Why has there never been a documentary on Mohammad

[LuisDantas]

Isn't that a big factor for most people in most societies most of the time?

Yes, it is indeed. Peer pressure is very much a fact of life in any society, and it may both help and hinder various forms of social dynamics.

What is remarkable is the extent to which Islaam relies on it and insists on calling it "religion", even as it becomes an active impediment for religious pursuits and even for spontaneous religiosity.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

This is a common Western Eurasian (Caucasian in the geographic sense) haplogroup.

Give me a credible source please...Anyone can show a map and make things up explaining it.

This was distinct from Northern European and Arab alike as the map shows. As the concept of Europe evolved, the European Med and its cultural history was appropriated by Northern Europeans, and the "Middle Eastern" Med became part of the "Arab World".

Scholarly source that verifies this please.

So when people say 'Jesus/Moses/etc was a brown Middle Easterner', this is an unconscious racism that buys into an Arab imperialistic narrative combined with a Northern European myth of being part of the same historic civilisation as the Greeks and Romans.

I'm not going to begin to explain the Jewish diaspora beyond what I know, as I'm neither Jewish nor a scholar on Jewish diaspora (I also suspect you're not either which is why I'm taking your explanation with a grain of salt). With that being said, I took a look at the Israel Institute For Biblical Studies regarding what 2000 year old Israelite look like. According to this source it states the following:

"Unfortunately it is probably not possible to verify with any real certainty what Abraham looked like. Presumably, if he was born in Ur of the Chaldeans, located in modern-day southern Iraq, he would have had dark wavy hair, an olive complexion; an appearance characteristic of the populations that have lived in this region for millennia: Kurds, Turkmen, Jews, Armenians, etc. We can look to the Song of Songs for an description of what the Israelite ideal of beauty was (Song 5:10-16). However, beyond this very vague image, it is nearly impossible to know about the physical appearance of Abraham or of any of his Israelite descendants."

Source:https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/holy-land-studies/ancient-israelites-look-like/

Now grant it, this source was discussing the possible physical features of ancient Israelites and the most common theme was the discussion of beards, but more importantly, the source states that:

"The Israelites hardly left us images of themselves. The biblical prohibition against making graven images (Exodus 20:4) prevented the Israelites from producing art depicting themselves."

Hence is why as I said earlier to the OP, Jews and Muslims do not have physical depictions of their prophets due to their law forbidding physical depictions of anything from divine providence. With that being said, scholars are commonly left with what would famous Biblical and Quranic figures would look like and most of them look to the regions where they exist and the people in that region. When looking at Jesus there is still much debate on how he looked. Fact is, because we lack accurate evidence of what early Biblical prophets looked like, we only speculate, and many scholars are indeed divided. For example,

According to The Times of Israel, Biblical scholar Joan E. Taylor argues that the centuries old paintings and presentations of Jesus are inaccurate and in fact are semblance of Greco-Roman gods. when describing Jesus, she states:

"“The image of Jesus that’s actually come down through the centuries has become one that fitted the late Byzantine way of thinking about Jesus, the medieval way of thinking about Jesus, the European way of thinking about Jesus. It’s essential — if we go into thinking about the historical figure of Jesus — to get his physical appearance right,” she said."

Source:In a forensic pilgrimage, a scholar asks, ‘What did Jesus look like?’

Why would Jewish figures be 'people of colour'?

Because Semitic people aren't just from the European regions. Because there is good reason even in looking at the life of Moses that he could have been a person of color, given the Egyptian environment and being in a region where there were people of color, it is quite possible to speculate this. Moses was also among the Cu****e people and because Moses married a Cu****e woman as it states in Numbers:"Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cu****e woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cu****e woman” (Num. 12:1). If you must know the Cu****e people hail from the southern region of Ethiopia. So I say all that to say it is not unreasonable to believe that the biblical figures were of dark complexion given where the Biblical and Quranic accounts were held and the region where the people existed. This is why I believe Biblical scholars speculate the looks of popular Biblical figures and that is why some argue against the "Europeanizing" of Biblical prophets.

Edit: not sure why the word C U S H I T E is filtered

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Why would Jewish figures be 'people of colour'?

I know you discount Islam and the Islamic accounts but this video is actually a good look the scholar in this video Omar Suleiman is well respected

 

[Augustus]

Give me a credible source please...Anyone can show a map and make things up explaining it.

