holy months" and not for previous aggressions and similarly, when Allah asked the angels to bow to Adam, there is no violation of any law and no violation of Tawheed. We dont dictate to God. He dictates to us. Except if you want to become arrogant and rebellious like Iblis and retort and tell God you will not bow to Adam because you feel you are better than Adam and instead you think Adam should bow to you. Understood?

Charging your accusers with whatever it is you're being accused of, rather than (in place of) refuting (or conceding) the truth of the accusation made against you is a deflection, and is thus considered a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accusers are likewise guilty of an offense (or of that which they're accusing you of) has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation. I can and am free to point that out, and you are free to ignore it and continue with your deflection attempts all while be exposed in this regard. So far I am not obliging you to anything, however we can only hope we won't be seeing you bending the knee next to Iblis and the rest of the damned in prostration to Jesus this time around on Judgement Day (rather than doing it freely in truth and honest worship amongst the righteous and the rest of creation). I won't give way to your fallacy and distract others from the actual point at hand, but a quick and passing word from me should suffice to entice them honest readers to go and look it out for themselves and ascertain it with basic internet searches. With only a cursory look into the Gospel we find several instances where Jesus is being accused by the Pharisees of violating the Sabbath and in each and every instance the accusation was refuted by Jesus Himself on the spot silencing his accusers and leaving them searching for other things to hold Him accountable for under the law. Whenever Jesus was accused of violating the law, He shows it is His accusers' (mis)understanding of the law that is being violated rather than the law itself, and indeed so when Jesus is actually the Lord and original author of the law.

Now off again to the point at hand, and just to untangle the attempted twisting in your response; what you are basically saying is this: 'bowing in prostration to Allah and none other than Allah' -is- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah commands it, and it -isn't- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah doesn't command it. And in like manner, 'bowing in prostration to Allah and to someone else other than or with Allah' -is- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah commands it, and it -isn't- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah doesn't command it. Tawheed and shirk are therefore based solely on supposed Allah's will or command which in that case is unrestricted or unconditioned by anything (i.e. Allah's will does not follow reason not even the principle of non-contradiction), that is, what is this or that is absolutely arbitrary; Allah can just command you to practice what you now define absolutely as shirk and ultimate sin, and you would then consider it tawheed and ultimate virtue. In which case, tawheed or shirk in itself wouldn't have any meaning anymore, as one can be the other and vice versa.

From that logically follows what is essentially echoed in all my previous posts in this thread, namely that Allah has no basic and absolute principles and is not bound even by his own word and can act in ways contrary to reason, including self-contradiction.

Even a lawgiver who isn't being under or bound by his own laws that he creates or gives, suspends and disposes, is still necessarily bound or subject to the (law of) (his) lawgiving which can then be violated (by said lawgiver, such as by him failing the principle of non-contradiction), an act necessitating an appropriate consequence (such as at least said violator-lawgiver being exposed and ditched off as the false 'ultimate lawgiver' that he is) .. except that in Islam apparently such a violation ceases to be a violation in the first place and thus doesn't necessitate such a consequence, and this is by virtue of simply and solely 'said violation being commanded by him (Allah, or it could be Satan posing as Allah for all we know, this is when truth or reason is sacrificed)'.
 
Last edited:

Rafidi

Legendary Member
Charging your accusers with whatever it is you're being accused of, rather than (in place of) refuting (or conceding) the truth of the accusation made against you is a deflection, and is thus considered a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accusers are likewise guilty of an offense (or of that which they're accusing you of) has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation. I can and am free to point that out, and you are free to ignore it and continue with your deflection attempts all while be exposed in this regard. So far I am not obliging you to anything, however we can only hope we won't be seeing you bending the knee next to Iblis and the rest of the damned in prostration to Jesus this time around on Judgement Day (rather than doing it freely in truth and honest worship amongst the righteous and the rest of creation). I won't give way to your fallacy and distract others from the actual point at hand, but a quick and passing word from me should suffice to entice them honest readers to go and look it out for themselves and ascertain it with basic internet searches. With only a cursory look into the Gospel we find several instances where Jesus is being accused by the Pharisees of violating the Sabbath and in each and every instance the accusation was refuted by Jesus Himself on the spot silencing his accusers and leaving them searching for other things to hold Him accountable for under the law. Whenever Jesus was accused of violating the law, He shows it is His accusers' (mis)understanding of the law that is being violated rather than the law itself, and indeed so when Jesus is actually the Lord and original author of the law.

