Why do I only see this in Islam?

[Sanzbir]

Way to make me care about your opinions, @Sanzbir .

Sarcasm will get you nowhere, rest assured.

Well commenting on historical events after admitting no knowledge on the topic is probably not a good idea to convince people either.

Based on your comments on the Yassa in the other thread and your admitted ignorance on this thread on the Reconquista, despite deciding to weigh in on the historical events therein anyways, I'm mainly just assuming you have little-to-no knowledge on the history of my religion as well. Commenting on such things that you don't have knowledge of annoys me, hence prompting my sarcasm.

Because the Baha'i community seeking to make itself a distinct thing is sort of a fact obvious to anyone who knows even the basic history of our religion. So I am annoyed you decided to weigh in on our history with seemingly little knowledge on the topic. I do apologize if my sarcasm offended you but your insistence on commenting on things you don't know about just annoys me, and will prompt sarcasm in the future, seeing as you keep doing it again and again and again.

 

[Sanzbir]

There is no such thing as a legitimate owner of any land. But the facts seem very clear that the community that currently occupies the Peninsula are much better integrated than the Moors ever attempted to be. That is very meaningful IMO, and reflects very badly on Islaam.

Again.

There is a very clear pattern emerging.

And here you seem to be under the idea that historically the idea of a national identity divorced from religious identity is something that was around 500 years ago in Western Europe.

And again commenting on Reconquista despite you stating you have no knowledge of it.

Modern Iberia is religiously homogeneous because they expelled everyone who didn't think like them.

Al-Andalus didn't do that, and had reigious diversity. Because religious identity was considered much more important ethnic identity in the medieval era, of course there was a clear divide among the religious communities of that region at that time.

And of course there isn't a clear religious divide in the region now because the Spanish killed anyone who couldn't flee to the Ottoman Empire and who wasn't Catholic.

 

[YmirGF]

And of course there isn't a clear religious divide in the region now because the Spanish killed anyone who couldn't flee to the Ottoman Empire and who wasn't Catholic.

I'm a bit startled that anyone would think that was news. It is pretty obvious. Inquisition anyone?

 

[LuisDantas]

Exit question: Why are some of the most fervent supporters of Islam members of the Bahai faith. I just don't get it.

Because the Bahai Faith is in essence Islaam attempting to address some its own most obvious flaws, chief among them the extreme disapproval of all other creeds.

 

[Sanzbir]

I don't see that length of time is especially important. If you steal my favorite book and keep it for 20 years is it suddenly your book? When does it stop being my book? It will always be my book even if you bequeath it to your children.

So this land belongs neither to Spain nor Al-Andalus nor Rome?? Give it to the Celtiberians??

Did it not stop being Celtiberian land at some point in time??

So, what, everything to the descendants of the Original Owners?? That sure sucks for a lot of modern nations??

But I get it. Nations you like are justified in taking over Nations you do not like. That's the only real standard you have. Everything else is apologist post-justification.

Exit question: Why are some of the most fervent supporters of Islam members of the Bahai faith. I just don't get it.

You want to levy reasonable criticisms at Islam be my guest. There's plenty within the religion that needs to be addressed, in my own opinion, from the Bukhari to the influence of the Wahabbis and the power of the Saudi State within the whole framework of the religion. The whole notion of Hadith even existing seems contrary to the notion that the Quran is the perfect word of God.

There's plenty one can criticize!! That doesn't mean I am willing to give its critics a free pass when they make ridiculous statements.

I do not understand the apologia for the Reconquista. And every time I try I get no clear standards from the people who defend that historical event all I get is deflection, deflection, deflection.

It almost seems, to me, that it boils down to "Reconquista good because Islam is bad", but then it seems the apologists try to pretend that is not the real reason by holding Al-Andalus to standards they hold no other nation to in claiming the Spanish were just responding to a conquest that happened 700 years in the past!!

If you could give me a clear standard that you used equally on every nation that explains why Reconquista was justified without resorting to deflection and accusations of "defending Islam" so you don't have to account for your own apologia, that would be nice.

But no explanation I get from you or people who agree with you ever seems to apply to any other nation.

 

[Sanzbir]

I'm a bit startled that anyone would think that was news. It is pretty obvious. Inquisition anyone?

Yeah, I'd think it would be obvious too...

 

[Sanzbir]

Because the Bahai Faith is in essence Islaam attempting to address some its own most obvious flaws, chief among them the extreme disapproval of all other creeds.

Your knowledge of history is just terrible my friend.

<sarcasm>Sure, I trust you know all about the
history of the Baha'i Faith when you admitted to not knowing the Spanish Inquisition was a thing.</sarcasm>

Fair question. What did happen to them?

 

[LuisDantas]

So this land belongs neither to Spain nor Al-Andalus nor Rome??

Again, no land "belongs" to anyone. Lands exists. People need it to survive and tend to occupy it for that reason.

The idea that it could be owned by people is just an artificial attempt at attaining a sense of security.

You want to levy reasonable criticisms at Islam be my guest. There's plenty within the religion that needs to be addressed, in my own opinion, from the Bukhari to the influence of the Wahabbis and the power of the Saudi State within the whole framework of the religion. The whole notion of Hadith even existing seems contrary to the notion that the Quran is the perfect word of God.

