Islam

[Elihoenai]

Can islam truly justify the september 11th attacks on america? If so, how?

Doesn't most people on the planet realise by now that 9/11 was Not Done by an Arab in a Cave? Arab in a Cave is a Fantasy.

You can argue the term Arab.

 

[Muffled]

Can islam truly justify the september 11th attacks on america? If so, how?

I believe people can falsely justify anything but there was no righteousness in the attack.

 

[Muffled]

I fail to see how anyone can still believe the "official" story of 9/11. Go look up the Project for a New American Century. It was something that was allowed to happen, if not made to happen as it furthered certain goals that certain groups had in the pipelines for years. "Terrorism" and "jihad" were just the scripted scapegoats (when groups like Al-Qaeda
and Daesh are creations of Western intelligence). It's all a scam.

I have a book about the event. I wonder what it will say. At any rate conspiracy theories are difficult to prove I would think.

 

[Muffled]

There was no justification of the 9-11 attacks. The only people who thought they were okay were terrorists. A Pew Research study discovered that most Muslims do not believe the official version of what happened. The only known celebration of the attacks taht I can remember were some Palestinians, but it is also true that Yassir Arafat and other PA leaders condemned the attack.

I believe Arafat's attempts to corrupt US support for Israel got torpedoed by 9/11 and he knew it.

 

[stevecanuck]

Unfortunately, you didn't read them very well or understand the history they are based on.



Short history lesson:

Much of the Roman Army was not classical Roman Legionaries, but were mercenaries hired from the local 'barbarians'. In the Roman/Persian wars, a lot of fighting was done by these mercenaries, who also helped exert imperial control/influence in the border areas and beyond.

These mercenaries were called foederati:

The term foederati had its usage and meaning extended by the Romans' practice of subsidising entire barbarian tribes such as the Franks, Vandals, Alans, Huns and the Visigoths, the last being the best known, in exchange for providing warriors to fight in the Roman armies...

In the east, foederati were formed out of several Arab tribes to protect against the Persian-allied Arab Lakhmids and the tribes of the Arabian peninsula. Among these foederati were the Tanukhids, Banu Judham, Banu Amela and the Ghassanids.

It doesn't require an invasion to have an offensive and defensive military presence in the region, you just hire local tribes as mercenaries to do your bidding. These mercenaries attacked many people in the peninsula.

These are indisputable facts.



It would be easier if you just relax, open your mind, and think critically for a minute. Remember, you didn't know any of this until I told you, so you have to accept there is a good chance the cited experts are right and you are wrong. Also try to read more carefully and remember what the actual context is, not what you misremember the context as being.

You were ridiculing the idea that Romans could have attacked peninsula Arabs and suggested that even entertaining the possibility was closed-minded ignorance. This is what you were wrong about.

My post shows that Arabia was strategically and economically important and that Romans foederati were active throughout Arabia. They maintained their status through violence. They could certainly have attacked another tribe, and it is inane to argue otherwise.

AFAIK, there is no evidence to say they did or they didn't attack the group who would later refer to themselves as Muslims (but who then seem to have called themselves believers). Ultimately, we have to say we don't really know.

There is a good chance the proto-Muslims emerged from among Roman aligned tribal groups, at some point they stopped being aligned with them and started to seek independent power.

This would certainly be a potential reason for Roman foederati to attack them. The idea is at least plausible, not ridiculous as you claimed. The problem is that unless you trust the unreliable religious narratives written 2 centuries later, we know very few specific about what was happening at this point.

I would say the balance of probabilities is Romans stopped paying many mercenaries as the plague and war meant they were financially struggling. These tribes had likely consolidated power and learned organisational skills from fighting with the Roman Army (see what happened prior to the fall of the Western Roman Empire for a parallel). They recognised Romans were vulnerable and isolated raids turned into larger military actions. The proto-Muslims were likely one of several groups doing such things rather than the primary instigators. So it is more likely they were the aggressors (or were part of a group of aggressors).

