Best history of islam books according to redditors
We found 364 Reddit comments discussing the best history of islam books. We ranked the 71 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 364 Reddit comments discussing the best history of islam books. We ranked the 71 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
I may not agree with Iran on much, but on this issue they are correct. For the extremists to succeed they need three things in addition to their extremist ideology, they need 1) Money, 2) Weapons and 3) Recruits, and the West has given them all three in spades.
There is a book I am constantly encouraging people to read, it is from one of my former Islam professors, Khaled Abou Fadl. It is called The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. It outlines basically how we ended up at this point. Here are a few thoughts, and some passages from the book:
The current problems we face can be traced back to 'Abd al-Wahhab, the 18th century religious leader in Saudi Arabia who is the namesake used by the conservative religious movement popular in Saudi, the Wahabbis. He was particularly intolerant of anyone he considered un-Islamic:
> ‘Abd al-Wahhab and his followers often engaged in rhetorical tirades against prominent medieval and contemporaneous jurists, whom they considered heretical, and even ordered the execution or assassination of a large number of jurists with whom they disagreed. In his writings, ‘Abd al-Wahhab frequently referred to jurists as “devils” or “the spawn of Satan” (shayatin or a‘wan al-shayatin), and therefore removed any psychological barrier to violating the memories or lives of distinguished scholars.
What is interesting, is that when we go back and look at the historical record, al-Wahhab's brand of religious brutality was shocking to the Muslim world at the time when he first started implementing it:
> One of the acts that ‘Abd al-Wahhab committed in Arabia, which generated a great amount of turmoil and opposition, was the stoning to death of a woman accused of adultery. Historical sources state that no one had been stoned to death in Arabia in a very long time, and that many jurists were horrified by what they considered to be the inhumane execution of this woman. This historical report is intriguing, because today stoning people to death is carried out all the time in Saudi Arabia without raising as much as an eyebrow.
Many of us take for granted the brutality meted out in the name of Islam by Saudis, but historical record shows that things were not always like this.
Britain decided to support the Saud family as the ruling family on the Arabian peninsula, and once control of Mecca and Medina fell into the hands of these fanatics (around 1925), it gave them a platform to spread their message throughout the Muslim world, since these places are where all Muslims, from all backgrounds, go on pilgrimage. With Britain signing the Treaty of Darin and the Treaty of Jeddah, Britain essentially gave the Hijaz area to the Saud family, and thus the Wahhabis, giving the puritans control of the most important area for all of Islam. We need to acknowledge this folly, and that a major European power was instrumental in giving the puritans such an important prize.
The main issue is that Wahhabism is extremely intolerant of any view outside of its own. It is particularly critical of any view of Islam that is not consistent with the "spiritual austerity" that it preaches:
> The main theme of ‘Abd al-Wahhab was that Muslims had gone wrong by straying from the straight path of Islam, and only by returning to the one true religion could they regain God’s pleasure and acceptance. With a puritanical zeal, ‘Abd al-Wahhab sought to rid Islam of all the corruptions that he believed had crept into the religion; for ‘Abd al-Wahhab these included mysticism, the doctrine of intercession, rationalism, and Shi’ism as well as many practices that he considered heretical innovations.
So in practice what this meant was that anything considered un-Islamic by the Wahhabi standard was considered heretical. The tragedy of this is that it encouraged people to ignore 1200 years of amazing Islamic law and scholarship. Prior to the Wahabbi takeover, there was a richness and diversity in Islamic law that was a strength, but now that diversity is often demonized as un-Islamic. But that diversity is important if we are going to take Islam back from the extremists:
> The Shari’a was richly diverse. Indeed, it is difficult to convey to modern readers the degree of richness and diversity that the Shari’a enjoyed. The only legal tradition that I am aware of that comes close to the richness of the Shari’a tradition is the Jewish Rabbinic tradition, with its multi-interpretive methods and various competing interpretations. As in the Rabbinic tradition, the students of Islamic law considered a wide range of alternative interpretations and opinions on any particular point of law, and the various sages of Islamic law worked hard to earn the respect and loyal following of a number of students, who in turn worked to spread and develop their master’s intellectual heritage. The Rabbinic tradition, with all its various sages, methodologies, and legal determinations, collectively represented Jewish law. Likewise, the Shari’a contained a wide range of ethical and moral principles, legal methodologies, and many conflicting and competing judgments. This rich and diverse matrix of opinions and judgments was collectively considered to be God’s law. In fact, to help visualize the phenomenon that I am describing, perhaps I should mention my own personal library on Islamic law. It contains about fifty thousand titles, the vast majority of which were written before the sixteenth century and as early as the ninth century. The books in this library represent a variety of approaches, schools of thought, and opinions written over the course of several centuries.