Which is a very telling notion in and of itself.

There's plenty one can criticize!! That doesn't mean I am willing to give its critics a free pass when they make ridiculous statements.

I do not understand the apologia for the Reconquista. And every time I try I get no clear standards from the people who defend that historical event all I get is deflection, deflection, deflection.

It would probably be easier if you did not lend so much significance to the idea that the Moors "owned" Spain at one time, despite the anthropological evidence to the contrary.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your knowledge of history is just terrible my friend.

<sarcasm>Sure, I trust you know all about the
history of the Baha'i Faith when you admitted to not knowing the Spanish Inquisition was a thing.</sarcasm>

Hey, did you mistake me for someone who wanted your opinion?

 

[Sanzbir]

Your knowledge of history is just terrible my friend.

<sarcasm>Sure, I trust you know all about the
history of the Baha'i Faith when you admitted to not knowing the Spanish Inquisition was a thing.</sarcasm>

Again, no land "belongs" to anyone. Lands exists. People need it to survive and tend to occupy it for that reason.

The idea that it could be owned by people is just an artificial attempt at attaining a sense of security.



Which is a very telling notion in and of itself.



It would probably be easier if you did not lend so much significance to the idea that the Moors "owned" Spain at one time, despite the anthropological evidence to the contrary.

Those are not comments to you. They are comments to the person who was insisting the Spanish were just "taking back" their land. Implying he believes they owned it by some magical standard he has not yet disclosed.

I know you don't believe land can be owned, that's why when I'm addressing the claim that the Spanish owned that land, it is not in response to you but rather to the people who believe the specific claim I am addressing!! Is that something I really needed to spell out for you??

 

[Sanzbir]

Hey, did you mistake me for someone who wanted your opinion?

No, you're the dude who knows nothing about history but wants to tell me all about his opinions on history anyways. I know who you are. You're an amusing one!!

Tell me again about your opinions on the history of the Moors in Spain after you already said you don't know what happened to them.

Or about the fact that Chinggis Khaan using religious teachings to create a code of conduct in war didn't reduce the potential violence of his warfare. That one was a classic!!

Or maybe there's some other aspect of history you don't know anything about but would like to try to tell me about anyways??

 

[YmirGF]

So this land belongs neither to Spain nor Al-Andalus nor Rome?? Give it to the Celtiberians??

Did it not stop being Celtiberian land at some point in time??

So, what, everything to the descendants of the Original Owners?? That sure sucks for a lot of modern nations??

But I get it. Nations you like are justified in taking over Nations you do not like. That's the only real standard you have. Everything else is apologist post-justification.

I think you are making a false dichotomy. IF you know your history, you would know that the Recoquista is a pretty unique event. Off hand, other than South Africa and WW2 I can't think of other areas that this even applies. It has nothing to do with my likes and dislikes. Just keep in mind that you are giving a conquest, against a vastly inferior opponent, a free pass too. Goosey meet Gander.

You want to levy reasonable criticisms at Islam be my guest. There's plenty within the religion that needs to be addressed, in my own opinion, from the Bukhari to the influence of the Wahabbis and the power of the Saudi State within the whole framework of the religion. The whole notion of Hadith even existing seems contrary to the notion that the Quran is the perfect word of God.

There's plenty one can criticize!! That doesn't mean I am willing to give its critics a free pass when they make ridiculous statements.

Perhaps we share similar tendencies then. I do push back against ridiculous claims about Islam. There's enough in that steaming pile of theological bull-twaddle to get excited about without making things up.

I do not understand

the apologia for the Reconquista. And every time I try I get no clear standards from the people who defend that historical event all I get is deflection, deflection, deflection.

That much I get. Would you not agree that it is a pretty unique historical event? Surely we can agree on that?

It almost seems, to me, that it boils down to "Reconquista good because Islam is bad", but then it seems the apologists try to pretend that is not the real reason by holding Al-Andalus to standards they hold no other nation to in claiming the Spanish were just responding to a conquest that happened 700 years in the past!

You are ignoring that they were relatively powerless to affect change prior to Ferd and Issy.

If you could give me a clear standard that you used equally on every nation that explains why Reconquista was justified without resorting to deflection and accusations of "defending Islam" so you don't have to account for your own apologia, that would be nice.

If it was okay for the Muslim armies to occupy the land for 700 years, against the wishes of the inhabitants, why is it wrong for the sons, cousins and friends of the original inhabitants to retake the land? Answer that one reasonably and I will give you a nice cookie.

But no explanation I get from you or people who agree with you ever seems to apply to any other nation.

You are pretending that the rather unique set of circumstances for the Reconquista applies in other conflicts. I'm just not seeing similar events on practically any scale.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Bigotry is just as ugly when it comes from Christians. I see it all the time and it drives me nuts and leads me to resent the Scriptures they quote to condemn and judge others.

But I don't see Christians cutting off thousands of heads and stoning adulterers in our enlightened civilised age.