It's strange you are so resistant to learning the actual history of the region so you can see how it meshes with the religious narrative that you put so much faith in.

I notice you make no mention of Mohamed's 'Invitation to Islam' that was rejected by Heraclius. It would prove aggressive intent if it existed. Do you believe there was such a thing? Do you believe it to be a harbinger of the yet to be revealed verse 9:29?

 

[Augustus]

I notice you make no mention of Mohamed's 'Invitation to Islam' that was rejected by Heraclius. It would prove aggressive intent if it existed. Do you believe there was such a thing?

It's highly implausible that it was a real event and is probably an Umayyad era creation.

Secular scholars generally don't consider accept it as particularly likely either.

Doesn't it seem a bit fantastical to you?

If you want a better argument as to why it was not 'defensive jihad', then you can just look to the fact that defensive jihad as a concept only seems to have emerged around the 10th C and even those who proposed it then such as al-Amiri didn't consider Muhammad to have been a practitioner. They saw warrior-missionaries spreading Islam as a good thing done for the benefit of mankind.

Do you believe it to be a harbinger of the yet to be revealed verse 9:29?

I know you seem to take it as gospel and for some unknown reason have assumed that it is widely accepted by secular scholars, but if there is one area of the sirah that is particularly implausible, it must be the 'occasions of revelation' literature.

Here is Professor Nicolai Sinai of Oxford Uni discussing the legend of Muhammad's first revelation (just first 3 mins or so) which he considers an exegetical fabrication. Overall, he is quite moderate in his views too and puts more trust in Islamic traditions than many others do which shows you how mistaken you are in considering all of these things settled history agreed upon by scholarly consensus.

He also notes that it wouldn't be all that surprising if all of the "X was revealed in response to event Y" was made up by early exegetes to explain the Quran (note this isn't just moon splitting, the night journey, Abu Lahab, etc. includes 'events' like the Battle of Badr).

Hopefully the degree of scepticism shown by moderate scholars might help disabuse you of your overwhelming faith in these Islamic theological traditions as historically reliable.

If you want another example of how some of these 'occasions of revelation' came into existence in the centuries after Muhammad, this is an interesting article on how the splitting of the moon story emerged centuries after the purported fact.

http://www.urirubin.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Qamar-CCM.86135105.pdf

 

[stevecanuck]

It's highly implausible that it was a real event and is probably an Umayyad era creation.

Secular scholars generally don't consider accept it as particularly likely either.

Doesn't it seem a bit fantastical to you?

If you want a better argument as to why it was not 'defensive jihad', then you can just look to the fact that defensive jihad as a concept only seems to have emerged around the 10th C and even those who proposed it then such as al-Amiri didn't consider Muhammad to have been a practitioner. They saw warrior-missionaries spreading Islam as a good thing done for the benefit of mankind.



I know you seem to take it as gospel and for some unknown reason have assumed that it is widely accepted by secular scholars, but if there is one area of the sirah that is particularly implausible, it must be the 'occasions of revelation' literature.

Here is Professor Nicolai Sinai of Oxford Uni discussing the legend of Muhammad's first revelation (just first 3 mins or so) which he considers an exegetical fabrication. Overall, he is quite moderate in his views too and puts more trust in Islamic traditions than many others do which shows you how mistaken you are in considering all of these things settled history agreed upon by scholarly consensus.

He also notes that it wouldn't be all that surprising if all of the "X was revealed in response to event Y" was made up by early exegetes to explain the Quran (note this isn't just moon splitting, the night journey, Abu Lahab, etc. includes 'events' like the Battle of Badr).

Hopefully the degree of scepticism shown by moderate scholars might help disabuse you of your overwhelming faith in these Islamic theological traditions as historically reliable.

I listened to the whole thing. It was 100% "maybe" and "could have been". As I said earlier, this entire conversation is moot, and I'm sticking by that. The VAST, VAST majority of today's devout Muslims believe in the historical narrative that I've been putting forth, so please tell me what difference it would make to today's Islamism if it were actually all or partly made up.