Two major events occurred in the 20th Century that caused the Wahhabi view to gain ascendancy in the Islamic world. The first was when the British decided to switch from coal to oil in their navy. The second was the 1973 oil embargo. Because the Saudis had some of the largest oil fields in the world, the money poured into the hands of the puritanical-supporting regime. Now, with this massive amount of money, the Wahabbis were able to export their brand of Islam easily. They funded only those places of learning that would support their narrow worldview, and deliberately censored anyone against it.
But the Brits weren't the only ones contributing to the problem. Many western governments were making things much worse in their own ways. In addition to the entire world basically pouring money into Saudi Arabia through their dependence on oil, many governments supported despotic regimes that often engaged in torture. This practice of torture creates the very people we are trying to rid the world of:
> it is important to take particular note of the consequences of torture, which is a regular staple of despotic governments. State prisons where torture is regularly practiced have given birth to some of the most puritanical and extremist orientations in the Islamic world. Importantly, the very practice of torture generates narratives of torture, tales of horror that are transmitted through society and that become part of the cultural fabric, and that play a significant role in deepening the sense of stress, fear, and lack of self-worth.
This is step one in giving the extremists recruits. A person tortured for their beliefs will be very open to anyone who gives them the opportunity to attack their oppressors, and at that point terrorist activities seem much more acceptable because they are against what they view as a great evil. It is probably not a coincidence that the most notorious and dangerous extremist in the world right now, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, spent time in Abu Ghraib prison during a time when we know torture was occurring.
Now torturing people is not enough, extremists need more recruits than that. This is where civilian war casualties come into play. Recently we learned about an instance where an airstrike in Syria killed 100 civilians including many children. So now you have the family and friends of these innocent victims out there, trying to make sense of the slaughter. How many of those people will be sympathetic to the message of an extremist who whispers in their ear: "Are you upset with those people who killed your family? How about you join us in fighting them?" There will be people sympathetic to that message.
And finally weapons. It was announced that billions of weapons are being sold to Saudi Arabia. A country whose clergy praise the very conflicts that are destroying the Middle East.
So there you have it, this combination, this global endeavor, is making the problem of extremism worse. It's not just a Muslim problem, it's a world problem.
> There is a lack of evidence that religions lead to violence or affect humanity adversely
> > There is a lack of evidence that religions lead to violence or affect humanity adversely
Let's just stick to scientific advancement.
If one merely looks at history, there is an overwhelming about of credible evidence to support that Theistic Religious tenets inform or support support the Theistic adherent in the use, and justification of use, of violence. OP, pick your brand of violence - Theistic Religion is likely to be a component to this violence. Don't kid yourself.
From one of OP's comments:
> Fair enough. But if you have a theory, e.g. "religion leads to violence", the best way is to corroborate it is with statistics.
OP, a suggestion. If you are going to attempt an argument based upon the methodology of science and "statistics" - then actually learn the difference between a "theory" and a "hypothesis" and a "postulation."
Here is a good resource that explains the basics
If you would prefer a single video, maybe try this one
If you would prefer a series of videos going over the basics.
If you would prefer a book, Please see this very well written book on amazon
We also have a sub wiki
Additional resources can be found here
Don't play dumb. Katua is a honorary term used for Muslims.
> Can you suggest any good book so that I can learn about them?
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Infidels-Guide-Koran/dp/1596981040
https://www.amazon.com/11-Versus-Terrorist-Teachings-Koran/dp/0982027303
For a historical overview of the resurgence of the hijab, I like this book by Leila Ahmed. You get a lot of discussion of politics, social activism, feminism, etc.
