A Quick Lesson in the History of Islam

[wizanda]

How much of this is truth?

 

[YmirGF]

Bridgette Gabriel is a very passionate anti-Muslim speaker. There are grains of truth in what she says, but there are also significant distortions due to her Christian upbringing in Lebanon as Hezbollah was rampaging about Lebanon. Also, she is hop-scotching all over history. Suffice to say that you can't really capsulize the rise of Islam in 5 min.

 

[Ubon]

The history lesson is true and i cant speak for every muslim but i have spoken to numerous who are after exactly what she described.
Not one muslim has told me otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

How much of this is truth?

The very early stuff is not accurate (for example many Jews and Christians were involved in the early 'Islamic' conquests) and is interspliced with things that happened hundreds of years later (neck sealing, special clothing for dhimmis, etc.). Things such as these were applied under some caliphs, whereas others were much more tolerant. She seriously whitewashes the Crusades and 270 million 'killed by the sword' is nonsense.

Also, while the Islamic Empires (they were never really a unified Caliphate after the first couple of hundred years) have plenty of unsavory aspects to their histories, so did all other contemporary empires. As everyone knows, you don't have to look too hard for religious discrimination or wars of conquest in medieval Christendom.

So some is simply false, and some reflects actual history although it contains a very heavy dose of partisan spin.

 

[David T]

Politics.

 

[Ubon]

I do disagree with her saying the crusades were in defence of the treatment of christians.
Both islam and christians were forcing religion on people by the sword and both were charging taxes.
So when she points the finger she must be aware that back in those days her religion was just as guilty

 

[Valjean]

Isn't her America First rant at the end of the speech advocating the same tribal militarism she criticized Islam for at the beginning?

 

[Ubon]

Isn't her America First rant at the end of the speech advocating the same tribal militarism she criticized Islam for at the beginning?

No i think she is saying if we have to keep good refugees out to stop bad ones getting through the cracks so be it.

They must put anerica first, fair enough i think.

 

[Notanumber]

As if Islam is not political.

Do not be offensive.

Do not laugh. Killing someone is not funny.

This woman proves that it is possible though difficult to escape Islam.

Let’s tell the story like it really is.

 

[arthra]

Well I've studied the early history of Islam and you need to have a neutral perspective to appreciate it.. There's no questuion in my mind that the early Muslims were persecuted by the pagans of Mecca and so some Muslims had to escape to Ethiopia for Shelter under the Negus... Later the Meccan pagans boycotted the Muslims in Mecca.. Later they hatch a plot to assassinate the Prophet in His bed... After this the Prophet fled to Medina.. The pagans still persisted in trying to eliminate the early Muslims by force and in defense the Muslims resisted and eventually overcame the pagans of Mecca. So the FRC Action.com video is inaccurate in my view and does not accurately represent early Islamic history... For a more accurate overview I'd suggest the following

BBC on islam - Yahoo Video Search Results

BBC - Religion: Islam

karen armstrong on islam - Yahoo Video Search Results

 

[psychoslice]

Well I've studied the early history of Islam and you need to have a neutral perspective to appreciate it.. There's no questuion in my mind that the early Muslims were persecuted by the pagans of Mecca and so some Muslims had to escape to Ethiopia for Shelter under the Negus... Later the Meccan pagans boycotted the Muslims in Mecca.. Later they hatch a plot to assassinate the Prophet in His bed... After this the Prophet fled to Medina.. The pagans still persisted in trying to eliminate the early Muslims by force and in defense the Muslims resisted and eventually overcame the pagans of Mecca. So the FRC Action.com video is inaccurate in my view and does not accurately represent early Islamic history... For a more accurate overview I'd suggest the following

BBC on islam - Yahoo Video Search Results

BBC - Religion: Islam

karen armstrong on islam - Yahoo Video Search Results

I think that maybe the other way around ?.

 

[Augustus]

Well I've studied the early history of Islam and you need to have a neutral perspective to appreciate it.. There's no questuion in my mind that the early Muslims were persecuted by the pagans of Mecca and so some Muslims had to escape to Ethiopia for Shelter under the Negus... Later the Meccan pagans boycotted the Muslims in Mecca.. Later they hatch a plot to assassinate the Prophet in His bed... After this the Prophet fled to Medina.. The pagans still persisted in trying to eliminate the early Muslims by force and in defense the Muslims resisted and eventually overcame the pagans of Mecca. So the FRC Action.com video is inaccurate in my view and does not accurately represent early Islamic history... For a more accurate overview I'd suggest the following

That's really theology rather than history though. If you study the early history of Islam from a neutral perspective you realise that we really don't know a great deal with a high degree of certainty.