We also do know that Muslim armies created an empire. At what point do you stop speculating as to what really happened?

 

[danieldemol]

The VAST, VAST majority of today's devout Muslims believe in the historical narrative that I've been putting forth

I believe you would save a lot of confusion by dropping the word "historical" as a narrative doesn't become historical on the weight of numbers that believe it.

Try this instead,

"The VAST, VAST majority of today's devout Muslims believe in the narrative that I've been putting forth".

It conveys the point you are trying to make without attempting to legitimise a non-historical narrative.

In my opinion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We also do know that Muslim armies created an empire.

We know lots of things that happened in history, but you seem very selective with your condemnation..

Britain turned towards Asia, the Pacific, and later Africa, with subsequent exploration and conquests leading to the rise of the Second British Empire (1783–1815), which was followed by the Industrial Revolution and Britain's Imperial Century (1815–1914). It became the largest empire in world history, encompassing one quarter of the world's land area and one fifth of its population..
Empire - Wikipedia

Mankind are always changing the political map, through enmity & oppression.
They do not need a particular religion to do that.
..but it helps if you've got one, when you come under attack.

 

[Augustus]

I listened to the whole thing. It was 100% "maybe" and "could have been". As I said earlier, this entire conversation is moot, and I'm sticking by that. The VAST, VAST majority of today's devout Muslims believe in the historical narrative that I've been putting forth, so please tell me what difference it would make to today's Islamism if it were actually all or partly made up.

Almost nothing in the field is unambiguous, accepted fact. Scholarly discussions reflect this as you would know if you ever read them.

The difference is:

1. You keep making false or dubious claims regarding historical facts in you discussions, so I keep correcting or contextualising them.
2. You don't simply say "Muslims believe X", you cherry pick what you want to claim as historical fact and what you want to say is historically wrong to support your latest ideological polemic. This is intellectually dishonest.
3. If you fear "today's Islamism", then why wouldn't you want to undermine its foundations rather than supporting them as historical fact and berating other Muslims who don't adhere to them as being somehow "less Muslim"?

We also do know that Muslim armies created an empire. At what point do you stop speculating as to what really happened?

At what point do we stop studying things critically based on the rational consideration of evidence to become better informed about the world we live in?

For me, never.

For you it seems to be "whenever it reveals stuff I don't want to believe", which gives you something in common with the Islamists after all

(Also, as I've previously told you, the extent to which the early armies were "Muslim" is actually something that is disputed among mainstream scholars).

 

[stevecanuck]

@Augustus

Another point worth making is that the historical backdrop for the Qur'an is at best secondary to its overall message. When 9:38 asks the rhetorical question, "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter?", there is no mention of historical context, nor does there have to be. The question is the message. Verse 9:39 then adds the threat, "Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place".

Now, please tell me how any sort of context could change that message. Or tell me how after-the-fact editing changes anything. Those who truly believe are following such commands with no end in sight.

 

[stevecanuck]

I believe you would save a lot of confusion by dropping the word "historical" as a narrative doesn't become historical on the weight of numbers that believe it.

Try this instead,

"The VAST, VAST majority of today's devout Muslims believe in the narrative that I've been putting forth".

It conveys the point you are trying to make without attempting to legitimise a non-historical narrative.

In my opinion.

Okay.

That speaks to the point that the actual events in 7th century Arabia don't have comply with the accepted narrative. However, at some point, actual history, such as the Islamic invasion of the Byzantine and Persian empires, and the Islamic narrative have to meld.

However number 2 - that puts us beyond the time of Qur'anic revelations, which means the ball has already been set in motion. My focus has always been to understand how the Qur'an defines said motion.

 

[stevecanuck]

Almost nothing in the field is unambiguous, accepted fact. Scholarly discussions reflect this as you would know if you ever read them.

The difference is:

1. You keep making false or dubious claims regarding historical facts in you discussions, so I keep correcting or contextualising them.
2. You don't simply say "Muslims believe X", you cherry pick what you want to claim as historical fact and what you want to say is historically wrong to support your latest ideological polemic. This is intellectually dishonest.
3. If you fear "today's Islamism", then why wouldn't you want to undermine its foundations rather than supporting them as historical fact and berating other Muslims who don't adhere to them as being somehow "less Muslim"?