Haplogroup J-M172 - Wikipedia

Slightly different, but showing the 'Western Eurasian' heritage of modern day Jews:

Genome-Wide Diversity in the Levant Reveals Recent Structuring by Culture

Green is "Arab", Blue is "Levantine"/Western Eurasian

Scholarly source that verifies this please.

Think for yourself on this one, it's pretty straightforward. The fact you can't see it means you have brought into the Anglo-Saxon mindset. You need to wake up

Here is a nice visual representation for you:

Does this look like:

a) a Mediterranean Empire (particularly Western Eurasian)
b) a "European" Empire

Now Europe for you:

Middle East if you like:

One last example, the Ottoman Empire self-governing millet system:

Note the distinction between Romans and the Central Europeans

Based on these, it should be pretty obvious why using "Europe" and the "Middle East" as historical realities is fallacious, and also pretty racist as you want to give the heritage of the ancient Med to the Northern Europeans.

If we think of categories like Eastern Mediterranean, or Western Eurasian then we start to see things differently.

"Unfortunately it is probably not possible to verify with any real certainty what Abraham looked like.

Fortunately, today we can tell the genetic origins of different peoples. As is shown above.

he would have had dark wavy hair, an olive complexion; an appearance characteristic of the populations that have lived in this region for millennia: Kurds, Turkmen, Jews, Armenians, etc.

Note one of the closest matches for Jewish people on the top image in this thread, Armenians: Western Eurasians. If "Caucasian" = "white person", Armenians are literally from the Caucasus. Note also the very close match to Cypriots: so-called "White Europeans".

(As an aside, at the time of Muhammad and the Arab invasions, the Roman Emperor was Heraclius who was of Armenian descent)

Some random Armenians (go back to your "Moses" pic, would he look out of place in this crowd?):

Because Semitic people aren't just from the European regions.

Semitic is a linguistic designation, not an ethnic one.

Anyway, as noted above, thinking in terms of "White Europeans" and "Brown Middle Easterners" is fallacious and racist.

 

[Augustus]

Because there is good reason even in looking at the life of Moses that he could have been a person of color, given the Egyptian environment and being in a region where there were people of color, it is quite possible to speculate this.

I'm not the one making claims about what Moses definitively didn't look like.

Anyway, people have always represented religious figures on their own terms, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Should the Ethiopians and Chinese start portraying Jesus as a Caucasian (Western Eurasian, not Northern European) because this is what is most probable given modern knowledge? Or should they portray him however they want to because it doesn't really matter?

I go for the latter personally. You were criticising portraying characters in a manner that is "relatable to the majority"

What I was objecting to were mistaken application of modern racial/geopolitical categories that make no sense historically or genetically, and distort our understanding of the world. Using a completely artificial modern political term like 'person of colour' in this context makes no sense. Moreover, it is the opposite of being 'woke' as it is definitively racist.

By determining that many actual Caucasians (and their closest genetic kin) are in fact 'people of colour' you are using a Nordic-supremicist definition of 'whiteness'. You are then denying the identity of many groups of people while appropriating their cultural heritage for Nordic 'proper whites'.

This is the inescapable consequence of applying naive concepts like "European" and "Middle Eastern" to ancient history.

How can it not be racist to promote the idea that "European" nations like Britain, Sweden and France are the owners of classical "White European" heritage of the Greece/Rome/Anatolia/Levant, whereas Levantines are forced to become "Brown" Middle Eastern PoC due to their lands being conquered by imperialistic Arabs?

Thinking in terms of Western Eurasian/Eastern Med offers a very different perspective on the region.

 

[Salvador]

Okay, I'm done at 2:10 in.

...I want to watch an actor play the role of Mohammed. I want to watch how he approached villages... I want to watch how he lived.

I'd recommend watching a film called "The Innocence of Muslims", which depicts how Muhammad lived.

 

[Cooky]

I'd recommend watching a film called "The Innocence of Muslims", which depicts how Muhammad lived.

Fun fact: the full length movie was shown only 1 time to an audience of 10 people.

...But I have to give credit to Youtube for playing the trailer. Just for that, I think I might actually pay the money for that new upgraded monthly subscription.

 

[Salvador]

Fun fact: the full length movie was shown only 1 time to an audience of 10 people.

...But I have to give credit to Youtube for playing the trailer. Just for that, I think I might actually pay the money for that new upgraded monthly subscription.

You mean to say thousands upon thousands of Muslims had put themselves into a violent uproar over a satirical film about their prophet that hardly anybody saw. ....They are indeed quite sensitive creatures about how their prophet gets portrayed.