Some articles. Full disclosure most of these I only scanned. But you can google feminist hijab or feminist hijabi or similar things and get a lot of results.
https://dailyevergreen.com/9952/opinion/feminism-of-the-hijab/
I am a hijabi feminist
https://forward.com/life/style/381051/actually-modesty-is-about-empowerment-not-oppression/
http://adrielbooker.com/modesty-power-and-bikini-burning/
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/17/muslim-women-fashion_n_15411952.html
https://forward.com/life/427544/a-muslim-and-an-orthodox-jew-talk-modesty-and-feminism/
Other books:
https://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Suit-Religious-Modesty-Feminist/dp/0807093920/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=modesty&qid=1569096262&sr=8-7
https://www.amazon.com/Veil-Modesty-Privacy-Resistance-Culture/dp/1859739296/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=modesty+in+islam&qid=1569096355&sr=8-2
Some novels with awesome hijabi characters:
https://www.amazon.com/Umm-Zakiyyah/e/B001K8VHZI?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2&qid=1569096579&sr=8-2
I'm just going to answer what I can, hopefully other can address the rest.
>If this is true, why was the entire Jewish tribe that violated the treaty with Muhammad be punished for their leaders' decision?
Because the entire tribe committed treason. Yes it was their leaders' decision, but the people following the leaders were perfectly able to not accept their leaders' decision and go out and support the prophet (sawa) during the battle rather than stay behind and defy the treaty. Or they could have come to him and say we are innocent of what our leaders did and do not think it is right. They did not do so and where willing to fight for their leaders. Just because someone else came up with the idea does not excuse the one who followed and accepted it.
>Why are we taught to distrust Jews?
Um... you should not be taught that. A lot of people, especially from the middle east, speak generally about Jews but what they mean is Israeli. More recently, with the internet and increasing understanding that Jew does not equal Israeli, it is less and less the case. The distrust is due to politics and wars and not due to Islam. Before the current Palestine/Israel crisis, Jewish people lived in the Muslim world in peace. In fact, during the Spanish inquisition, it was Muslims who took in Jewish people escaping persecution.
>I was also taught that on Judgement Day, when a person is being dragged to hell, he would also drag people who he feels could have helped him become better to hell too.
I'm not sure where this comes from. It might mean that if you are someone who is in a position to help another person find guidance and refuses to do so, leaving him in misguidance, that its a bad thing.
>How are Muslim conquers and wars any different than plain colonialism
For this you'll have to read the history of each conquest in detail. The state of the world worked differently. There was no nation state where people chose their own leaders. Most places where under the rule of large Empires (for ex. Byzantines or Persians) and the borders between them would constantly change based on who was stronger. People accepted a ruler only because the ruler was strong enough to conquer them. A newly formed state would have to expand or be conquered by neighboring empires with large resources. If you read history, many of the tribes living on the borders of the Persian or Byzantine empire would ask the Muslims to take over because of the oppressive rule of these Empires, and that these Empires would start war with the Muslims. The Muslims never enforced Islam on anyone and left non-Muslims to locally conduct themselves by their own religious rules.
Now, people live in nation states with well defined borders that have signed treaties with each other protecting their sovereignty and where the people choose their rulers. ISIS, first of all is not an Islamic caliphate. Second it is expanding into places that were at peace, and were self governing. It is killing innocent people, muslims and non muslims, forcing their version of twisted Islam on the populace and killing whoever disagrees. There's currently on the sub a thread I believe linking to a book that theologically refutes ISIS and goes into why they are wrong, so you might be interested in checking it out.
>As children, I used to play 'bad telephone'. One person whispers a phrase to another and this goes on until the whole line of children are finished with it. At the end of the game, the original phrase is completely distorted. How are hadiths any different from plain hearsays?
There's a whole science to hadith literature to decipher exactly this. It wasn't like person X said this and we just accept it. Many hadiths would be transmitted through different chains making it unlikely that everyone made the exact same mistake. You might be interested in reading Misquoting Muhammad.
>I come from a science-oriented background but since Islam plays a huge influence here, the evolution theory is rejected. I believe in evolution. But I also believe in Adam and Eve being the first humans on Earth. What is so wrong in believing that God has created all the evolutionary processes to create an Earth that is suitable for humans to live in?