At what point do we stop studying things critically based on the rational consideration of evidence to become better informed about the world we live in?

For me, never.

For you it seems to be "whenever it reveals stuff I don't want to believe", which gives you something in common with the Islamists after all

(Also, as I've previously told you, the extent to which the early armies were "Muslim" is actually something that is disputed among mainstream scholars).

Complete ad hominem-laced dodge. All you've said so far is, "Maybe. Maybe not".

At what point in the creation of the Islamic Empire do you accept that they were on a campaign of offensive conquest? I've asked you this basic question several times so far, and you have yet to answer.

 

[Augustus]

Complete ad hominem-laced dodge. All you've said so far is, "Maybe. Maybe not".

At what point in the creation of the Islamic Empire do you accept that they were on a campaign of offensive conquest? I've asked you this basic question several times so far, and you have yet to answer.

Read, read in the name of the Lord who created you"

I would say the balance of probabilities is Romans stopped paying many mercenaries as the plague and war meant they were financially struggling. These tribes had likely consolidated power and learned organisational skills from fighting with the Roman Army (see what happened prior to the fall of the Western Roman Empire for a parallel). They recognised Romans were vulnerable and isolated raids turned into larger military actions. The proto-Muslims were likely one of several groups doing such things rather than the primary instigators. So it is more likely they were the aggressors (or were part of a group of aggressors).

If you want a better argument as to why it was not 'defensive jihad', then you can just look to the fact that defensive jihad as a concept only seems to have emerged around the 10th C and even those who proposed it then such as al-Amiri didn't consider Muhammad to have been a practitioner. They saw warrior-missionaries spreading Islam as a good thing done for the benefit of mankind.

I am questioning the point where the Arab conquerers can accurately be described as "Muslims" though.

Also an ad hominem is a personal attack in lieu of an argument, not explaining why someone is being biased, hypocritical or irrational in their arguments

 

[stevecanuck]

I am questioning the point where the Arab conquerers can accurately be described as "Muslims" though.

Well, you go right ahead. See you in the next thread.

 

[Augustus]

My focus has always been to understand how the Qur'an defines said motion.

Your focus is generally on how the secondary literature contextualises the Quran in terms of 'occasions of revelation', etc.

Now, please tell me how any sort of context could change that message. Or tell me how after-the-fact editing changes anything. Those who truly believe are following such commands with no end in sight.

If we strip away all of the contextualisation and historicism that comes from extra-Quranical sources, all the supposed battles that supposedly happened, abrogation, etc. then interpretation becomes very different, hence the Quranist movement.

As there is no way to interpret a text without applying some form of hermeneutical framework you open up a significant range of new possibilities based on whatever new context replaces the old one.

 

[Augustus]

Well, you go right ahead. See you in the next thread.

See what I mean about how your support for critical, evidence based scholarship and understanding ends "whenever it reveals stuff I don't want to believe"

 

[stevecanuck]

See what I mean about how your support for critical, evidence based scholarship and understanding ends "whenever it reveals stuff I don't want to believe"

Sorry, but finding 50 different ways to say 'maybe' isn't evidence. You still refuse to say where you think Islamic lore overlaps with the historical record.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to sell it by adding a .

 

[Augustus]

Sorry, but finding 50 different ways to say 'maybe' isn't evidence.

Almost all arguments about ancient history are probabilistic and qualified rather than the simple reporting of objective facts with absolute certainty, and this is especially true in this field. If you can't grasp this point, no wonder you are so credulous on this issue.

Your "rational, open minded" argument: "Because actual historians need to make qualified statements, we should take it on faith that the religious apologists who state things with absolute certainty are right and the fact they agree with each other means there is a consensus."

You still refuse to say where you think Islamic lore overlaps with the historical record.

I've told you a dozen times, there is probably a broad historicity to it, but most of the details are made up.