 

[Cooky]

You mean to say thousands upon thousands of Muslims had put themselves into a violent uproar over a satirical film about their prophet that hardly anybody saw. ....They are indeed quite sensitive creatures about how their prophet gets portrayed.

Only thing is, there is actually a lot of truth in the trailer you posted, like his suicidal tendencies, and the dilusions. And the part where he asks the goat if he likes women is relevant too, because in Islam, it is permissible for men to have sexual intercourse with goats.

Sex With Slaves and Animals

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Semitic is a linguistic designation, not an ethnic one.

Anyway, as noted above, thinking in terms of "White Europeans" and "Brown Middle Easterners" is fallacious and racist.

Never said it wasn't but referencing the diversity of the semitic people. You're looking at this from the genetic standpoint which I don't disagree. Your argument needs to addressed to Biblical scholars not me that is, if you can make that argument. Fact of the matter is historically there is very little evidence to make the determination of what Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, looked like and the only thing that many scholars allude to in their physical appearance is what the surrounding people looked like.

We don't know with certainty whether Abraham had fair skin, olive skin, or brown skin. We don't know if his beard was trimmed neatly or scraggly. As my source stated in my previous post, there is very little depiction of Jews except through early Egyptian hieroglyphics. So my opinion regarding the nature of prophets is going by what some scholars are saying using both the historical theories such as the region where these prophets lived and what the people looked like at that time and what scholars have stated in doctrine (For example the supposed physical appearance of Jesus in revelations 1:15).

Anyway, as noted above, thinking in terms of "White Europeans" and "Brown Middle Easterners" is fallacious and racist

You need to argue this point with anthropologists, Biblical scholars, and people who've studied Jewish/Arab diaspora. My opinion is based on what early scholars are debating.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I'm not the one making claims about what Moses definitively didn't look like.

Again my opinion is based on the arguments being made by scholars. Again these scholars make inferences to what prophets may, or could look like again this is based on the anthropological view based on what the people may look like then.

Anyway, people have always represented religious figures on their own terms, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Of course, and I've never argued otherwise. Scholars have noted that most people have depicted their gods as representations that relate to their own culture so its not surprising to have a Jesus with course hair and brown skin. We see the case with Muhammad in early Turkish style paintings:

Because obviously early Arabs were not going to depict what Muhammad looked like for religious reasons therefore this ambiguity was left up to others in different regions of that part of the world (I mean no offense to any Muslims viewing this as my portrayal was merely for dialectical purposes).

I go for the latter personally. You were criticising portraying characters in a manner that is "relatable to the majority"

Because this has been true throughout history. There have been many scholars of the past that have indicated that the "real Jesus" has had European features (indicating their own racial biases) which from most scholars are inaccurate. Now if you want to argue against those scholars I'd be interested to see you write (as well as read) a peer reviewed research paper arguing a different position.

Now, you're of the position that these historical figures have Eurasian features, there are scholars that argue otherwise. I'm privy to the scholars that argue based on anthropological findings.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

, because in Islam, it is permissible for men to have sexual intercourse with goats.Sex With Slaves and Animals

You know, I used to be on the fence with you because you were very bizarre in your writing style, but I see that you are a bigot just like the rest of them here. Not only did you NOT use a credible source, you used a website called worldpress.org which according to YOUR source states:

"WordPress is open source software you can use to create a beautiful website, blog, or app."

Your opinion is not only consistent with the ad hominem attacks against Muslims and their faith of Islam, but indicative that you actually lack any research sense of mind and that you're keeping up with the narrative proposed by stupid Islamophobic idiots. For reasons of boredom I decided to actually help you out.

Regarding sex with animals

Scriptural position:

"And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect." (Sura 30 Ayat 21).

"(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things)." (Sura 42 Ayat 11)

Now the position regarding the sexual intercourse with animals have been propagated by Christians on many websites to discredit Islam. As one blogger have stated on his website, the website answeringislam.org have committed many ad hominem attacks using supposed Islamic sources.

Christian position regarding the matter:

"Mohmad teaching Muslims how to have sex with animals and dead animals , women young girls , boys and all what Mohmad do care about is how to wash before you go to pray after a man have sex with or woman with dead animal."

Not only was the above bold comment written poorly grammatically, but because how the proposition is stated, you cannot possibly take this person's position seriously as they write with the likeness of a fifth grader. Dude to the lack of scholarly works I could find from the Muslim position on the matter due to the bombardment of anti-Islamic websites I could only find a few Muslim sources a few with very little information so the following I used from one source.