Nothing. There's nothing wrong with believing in evolution as just another scientific/biological process the God created. I believe in the evolutionary theory as well, and believe that Adam and Eve were chosen to be the first humans on Earth. Are there things we don't yet know for sure about how they came to physical existence on earth? Sure, and I doubt we'll ever have perfect knowledge. But there's no contradiction between evolution and Islam.
>I was taught that a Muslim man can marry 4 women simply because 'men are capable of if while women can't'.
It's not about sexual capability. Marriage is the fundamental building block of society in Islam. Men can marry 4 women because throughout history, wars and general hardship meant many men would die. Because of biological facts that make the woman the one going through child birth and nursing, and needing support, she would need support, financial and physical. One man can have the capability of supporting more than one woman. Historically, before birth control and traditional schools that serve as day time baby-sitters, women were severely limited in their capability to go out and earn a living. Even today, a single mother is one of the most vulnerable members of western society, and without social support, many find themselves looking for shelters or help. So a woman was in greater danger of finding herself destitute than a man, when falling upon hardship, becoming widowed or losing parents, etc. Also it allows a society to maintain birthrate and structure when men of wealthier means are able to support more than one woman.
>Why aren't we allowed to eat pork?
Because God said so. It's not about bacteria or any of that. That is just people trying to guess the reason why. We are not allowed to eat pork or carrion or drink alcohol because God explicitly states that they are haram in the Qur'an. No technology will change that fact. If you are asking why did God make it haram, the true is answer is "we don't know."
>We see the Canadian children singing to welcome the refugees. Would we be willing to let our children do the same if the situation is reversed, say, Jewish refugees?
I certainly hope so. Muslims welcomed Jewish refugees once when they kicked out of Spain, and I hope if such a situation arises again, we would find ourselves being welcoming people again.
>Why aren't we doing anything about ISIS other than publicly declaring that they aren't practicing 'true Islam' (which, on its own, is a whole another debate)?
Who's we? Who do you think is on the ground physically fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq? Hint: It's muslims.
>Why are we so petty about things? Haram this, haram that. Ban music, ban yoga, ban the Union Jack flag, spy on people to catch unmarried people having sex
Wait what? I go to Yoga class once a week. I also enjoy classical music. Also, Islamically, it is haram to spy on people period.
I feel that you might be exposed to some super strict version of Islam as the only right one. There's no question some people wish to be very strict on themselves, but you should keep in mind that there are large variations in accepted orthodox Islamic traditions, and no one has the right to impose their own understanding on others.
Ibn Warraq has written multiple books - Why I am not a Muslim
​
Also online check out r/https://wikiislam.net
Islam: A Short History - Karen Armstrong
Islam: The Straight Path - John Esposito
The Autobiography of Malcolm X - Alex Haley
More advanced (should have some understanding of Islam before reading):
The Great Theft - Khaled Abou El Fadl
The Story of the Qur'an - Ingrid Mattson
This is correct in terms of both contemporary Sunni and Shi'i Islam. Scholars are generally recognized by their erudition and contributions to the theory and/or application of Islamic (as well as other areas such as theology, Qur'anic exegesis, spiritual practice, etc.).
I can comment more on the situation in Twelver Shi'ism, as I am a Twelver Shi'i Muslim myself. Twelver Shi'ism will appear to have more of a hierarchical structure or at least exhibit more centrality than what is seen in the Sunni world, but it's still very far form the central hierachy of the Catholic clergly. While often finds comparisons between the Shi'i scholars and the catholic clergy in the media and even in the academic literature, these comparisons are often misguided, and at the very least reductive. Basically, within Twelver Shi'ism since the late eighteenth (or perhaps more accurately/practically, the mid-nineteenth century), the common practice has been for the laity to follow the rulings of the most learned scholar that has the authority to exercise independent legal judgements (although these are still, at least nominally, only derivations made from the source material, the Qur'an and ahadith, rather than original legislation); they would also pay the khums tax to this scholar if applicable, which among other things, funds the seminaries. At various points in time one figure would be seen by the vast majority as the most learned, but at other points in time (such as the current era), there would be multiple figures with large followings. Virtually anyone could announce themselves as a learned scholar, but to be taken seriously by much of the population, and indeed by ones peers, one would typically need to study in one of several seminaries (which today would primarily be those in Qum, Iran and to a lesser extent in Najafi, Iraq) under well-known teachers (generally, the most recognized scholars of the previous generation). Things have become more complicated since the Islamic Revolution in Iran, where the lines between scholarship and public service (i.e., holding positions of political power) are becoming blurred.