The Quran is an early text and is probably at least mostly from Muhammad.

The secondary literature is much less reliable, and numeorus things have been left out regarding the context of the Late Antique Middle East.

Early "proto-Muslims" fought alongside Jews and Christians in the conquests. "Islam" as a reified confessional identity seems to have emerged and developed 70+ years later. Like Christianity, it didn't come out of a bottle fully formed.

I don't trust any occasions of revelation, most if not all are likely fabricated to explain the Quran. Early exegetes didn't know how to interpret much of the Quran, later ones did based on newly discovered stories that happily explain everything. Many of these stories, including the ones with the 'most reliable' chains of narration seem obvious fabrications.

I don't trust much of the Sirah as the further we get from Muhammad, the more detailed and miraculous the Sirah gets and the more theologians agree on the details. This is how orthodoxies are formed out of disparate traditions.

The letter to Heraclius probably didn't exist, the Banu Qurayza 'occasion of revelation' is probably made up to explain the Quran and act as a Biblical trope. A general memory of conflict with Jewish tribes (possibly in a Roman-Persian context), becomes a pious myth, etc.

So no need to continue the silly ruse of pretending I haven't addressed this

Beyond that you have to address individual points, and often there isn't much evidence either way. So if you want a facile yes/no answer you will need to ask the fundamentalists, ideologues or those suffering the Dunning-Kruger effect.


Now, why do you trust the religious narrative as actual history? Previously you said you believed it because it was" historical consensus". I've now proved without a doubt that this is not true, and that it is widely disputed among mainstream historians.

So have you revised your opinions based on the new evidence, or do you still assume the theologians are right and the secular historians are wrong?

 

[stevecanuck]

Almost all arguments about ancient history are probabilistic and qualified rather than the simple reporting of objective facts with absolute certainty, and this is especially true in this field. If you can't grasp this point, no wonder you are so credulous on this issue.

Your "rational, open minded" argument: "Because actual historians need to make qualified statements, we should take it on faith that the religious apologists who state things with absolute certainty are right and the fact they agree with each other means there is a consensus."



I've told you a dozen times, there is probably a broad historicity to it, but most of the details are made up.

The Quran is an early text and is probably at least mostly from Muhammad.

The secondary literature is much less reliable, and numeorus things have been left out regarding the context of the Late Antique Middle East.

Early "proto-Muslims" fought alongside Jews and Christians in the conquests. "Islam" as a reified confessional identity seems to have emerged and developed 70+ years later. Like Christianity, it didn't come out of a bottle fully formed.

I don't trust any occasions of revelation, most if not all are likely fabricated to explain the Quran. Early exegetes didn't know how to interpret much of the Quran, later ones did based on newly discovered stories that happily explain everything. Many of these stories, including the ones with the 'most reliable' chains of narration seem obvious fabrications.

I don't trust much of the Sirah as the further we get from Muhammad, the more detailed and miraculous the Sirah gets and the more theologians agree on the details. This is how orthodoxies are formed out of disparate traditions.

The letter to Heraclius probably didn't exist, the Banu Qurayza 'occasion of revelation' is probably made up to explain the Quran and act as a Biblical trope. A general memory of conflict with Jewish tribes (possibly in a Roman-Persian context), becomes a pious myth, etc.

So no need to continue the silly ruse of pretending I haven't addressed this

Beyond that you have to address individual points, and often there isn't much evidence either way. So if you want a facile yes/no answer you will need to ask the fundamentalists, ideologues or those suffering the Dunning-Kruger effect.


Now, why do you trust the religious narrative as actual history? Previously you said you believed it because it was" historical consensus". I've now proved without a doubt that this is not true, and that it is widely disputed among mainstream historians.

So have you revised your opinions based on the new evidence, or do you still assume the theologians are right and the secular historians are wrong?

Just curious to see if we can find common ground anywhere. Was Jerusalem besieged and conquered by an army from the Arabian Peninsula in 636/637?

Siege of Jerusalem (636–637) - Wikipedia