Let's look at some arguments:

Here is my own personal argument. Considering that in some portion of the Muslim world gays, and adulterers are stoned, what the hell do some of you idiots think is going to happen if someone is caught having sex with an animal? Use common sense!

Another argument:

"Bestiality is a grave sin and a reprehensible misdeed. Allaah, The Exalted, says (what means): {And do not approach immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed.} [Quran 6:151]"

"The Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, also said: "If someone engages in sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill the animal." [Ahmad and others - Al-Arnaa’oot said its Isnaad is Hasan]

"Al-Mawsoo‘ah Al-Fiqhiyyah (Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence) reads, "The Hadd is not required in case of sexual contact with a corpse according to the majority of Muslim scholars because it is repulsive to sound human nature and thus does not require the application of the Hadd for Zina (fornication) as deterrence. The outweighed opinion according to the Shaafi‘is and one of the scholarly opinions of the Hanbalis is that the Hadd is incumbent on whoever engages in sexual activity with a corpse because having intercourse with a dead woman is similar to doing so with a living one. In addition, the sin is graver and the prohibition is more emphasized as it also involves violating the sanctity of the dead body. This is also the chosen opinion of Al-Awzaa‘i.

As for homosexuality, which consists of sodomy, the jurists unanimously agreed that it is prohibited. They also unanimously maintained that it is prohibited to have intercourse with an animal. This is well-known to all Muslims, so how could it be claimed that such acts are permissible in Islam, although lay Muslims, let alone scholars, know that it is prohibited?"

Source:Islam web - English Fatwa | Articles | Quran Recitation | Prayer Times | News

 

[Augustus]

Never said it wasn't but referencing the diversity of the semitic people. You're looking at this from the genetic standpoint which I don't disagree. Your argument needs to addressed to Biblical scholars not me that is, if you can make that argument. Fact of the matter is historically there is very little evidence to make the determination of what Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, looked like and the only thing that many scholars allude to in their physical appearance is what the surrounding people looked like.

Which is where DNA evidence is priceless.

Literary descriptions are very problematic as even if we know what people said, we don't know what they meant with descriptive adjectives as they didn't use them synonymously with such terms today.

If you want to know what people looked like in the past, look at the people still there who are the descendants of the people who lived there in the past. Cultures can change quickly, genetics don't. Which is why we can see that Greeks, Anatolian "Turks", "Middle Eastern" Jews and Levantine "Arabs" are actually the same ethnic grouping. You are looking at the areas through a lens of modern racial ideologies rather than the scientific evidence claiming that some are "White" Europeans and the others "Brown" PoC though.

Because this has been true throughout history. There have been many scholars of the past that have indicated that the "real Jesus" has had European features (indicating their own racial biases) which from most scholars are inaccurate. Now if you want to argue against those scholars I'd be interested to see you write (as well as read) a peer reviewed research paper arguing a different position.

Now, you're of the position that these historical figures have Eurasian features, there are scholars that argue otherwise. I'm privy to the scholars that argue based on anthropological findings.

And I'd be interested in seeing you write (as well as read) a peer reviewed research paper on the genetic evidence bearing in mind that DNA evidence is significantly more rigorous than literary evidence.

Fortunately, people far smarter than you or I have already done the research and made it publicly available.

Interesting that you prefer literary sources based with inbuilt racial bias (much of it being the product of imperialism) over objective DNA evidence showing these distinctions to be completely fallacious while also criticising others for having such biases.

Also, I'm not claiming what they "did" look like, I'm saying: if, based on the scientific evidence, we had to make probabilistic assumption about what Jesus looked like, he would indeed have "European" features, the same "European" features as "Middle Eastern" Jews, Levantines, Anatolians, Greeks, etc. who are demonstrably of common descent.

When we apply the scientific evidence though, obviously terms like "European" stop making any sense and we are forced to use terms like Eastern Mediterranean/West Eurasian or even Caucasian to identify the people in question (although this problematic because people don't realise many 'Caucasians' would be PoC if we rely on modern, unrigorous, ideological markers of race)

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Yes, it is indeed. Peer pressure is very much a fact of life in any society, and it may both help and hinder various forms of social dynamics.

What is remarkable is the extent to which Islaam relies on it and insists on calling it "religion", even as it becomes an active impediment for religious pursuits and even for spontaneous religiosity.

I don't see how Islam relies on peer pressure - please explain what you mean by this.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't see how Islam relies on peer pressure - please explain what you mean by this.