The situation within contemporary Sunni Islam is even more decentralized. For one things, there are four major legal schools within Sunni Islam, and then there's also the Salafi movement that exists outside of those legal schools. Moreover, scholarship even within the same legal school can be quite different based on geography. For example, the Hanafi school is the primary school followed in both Asia Minor (e.g., Turkey) and Central/South Asia, but as I've heard there's quite a difference between the practice of the religion, even in its more legal dimensions, between say Turkey and Pakistan; in fact even within South Asia, there are multiple approaches taken by Hanafi Sunni Musilms that lead to quite different expressions of religion, and each will have their own scholars.
Moreover, the prestige of centers of learning within Sunni Islam have also been in flux lately. One of the issues in Sunni scholarship today is that whereas in Shi'i Islam centers of learning are primarily funded through khums, in Sunni Islam they've historically relied mainly on awqaf (charitable endowments, the singular form is waqf), and these were regulated if not outright taken by modern nation states in the contemporary era. In fact, modern (often secular) nation states in the Islamic world began to increasingly oversee and regulate the formal practice of religion and its scholarship within their borders. Therefore, scholars became increasingly dependent on the state for support, so you have something like national hierarchies forming, with say, a grand mufti at the head. This in term led to the prestige of centers of learning such as Al-Azhar university in Cairo, Egypt to fall in the eyes of many, as they were seen as being co-opted by the state (although the relationship between scholars and temporal power has always been tenuous and tricky in both the Sunni and Shi'i traditions). Simultaneously, we've seen increasing prestige associated with the Salafi expression of Islam (with centers of learning in Saudi Arabia), which ostensibly eschews all hierarchy even more rigorously than what's seen in other expressions of Islam, by rejecting the legal schools. However, some would contend that effectively, much of Salafi practice comes from treating a small number of contemporary scholars as authorities.
Of course there are other Muslim groups, so we can briefly cover them. Zaydi Shi'ism also has a rich history of scholarship, based primarily in Yemen, but I'm less familiar with that to comment (and at various times throughout history the lines between Zaydi scholarship and Sunni scholarship have become blended), and I know virtually nothing about Ibadi scholarship (which is a school of thought that is neither Shi'i nor Sunni, largely based in Oman), and ditto for Zahiri scholarship (sometimes considered a fifth school in Sunni Islam). I should add that the Nizari Ismaili Shi'i community does feature a type of hierarchy, in that they have a present living Imam who carries the charismatic authority of the Prophet (saws), as opposed to the hidden Imam of the Twelver Shi'is; this Imam can act as an infallible. But really this is one charismatic figure, who essentially acts like a head of state without a territory in the modern world, surrounded by a bureaucracy. For more information, you can look up the Agha Khan Development Network (AKDN). I should add though that Nizari Isma'ilis today resemble something that is basically unrecognizable when compared to normative Sunni, Twelver/Zaidi/Shi'i, and Ibadi Islam.
There are also Sufi groups, most of which fall within Sunni Islam legally speaking, but some of which are not strictly speaking Sunni (and might actually be affiliated with Twelver Shi'ism, even though Sufism is generally viewed upon negatively in that tradition). Here you might have some hierarchy within a tariqa but that's different. There are also antinomian Sufi groups, which do their own thing and don't really follow Islamic law. These may exhibit some cult-like tendencies, where you have a charismatic community built around one or a small group of leaders, but here I'm just speculating as this is pretty far from the areas I'm knowledgeable about.
In short, aside from these mystical/antinomian persuasions, in theory, a scholar in Islam is really no different than a member of the laity in religious/theological terms, except for their ability to issue rulings on religious law. Although I don't know much about Catholicism (so take this with a grain or few of salt), I guess you can think of Muslim scholars as something in between a lay theologian and a canon lawyer I guess. In practice, of course, they serve in a distinct social/cultural role, and do things like leading prayers, officiating marriages, handling burial rites, counseling people and giving them advice, etc., although a qualified lay individual can fulfill all these functions too.