We've come a long way

True. If you look at North East India, there are examples of Christian groups acting in similar fashion, and obviously there are atheist groups who have been problematic (although I'd contend it's their political beliefs, rather than lack of religion causing this, but whatevs).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In the 1500s Muslims were winning all the Nobel Science Prizes, overall they've done more for Science than Westerners. Century for Century

I'm a big fan of history as a means of measuring and keeping perspective. But there are key aspects of history that have to be considered when comparing modern Islam to Islam during the Golden Age, just as Christianity has changed over the years.

Consider both Wahhabism and (more historically) the impact of Al Ghazali (and others of similar philsophy), or more mundanely the reduction in what had been an extremely high level of investment in scholarly pursuits which included non-Islamic scholars...

I agree that people living within Islamic nations contributed mightily to humanity's knowledge (noting that this included non-Islamic scholars as well) but I'm not sure what that means in terms of modern Islam?

 

[Maponos]

Haven't you heard of the Inquisition??

I'm not sure you know much about the Inquisition, Lyndon.

 

[Dawnofhope]

202 is a vaild compare, original poster says 20K

observe the difference

The 20,000 Baha'i put to death because of their religious faith, is an estimate of number that were killed in Persia during the nineteenth century.

The murder of one person because of their religious belief, especially in these modern times is an unspeakable atrocity whether it be Baha'i, Muslim, Christian or atheist.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If they are accepting the Quran, they would be Muslims. They themselves don't claim to be Muslims. Even here in RF, Bahai Dir is not put under the Islamic Dir.

That is because the Baha'i Faith is an independent religion, just as Christianity is independent from Judaism. If you wish to use this line of reasoning then the Jews could claim the Baha'is as Jews, and the Christian's claim the Baha'is as Christian. Any reputable course on religious studies would recognise the independence of the Baha'i Faith from Islam.

Christians and Jews are called people of the book and are protected in Islam

The implication being Baha'is are not.

Where are all of the millions of Muslims who were living in Spain and Europe 5 centuries ago?!!

That's one way of changing the subject.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Apparently none that finds itself in the unenviable position of having to deal with huge numbers of Muslims. Even your own Bahai Faith ended up having to split from Islaam basically against its own will.

The Baha'i Faith has never been a sect of Islam and Baha'is have never desired to be a sect. We are a different religion with an entirely different theology.

The Difference Between Bahai & Muslim Religion | Synonym

 

[Shia Islam]

I've always been intrigued by this notion. On the face of it the idea sounds noble, but upon reflection, who do they need protection from? Internally, they shouldn't need protection from good, peaceful, observant Muslims. Externally, an invading force against a Muslim army would have been Christian or Roman. In those terms, they are being protected from the very people who would help them return to their normal lives before Islam dictated the terms of their surrender.


Oh, have no doubt, they either fled or were killed because the Spanish decided they wanted their country back from the occupiers. It's hard to blame them.

Just give credit to any religion for whatever deserves credit..
Just look at it with an open mind..

Prophet Muhammad and the Quran itself is saying that the Christians, the Jews, and the Zoroastrians, who all consider Muhammad to be a liar about his religion, or at least consider Islam to be fake, Muhammad himself is saying that all of these groups have rights approved by the Quran itself and they should feel safe in the Islamic lands and have their own places of worship..

I will tell you one incident, that happened during the time of the Shiite Imam, Imam Ali, who ruled for less than five years only, a Jewish man has taken Imam Ali himself to the Islamic court..

The judge has referred to Imam Ali with one of his titles inside the court, or the place of judgement, Imam Ali told him that he should only call him by his name..

We Shia Muslim think that after the death of the prophet, those who were fighting the prophet during his own life, have hijacked Islam..they distorted the Image of Islam, and up until now we are seeing the results..otherwise people would have seen the greatness of Islam..

I said that I will write something about the Islamic conquests from a Shia point of view..hopefully i will have a chance soon..

 

[LuisDantas]

Just give credit to any religion for whatever deserves credit..
Just look at it with an open mind..

Prophet Muhammad and the Quran itself is saying that the Christians, the Jews, and the Zoroastrians, who all consider Muhammad to be a liar about his religion, or at least consider Islam to be fake, Muhammad himself is saying that all of these groups have rights approved by the Quran itself and they should feel safe in the Islamic lands and have their own places of worship..

And right there we have a good example of the reason why this thread exists.

It is very hard for me to put myself in your place. I know very little about you other than that, apparently, you have a lot of first-hand experience with Shia Islaam. So I can't begin to guess what you know or assume about other, non-Muslim communities. Maybe it is very little. Maybe it is not.

Yet here you are, emphasizing that the Qur'an approves of the existence of rights for specific groups of non-Muslims. That is at one time proper and terrifying. It is proper because, well, it is meant to happen. And it is terrifying because you see the need to say it, implying that it should not be taken for granted, that it is a remarkable fact that shows the generosity of your doctrine.

By my perspective - and, I will be bold enough to assume, by that of nearly all non-Muslims - that is comparable to having a random person decide to say out of nowhere that other people are entitled to have their own homes and children. We can't help but wonder when and why the need arose to reassure us of what we expected not to be in question.