My favourite quote regarding this sums it up pretty concisely:

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

And that's not to even mention that Abraha's expeditions (not to Mecca) occurred a good 15 years before 'the year of the Elephant' and he was victorious in them (See The Throne of Adulis - Glenn Bowersock) or that Surat al-fil is possibly a reference to Biblical accounts of Sennerachib's attempt to capture Jerusalem with elephants.

Consensus on the early Islamic narrative occurred hundreds of years after the fact, and there is plenty of evidence that early exegetes and theologians were pretty much guessing about plenty of things.

It is also difficult to accept that they managed to remember many trivialities in perfect detail yet completely forgot who the Sabeans were supposed to be, despite them being 1 of the small number of 'people of the book'.

 

[arthra]

That's really theology rather than history though. If you study the early history of Islam from a neutral perspective you realise that we really don't know a great deal with a high degree of certainty.

My favourite quote regarding this sums it up pretty concisely:

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

And that's not to even mention that Abraha's expeditions (not to Mecca) occurred a good 15 years before 'the year of the Elephant' and he was victorious in them (See The Throne of Adulis - Glenn Bowersock) or that Surat al-fil is possibly a reference to Biblical accounts of Sennerachib's attempt to capture Jerusalem with elephants.

Consensus on the early Islamic narrative occurred hundreds of years after the fact, and there is plenty of evidence that early exegetes and theologians were pretty much guessing about plenty of things.

It is also difficult to accept that they managed to remember many trivialities in perfect detail yet completely forgot who the Sabeans were supposed to be, despite them being 1 of the small number of 'people of the book'.

I don't necessarily disagree with your points about the early chronology of Islam as there was no universal calendar in use in Arabia at the time of Muhammad... until the caliphate of Omar.... also I also agree that the Hadiths were themselves collected well over a century after the events they tell of. We don't really know of the accurate ages of the persons involved .. but I do feel there are centuries of negative perception of Islam in Europe not until the nineteenth century were there writers who really took a more accurate perspective.

 

[Augustus]

I don't necessarily disagree with your points about the early chronology of Islam as there was no universal calendar in use in Arabia at the time of Muhammad... until the caliphate of Omar.... also I also agree that the Hadiths were themselves collected well over a century after the events they tell of. We don't really know of the accurate ages of the persons involved ..

It's not just ages, but events. While there is a lack of evidence to know things conclusively, at least imo, most of the events in the Sirah were not factual events, but extensions of Quranic exegsis that occurred when medieval theologians were trying to interpret passages they really didn't understand. So a parable about a rich man who favoured worldly rather than spiritual matters turns into a strange story about Abu Lahab and his wife carrying out some bizarre antics against the prophet, etc.

I do feel there are centuries of negative perception of Islam in Europe not until the nineteenth century were there writers who really took a more accurate perspective.

Yes, that's certainly true also.

 

[Shad]

Also, while the Islamic Empires (they were never really a unified Caliphate after the first couple of hundred years) have plenty of unsavory aspects to their histories, so did all other contemporary empires. As everyone knows, you don't have to look too hard for religious discrimination or wars of conquest in medieval Christendom.

Even during the "unified period" it was a suzerainty more than a unified state.

 

[Rajina]

How much of this is truth?

Never expected so much ignorance from you. Thought you were a truth seeker. Atleast the stories that she speaks about ISIS, dont you understand that she is wrong.

 

[wizanda]

Never expected so much ignorance from you. Thought you were a truth seeker.

I hate studying history, and i asked, 'how much of it is truth'; in other words, i found it far-fetched.

dont you understand that she is wrong.

Plus both her, and Netanyahu have the same demon brows.

 

[Rajina]

I hate studying history, and i asked, 'how much of it is truth'; in other words, i found it far-fetched.

Nobody can teach you history as long as you are not interested to learn it. She says in her speech that people today dont know the history. I think that is the only truth that she said in her speech.

 

[wizanda]

Nobody can teach you history as long as you are not interested to learn it.

I'm always interested to learn, and quite aware of lots of history; yet i hate studying it, which is why asking on a forum full of intelligent theologians, who might have more knowledge.