For further reading on Sunni scholarship, see Jonathan A.C. Brown's Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy, and for further reading on Shi'i scholarship, see Roy Mottahedeh's The Mantle of the Prophet.
>For more references, read a whole chapter about it in Jonathan Brown’s book Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy (specifically pp. 189-199). Even he, who otherwise holds rather patriarchal ideas about women, agrees that there’s no prohibition on mixed-gender female-led prayers and that the scholars had nothing to stand on for prohibiting it.
i loved the entire response, but this part was news to me! I've never cared for Johnathan Brown but i recognize his scholarship and think it's really cool that there really is no prohibition against women leading prayer.
So who are we to make something that isn't known to be haram into a sin?
Yasmin and anyone else who think it's haram for a woman to lead are essentially just speaking for Allah when they have zero authority to be doing that. In fact, their rhetoric is what drives people further from Islam and they'll probably have to answer to Allah for that.
Here are some videos and books that you might find beneficial:
I recommend these books:
and Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time
Side note on Quran translation:
Stay away from
Try:
Misc:
Movie:
Read Road to Makkah. Simply because
Try these links. It will make you feel even better. All cults (religions are cults, no matter how big) have taken and mutated from the sources that are already preexistent in their milieu. Nothing is new, they are just developed with little tweaks over a period of time. They develop mythical characters to consolidate their divinity with human touches. Jesus and muhammad are also myths, they didn't exist.
Short videos (around 10 minutes) about earliest qur'anic Arabic
Origin- part 1
https://youtu.be/6C3DuLnUh7w
Part 2
https://youtu.be/U_sv5tPlnng
Informative e-book on early islam and Arab history
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00903HTIE/ref=cm_sw_r_wa_awdb_06TrzbNDSAW50
There are people who prescribe the death penalty for apostasy in Islam, but I think a few things need to be taken into consideration here. I suggest anyone who is interested in learning about the issues of law and Islam pick up the book "The Great Theft, Wrestling Islam from the Hands of Extremists." It is written by a professor of law at UCLA, and it outlines how we arrived at the current situation today.
First and foremost, it is very important to take into consideration historical context. A long time ago the lines between apostasy and treason were blurry to say the least. It is important to note that often when a male was Muslim they were also expected to serve in the military on some level, and if they left the fold of Islam it was seen as joining the other side so to speak, and in some ways viewed as desertion.
This was especially true in the very early history of Islam when Jewish tribes we signing peace treaties then later breaking them with the Muslims. If someone were to leave and return to their Jewish tribe, it was seen as not just a matter of faith, but as a possibly treasonous/desertion act. There was great risk that these people could also go back to the other side and reveal military secrets, so it was seen as a possible act of espionage as well. It should also be noted the even the UK/US practiced the death penalty for things like treason and desertion, the [US executed a man in 1945 for desertion] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government#Military_executions) or the Rosenbergs being executed for espionage in 1953.
Now, it should also be noted that there was not always consensus about the appropriate punishment for apostasy. The Qur'an does not clearly state that death is the punishment for apostasy, in fact in pure faith terms the Qur'an often argues that we need to let people decide for themselves what their faith is, the Qur'an says, 'Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion,' [Qur'an, 109:6], and, "Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve,' [Qur'an, 18:29], and, 'There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is distinct from error' [Qur'an, 2:256]."
The justification for death for apostasy is based on a series of hadith, and I would argue that if you look at the historical context of the hadith it was much more a case of a blurred line between apostasy/desertion than clear cases of people simply changing their belief. There was not
widespreaduniversal consensus that death penalty was the only punishment for treason, in fact the very well respected 14th century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah argued against the death penalty of apostasy. However, it was still a useful tool for state leaders to fight political opponents, so I think it is fair to say that the punishment of death remained alive and well under various rulers, and is still around today. But there are many Islamic leaders today who argue against the death penalty for apostasy in Islam.Questions like these are always interesting. When the followers of a religion, or any particular belief system do something does it reflect on the religion as a whole? For example an number of US military had Bible quotes on their rifle scopes which begs the question: Who would Jesus snipe? Obviously we would say no one, but how many people have died at the hands of people who proclaim themselves Christians over the years? How many have died at the hands of people who claim to be atheists? Jews? Buddhists? Name your belief system and we can find examples of people killing for it, I think it reflects more on the individuals perpetuating the acts, rather than inherent issues with the belief systems themselves.