The purpose of citing the instances Jesus of the NT was accused of breaking the law is to demonstrate how similar you are in approach and in line of reasoning to the pharisees who were harassing Jesus.

Now off again to the point at hand, and just to untangle the attempted twisting in your response; what you are basically saying is this: 'bowing in prostration to Allah and none other than Allah' -is- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah commands it, and it -isn't- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah doesn't command it. And in like manner, 'bowing in prostration to Allah and to someone else other than or with Allah' -is- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah commands it, and it -isn't- 'worshipping Allah' when Allah doesn't command it. Tawheed and shirk are therefore based solely on supposed Allah's will or command which in that case is unrestricted or unconditioned by anything (i.e. Allah's will does not follow reason not even the principle of non-contradiction), that is, what is this or that is absolutely arbitrary; Allah can just command you to practice what you now define absolutely as shirk and ultimate sin, and you would then consider it tawheed and ultimate virtue. In which case, tawheed or shirk in itself wouldn't have any meaning anymore, as one can be the other and vice versa.

From that logically follows what is essentially echoed in all my previous posts in this thread, namely that Allah has no basic and absolute principles and is not bound even by his own word and can act in ways contrary to reason, including self-contradiction.

Even a lawgiver who isn't being under or bound by his own laws that he creates or gives, suspends and disposes, is still necessarily bound or subject to the (law of) (his) lawgiving which can then be violated (by said lawgiver, such as by him failing the principle of non-contradiction), an act necessitating an appropriate consequence (such as at least said violator-lawgiver being exposed and ditched off as the false 'ultimate lawgiver' that he is) .. except that in Islam apparently such a violation ceases to be a violation in the first place and thus doesn't necessitate such a consequence, and this is by virtue of simply and solely 'said violation being commanded by him (Allah, or it could be Satan posing as Allah for all we know, this is when truth or reason is sacrificed)'.

Your understanding of shirk and Tawheed are very deficient. And that is not surprising in the least coming from a trinitarian.

When we speak of shirk, it has to do with recognizing and honouring beside (or alongside) or besides (other than) Allah as Lord and Creator. Shirk takes you away from God. If bowing or any act will render you farther away from God or would lead you to honor or recognize something else, whether an act itself or object other than only God, as your focus of worship, then you have committed shirk.

When we speak of Tawheed, Allah is again the focus. The unalterable principle under which any act of worship must fall is centred on the recognition which Allah declared "I am God" or "I am your Lord". That entails total submission to the will of God. The reason we are called Muslims - we absolutely submit to the absolute will of Allah.

When you bow down or perform any act of worship, that must be centred on obedience. If it is not centred on obedience to God, then you are performing an exercise in futility or satisfying your ego and desires. God is the focus and centre of all and any worship for that to be called Tawheed. Worship is submission and obedience to God. Not to yourself or to something else or to your desires.

To break it down, if bowing down is being carried out just for the sake of it, then that is not Tawheed. The pillars of Tawheed are sincerity and obedience.

If God supposedly says today that you must not bow down to Him, but to a Prophet, would you accuse Him of a violation or shirk? The essence of worship is obedience. If you want to worship God without obeying Him, then the worship is faulty. The reason why worshiping God alone is not enough if we are to disobey Him by committing acts that lead us to sin.