Thanks for asking.

Islaam expects people to not only be monotheistic, but also to treat other people as either monotheists themselves or flawed in some significant way.

That would not be so much of an issue, were not for another major trait of the doctrine: far from being the highly individualized doctrine that it would have to be to justify its reliance on monotheism, instead it is also very focused on family and community. As a matter of fact, it is easily among the most proselitistic doctrines that ever existed.

That creates a very significant amount of inner tension that really did not have to exist, for Islaam deliberately refuses to equip itself with the badly needed tools for dealing with family and friends that happen to not be monotheists, or even to have no particular sympathy or admiration towards the Qur'an and Islaamic doctrine.

Lacking proper means to deal with the impossible situation that arises from having to balance the loyalties and a duties directed towards one's own personal beliefs and convictions; one's inherited expectations regarding doctrine and culture; and one's role in the harmony of family and community, people raised in Islaamic environments end up dealing with a lot more peer pressure than anyone could in good faith hope for.

Personally, I think that the demographic difusion of Islaam, even more than that of Christianity, is a major or even decisive factor in the common association of religiosity with certain mental attitudes and behaviors that have been hurting the reputation of religion. Among those, definitely, the existence of peer pressure in such unhealthy amounts.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Islaam expects people to not only be monotheistic, but also to treat other people as either monotheists themselves or flawed in some significant way.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'flawed in some significant way' here.

far from being the highly individualized doctrine that it would have to be to justify its reliance on monotheism

I don't see how these two are necessarily linked in this way.

As a matter of fact, it is easily among the most proselitistic doctrines that ever existed.

How does that necessarily follow from what you have just said?

That creates a very significant amount of inner tension that really did not have to exist, for Islaam deliberately refuses to equip itself with the badly needed tools for dealing with family and friends that happen to not be monotheists, or even to have no particular sympathy or admiration towards the Qur'an and Islaamic doctrine.

What sorts of tools are you referring to (that you think Islam doesn't have)?

Lacking proper means to deal with the impossible situation that arises from having to balance the loyalties and a duties directed towards one's own personal beliefs and convictions; one's inherited expectations regarding doctrine and culture; and one's role in the harmony of family and community, people raised in Islaamic environments end up dealing with a lot more peer pressure than anyone could in good faith hope for.

Again, what sorts of means do you have in mind (that you feel Islam does not have)?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'flawed in some significant way' here.

I am sure that you have heard of so-called Kuffar.

I don't see how these two are necessarily linked in this way.

Yet they are. Personal inclinations in the theistic spectrum are very individualized. Some people will be monotheistic no matter what, even if raised in an environment that refuses to accept that or even to teach them the very concept of monotheism. Ditto for atheism, pantheism, polytheism, animism and deism.

A doctrine that aims to be applicable to all people owes itself the acknowledgement and acceptance of that fact and would more likely than not end up apatheistic, perhaps unconsciously.

How does that necessarily follow from what you have just said?

It does not. It follows from the Qur'an.

What sorts of tools are you referring to (that you think Islam doesn't have)?

Most of them are ultimately variations on questioning of tradition, acceptance of people as they are, and revision of dogma.

Again, what sorts of means do you have in mind (that you feel Islam does not have)?

Mainly acceptance of non-Monotheism. A secondary but still worthy tool would be serious questioning of the validity and purpose of proselitism.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I am sure that you have heard of so-called Kuffar.

A term that can be used derogatorily but also as a simple statement of fact, 'a disbeliever'.

Personal inclinations in the theistic spectrum are very individualized. Some people will be monotheistic no matter what, even if raised in an environment that refuses to accept that or even to teach them the very concept of monotheism. Ditto for atheism, pantheism, polytheism, animism and deism.

Right, but you seemed to be saying that this was just about monotheism, rather than all manifestations of beliefs that relate to religion.

It does not. It follows from the Qur'an.

Please explain further.

Most of them are ultimately variations on questioning of tradition, acceptance of people as they are, and revision of dogma.

Except the Holy Qur'an itself calls on people to question tradition (calling on people to not follow their forefathers blindly, not to mention the existence of liberal and progressive forms of Islam) and accept people as they are (to you your religion and to me mine). And not all Islams are so resistant to the notion of revision (as the existence of liberal and progressive forms of Islam attest to).

Mainly acceptance of non-Monotheism. A secondary but still worthy tool would be serious questioning of the validity and purpose of proselitism.