Further, to say that God would be committing a violation today if He asks us to bow to something could be true only today. But in the past it cant he true because there was no revelation or command that had already prohibited bowing to anything or anyone but Allah. It can only be a violation when God commanded the angels to bow to Adam if there was a prior command prohibiting that. At a point, alcohol was not declared haram and the companions of the Prophet used to pray while under the influence of alcohol. Did they violate any law at that point? The answer is no until there is a law prohibiting that. Similarly, it could only be a violation of a law when God says you can defend yourself in the sacred months for aggression against you they have perpetrated within the sacred months, had there already been a prohibition that outlaws even self defense and even (for acts of aggression) within the sacred months themselves. If there was none such prohibition, then you cant put the cart before the horse and claim otherwise and say it is a violation, as you have been doing obstinately to impose your imaginations.

As Muslims, we dont tell God what to do or not to do. He tells us and we obey and we have completely faith in His decrees. We dont also edit, modify or tailor scriptures to suit our beliefs. Instead our beliefs are tailored to suit what is found in the scripture.
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
@Dark Angel

The replies below are just too funny. The admin just gave up. :lol:

@Ice Tea
You actually started this thread because of Muslims commenting against the concept of easter on the profiles of Arab Christian celebrities. But here you can see Christians trying to assault the sanctity of Eid al Adha by promoting their belief in human sacrifice or a "god" killing himself on the occasion of Eid ap Adha.

 

Ice Tea

Active Member
@Dark Angel

The replies below are just too funny. The admin just gave up. :lol:

@Ice Tea
You actually started this thread because of Muslims commenting against the concept of easter on the profiles of Arab Christian celebrities. But here you can see Christians trying to assault the sanctity of Eid al Adha by promoting their belief in human sacrifice or a "god" killing himself on the occasion of Eid ap Adha.


"A community seeking to make Jesus known"

Seems to be a Christian page, so quite a big difference from the Muslims attacking Christians directly on their personal pages.
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
"A community seeking to make Jesus known"

Seems to be a Christian page, so quite a big difference from the Muslims attacking Christians directly on their personal pages.

What difference does a celebrity's page that is public and another missionary page that is also public have?

The missionary page didny find any other day to propagate their pagan human sacrifice doctrine except on Eid al Adha?

Anyways, the premise of your thread or for creating one has been defeated by your kind.
 

JB81

Legendary Member
How did the Shiites disappear from all these regions have they were a true majority? Something is missing
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
How did the Shiites disappear from all these regions have they were a true majority? Something is missing

They didnt disappear. There are Shiites all over Lebanon and in every region, district and governorate. There was a demographic shift thank to fleeing and cleansing. Persecution by the Ottomans and Mamluks and the invasion of the crusaders led to it.
 

O Brother

Legendary Member

What am I suppose to do with this?

I acknowledge the very rich history of the Fatimid who even had one of the greatest battle against the Byzantine Empire and influenced our world greatly! I think nobody can deny their rich history!

As for Tripoli under Banu Ammar rule who were descended from a berber tribe.. at that time the city was in its golden age and had one of the greatest libraries in the region but it ended with the crusader invasion and was one of the longest lasting Crusader state in the region until the Mamluks liberated the city and it was flourishing once again until the decline of the Ottomans!

Many believes that Nahr Abu Ali was named after Banu Ammar rulers.. some little parts of the famous Tripoli citadel dates back to Banu Ammar..
The Tripolitans at least those who know their city's history are actually very proud of that period!

Now I think it is hard to determine which Muslim mazhab/sect the majority of people held back in that time..
Just because there was a Ismaili ruler it doesn't mean this was also the case of the majority of the inhabitants..

And back to the Fatimid I think they have a very interesting history specially the mysterious stories of Al Hakim bi amr Allah and his disappearance..
Who did some very contradicting things and very weird ones!
Like banning people from eating mulukhiyeh among other stuff :lol:
Or destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and then rebuilding it.... anyway that character is a topic in itself..
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
What am I suppose to do with this?

I acknowledge the very rich history of the Fatimid who even had one of the greatest battle against the Byzantine Empire and influenced our world greatly! I think nobody can deny their rich history!

As for Tripoli under Banu Ammar rule who were descended from a berber tribe.. at that time the city was in its golden age and had one of the greatest libraries in the region but it ended with the crusader invasion and was one of the longest lasting Crusader state in the region until the Mamluks liberated the city and it was flourishing once again until the decline of the Ottomans!

Many believes that Nahr Abu Ali was named after Banu Ammar rulers.. some little parts of the famous Tripoli citadel dates back to Banu Ammar..
The Tripolitans at least those who know their city's history are actually very proud of that period!

Now I think it is hard to determine which Muslim mazhab/sect the majority of people held back in that time..
Just because there was a Ismaili ruler it doesn't mean this was also the case of the majority of the inhabitants..

And back to the Fatimid I think they have a very interesting history specially the mysterious stories of Al Hakim bi amr Allah and his disappearance..
Who did some very contradicting things and very weird ones!
Like banning people from eating mulukhiyeh among other stuff :lol:
Or destroying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and then rebuilding it.... anyway that character is a topic in itself..

You are downplaying it. More or less running away from history.

The Shia presence in Tripoli didnt start with the Fatimid rule. The Hamadanid State also held away over Tripoli. And it was between 200 to 400 AH. The inhabitants of Tripoli were Shia Ithna Ashariyyah (Same as the Shia Ithna Ashariyyah Alevis in Turkey; not be confused with the Alawites of Syria). Not entirely Ismaili, even though the rulers of Banu Ammar were Ismaili Shia. And this Shia presence in the northern half of Lebanon, including in the Bekaa and Jbeil/Keserwan was due to the migration of the Hamadanis to Sham from Kufa in the 7th century. In the South though, the earliest Shia presence dates to the Banu Amilah, who settled in the southern Levant, and Jabal Amel to be precise in the 4th century or in pre Islamic times. They practiced Judaism, Christianity and Paganism and intermarried with locals to some extent before their eventually conversion to Shia Islam. This concession story is linked to Aba Dhar al Ghifari, a companion of the Prophet and close partisan of Imam Ali. When the Shia in the northern half of Lebanon and in Mount Lebanon were persecuted by your predecessors - the Mamluks and Ottomans - they sought refuge in the South.
 

This guy is a total BSer though just like Kamal Salibi. Listen to Pierre Zalloua and Nassim Taleb, they know better because DNA evidence proves otherwise.

Yes we shias are native to this land long time ago and my ancestors were originally from Keserwen before the 1200s purge of the ottoman empire, then they settled in the South. Mohammad clearly doesn't know all the facts. Maronites and Shias (all converted around the same time were prevalent about the same time so both are as indigenous as each other and history also shows that there was a lot of villages/towns that were Shias/Maronite coexisted with each other in Keserwen, Metn & Jbeil. At the end of the day, a lot of people converted through missionaries that came to Lebanon.

Also,
not a huge population difference between all sects contrary to @Ice Tea 's narrative




 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
This guy is a total BSer though just like Kamal Salibi. Listen to Pierre Zalloua and Nassim Taleb, they know better because DNA evidence proves otherwise.

Yes we shias are native to this land long time ago and my ancestors were originally from Keserwen before the 1200s purge of the ottoman empire, then they settled in the South. Mohammad clearly doesn't know all the facts. Maronites and Shias (all converted around the same time were prevalent about the same time so both are as indigenous as each other and history also shows that there was a lot of villages/towns that were Shias/Maronite coexisted with each other in Keserwen, Metn & Jbeil. At the end of the day, a lot of people converted through missionaries that came to Lebanon.

Also,
not a huge population difference between all sects contrary to @Ice Tea 's narrative





The point Nazzal is trying to make is that a large part of Maronites came from Syria, especially during the Ottoman times, as peasants and they played a key role in replacing or displacing the Shia in Mount Lebanon.

Does everyone have a pinch of locals? Yes, we all do. Even if it was through back and forth conversions. Nazzal is perhaps making the point that the Shia are more indigenous than others. In Lebanon's history, the Shia have never come, migrated or gained influence through the sword of the conqueror in the land. For example, the Mamluks and Ottomams empowered Sunnis and Druze. The Crusders and French empowred Maronites. The question is who empowred Shias? The bulk of us are Ithna Ashariyyah Shia. The first form of local administrative units in the form of emirates in Mount Lebanon were by local Shia populations. The Banu Ammar were Ismaili Shia with support of the Fatimid rulers ruling over the largely Ithna Ashariyyah Shia subjcts. So we find no conquest empowering the local Shia population.