One can have a strong belief that one's path is the right or best path and wanting the best for other people, invite them to also tread that path and still be accepting of their choice not to (to you your religion and to me mine). That family and community are so resistant to their members going against culture/tradition is not the sole preserve of Muslims or monotheists. It's a common enough, even natural reaction to someone rejecting that which binds a particular family or community together.

 

[sooda]

Give me a credible source please...Anyone can show a map and make things up explaining it.



Scholarly source that verifies this please.



I'm not going to begin to explain the Jewish diaspora beyond what I know, as I'm neither Jewish nor a scholar on Jewish diaspora (I also suspect you're not either which is why I'm taking your explanation with a grain of salt). With that being said, I took a look at the Israel Institute For Biblical Studies regarding what 2000 year old Israelite look like. According to this source it states the following:

"Unfortunately it is probably not possible to verify with any real certainty what Abraham looked like. Presumably, if he was born in Ur of the Chaldeans, located in modern-day southern Iraq, he would have had dark wavy hair, an olive complexion; an appearance characteristic of the populations that have lived in this region for millennia: Kurds, Turkmen, Jews, Armenians, etc. We can look to the Song of Songs for an description of what the Israelite ideal of beauty was (Song 5:10-16). However, beyond this very vague image, it is nearly impossible to know about the physical appearance of Abraham or of any of his Israelite descendants."

Source:https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/holy-land-studies/ancient-israelites-look-like/

Now grant it, this source was discussing the possible physical features of ancient Israelites and the most common theme was the discussion of beards, but more importantly, the source states that:

"The Israelites hardly left us images of themselves. The biblical prohibition against making graven images (Exodus 20:4) prevented the Israelites from producing art depicting themselves."

Hence is why as I said earlier to the OP, Jews and Muslims do not have physical depictions of their prophets due to their law forbidding physical depictions of anything from divine providence. With that being said, scholars are commonly left with what would famous Biblical and Quranic figures would look like and most of them look to the regions where they exist and the people in that region. When looking at Jesus there is still much debate on how he looked. Fact is, because we lack accurate evidence of what early Biblical prophets looked like, we only speculate, and many scholars are indeed divided. For example,

According to The Times of Israel, Biblical scholar Joan E. Taylor argues that the centuries old paintings and presentations of Jesus are inaccurate and in fact are semblance of Greco-Roman gods. when describing Jesus, she states:

"“The image of Jesus that’s actually come down through the centuries has become one that fitted the late Byzantine way of thinking about Jesus, the medieval way of thinking about Jesus, the European way of thinking about Jesus. It’s essential — if we go into thinking about the historical figure of Jesus — to get his physical appearance right,” she said."

Source:In a forensic pilgrimage, a scholar asks, ‘What did Jesus look like?’



Because Semitic people aren't just from the European regions. Because there is good reason even in looking at the life of Moses that he could have been a person of color, given the Egyptian environment and being in a region where there were people of color, it is quite possible to speculate this. Moses was also among the Cu****e people and because Moses married a Cu****e woman as it states in Numbers:"Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cu****e woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cu****e woman” (Num. 12:1). If you must know the Cu****e people hail from the southern region of Ethiopia. So I say all that to say it is not unreasonable to believe that the biblical figures were of dark complexion given where the Biblical and Quranic accounts were held and the region where the people existed. This is why I believe Biblical scholars speculate the looks of popular Biblical figures and that is why some argue against the "Europeanizing" of Biblical prophets.

Edit: not sure why the word C U S H I T E is filtered

That is a weird word to censor. I think of Jesus like a good looking Arab .. Abraham too.. from south of Basra who's ancestors were Marsh Arabs from al Hasa.

 

[sooda]

I am sure that you have heard of so-called Kuffar.


Yet they are. Personal inclinations in the theistic spectrum are very individualized. Some people will be monotheistic no matter what, even if raised in an environment that refuses to accept that or even to teach them the very concept of monotheism. Ditto for atheism, pantheism, polytheism, animism and deism.

A doctrine that aims to be applicable to all people owes itself the acknowledgement and acceptance of that fact and would more likely than not end up apatheistic, perhaps unconsciously.



It does not. It follows from the Qur'an.




Most of them are ultimately variations on questioning of tradition, acceptance of people as they are, and revision of dogma.


Mainly acceptance of non-Monotheism. A secondary but still worthy tool would be serious questioning of the validity and purpose of proselitism.

What is that traveler's prayers they say on take off with
Saudia airlines? My Arabic stinks, but I do remember them asking for the safety of strangers as well.