To claim that 95% of Lebanese descended from locals is nonsense. Mr Taleb needs to tell us what is his definition of "locals". Who can be termed as "local" and from what period? Can we term the Sunni families of Beirut from Turkish origin as "descended from locals"? Or can we term the Maronite peasants who moved to Mount Lebanon in the 14th century as locals? Or are Orthodox Beirut families from Greek origin local? What makes one be regarded as local or indigenous? Mr Taleb should clarify.
 
Last edited:
The point Nazzal is trying to make is that a large part of Maronites came from Syria, especially during the Ottoman times, as peasants and they played a key role in replacing or displacing the Shia in Mount Lebanon.

Does everyone have a pinch of locals? Yes, we all do. Even if it was through back and forth conversions. Nazzal is perhaps making the point that the Shia are more indigenous than others. In Lebanon's history, the Shia have never come, migrated or gained influence through the sword of the conqueror in the land. For example, the Mamluks and Ottomams empowered Sunnis and Druze. The Crusders and French empowred Maronites. The question is who empowred Shias? The bulk of us are Ithna Ashariyyah Shia. The first form of local administrative units in the form of emirates in Mount Lebanon were by local Shia populations. The Banu Ammar were Ismaili Shia with support of the Fatimid rulers ruling over the largely Ithna Ashariyyah Shia subjcts. So we find no conquest empowering the local Shia population.

To claim that 95% of Lebanese descended from locals is nonsense. Mr Taleb needs to tell us what is his definition of "locals". Who can be termed as "local" and from what period? Can we term the Sunni families of Beirut from Turkish origin as "descended from locals"? Or can we term the Maronite peasants who moved to Mount Lebanon in the 14th century as locals? Or are Orthodox Beirut families from Greek origin local? What makes one be regarded as local or indigenous? Mr Taleb should clarify.

Nazzal is wrong in this regard. Saint Maron came from Syria (Apamea, North Syria) but the Maronites in Lebanon are local who were converts. This is also proved through DNA evidence that Mr. Taleb and Prof Zalloua have given to us in the past.

95% Lebanese descended are indeed locals. Local as defined as carrying the same genes for more than 3000 years (Canaanites) and have a huge % of those genes in their DNA. Of course there are admixtures here and there because migration etc... but Lebanese are largely indigenous in the Levant because of the DNA evidence. Taleb said he will write another article about it next week, so I will wait until he publishes it and link it here.

Here is an old article (and he uses genetic studies and DNA evidence to support his claim).

medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-genetics/something-nordic-supremacists-will-not-like-44d99e8a4188

EDIT: Can't post a link from the medium?

I only think it is as silly claiming to be Phoenicians as to claiming to be Arab.

We are Lebanese and that's about it.
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
Nazzal is wrong in this regard. Saint Maron came from Syria (Apamea, North Syria) but the Maronites in Lebanon are local who were converts. This is also proved through DNA evidence that Mr. Taleb and Prof Zalloua have given to us in the past.

These were the initial converts. But the latter influx of Maronites weren't indigenous. Every Shia speaks of the Jabel Amel and the Banu Amelah. But can every Shia prove he descended paternally from them? I dont think so.

95% Lebanese descended are indeed locals. Local as defined as carrying the same genes for more than 3000 years (Canaanites) and have a huge % of those genes in their DNA. Of course there are admixtures here and there because migration etc... but Lebanese are largely indigenous in the Levant because of the DNA evidence. Taleb said he will write another article about it next week, so I will wait until he publishes it and link it here.

Here is an old article (and he uses genetic studies and DNA evidence to support his claim).

medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-genetics/something-nordic-supremacists-will-not-like-44d99e8a4188

EDIT: Can't post a link from the medium?

I only think it is as silly claiming to be Phoenicians as to claiming to be Arab.

We are Lebanese and that's about it.

We are a mixture of many races and ethnicities through migration, and conquests and earlier indigenous peoples.
 
Top