ROFL
Now go watch the debate Bill Maher had with Ben Affleck (if you haven't already) to see how right Maher was and how dangerously retarded Islamophilic liberals like Affleck are...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60
And if you haven't watched a lecture by the much-maligned Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch fame, you definitely should set aside the time to watch one of his lectures on YouTube. He's been the leading anti-Islam voice on the Right in America for about a decade. His books are a great read as well if anyone is curious about understanding the right-wing "Islamophobic" point of view.
Ibn Warraq- Why I Am Not a Muslim.
Which book is best for getting your friend to be open and honest with himself very much depends on his character, personality, preferences. Does he get easily offended when people contradict him, or does he carefully consider all arguments that imply he may be mistaken?
Either way, I don't think The God Delusion is the best book to give to him, since it primarily talks about Christianity. Many things are true for all religions, but I think a book dealing with Islam specifically would be better.
One option: Hamed Abdel-Samad – Islamic Fascism. He grew up in Egypt as the son (and grandson and great-grandson) of an imam and started learning the Koran by heart when he was three years old. He is now a humanist (and an atheist) and lives in Germany. I have met him in person, he is a great guy and a good writer.
Unfortunately, this was the only one of his books I could find that was translated into English. His book “Mein Abschied vom Himmel” (“My Farewell From Heaven”), in which he tells his own personal story that led him to becoming an atheist, or “Mohamed – Eine Abrechnung” (“Mohamed – A Reckoning”) would probably be better for your friend, because he could better relate to them, but to my knowledge they haven' been translated (yet?).
I recommend you read Misquoting Muhammad by Jonathan Brown. It's not perfect but very good and definitely great for intro reading.
Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy https://www.amazon.com/dp/1780747829/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_SNk7AbN3K3351
An Illusion of Harmony: Science And Religion in Islam by Taner Edis is a fantastic read and might be what you're looking for.
Diversity of ideas, not skin color. I find that people who live in different states tend to have different views and ideas, while a visually diverse city or urban area can become quite orthodox and rigid in terms of ideas
Or, to pouch a quote I love: "Cosmopolitanism does not mean people of different skin colors all sitting around a bistro table complaining about organized religion. It means people who hold profoundly different, even mutually exclusive beliefs and cultural norms "
(Jonathan Brown, Foreword to Misquoting Mohammed: The Challenges and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy)
My story:
I became a Muslim over a decade ago because I thought the Qur'an was the word of God. I was under the impression it contained scientific miracles and I was ready to remake my life to what God wanted from me. After deciding to be a Muslim, I got married a few years later and continued to study the faith to become a better Muslim. I studied as much as my free time allowed. I didn't question the foundations of the faith for many years.
After ~8 years, I decided to increase my faith by studying what initially brought me into the religion. I noticed that a lot of the initial things that attracted me to Islam were extreme stretches of wording (I had learned more Arabic over the years) and I began to question more. I noticed that as I was gaining ijazah's in various works, each scholar would have radically different interpretations and I wondered how so many well-intentioned scholars could come to so many different conclusions from a supposedly clear book. I also got frustrated that many of my teachers would give me "honest" answers because my faith was "stronger" than other Muslims.
After Omar Suleiman's slavery followup video, my questions grew in intensity. He used one quote to prove his point that was not in it's proper context and I realized that the best "evidence" for his claims was incredibly weak. I knew I had to find the truth of the matter. Jonathan Brown's comments on slavery confirmed what I knew had to be true given how terrible the evidence was that a slave/master sexual relationship required consent.
This lead me down a path of questioning for years. Over time, I began to realize that the Qur'an spoke with the "scientific" knowledge of a basic, late antiquity person. The issue of abrogation always troubled me, as did the difference in tone throughout the Qur'an. I read as many different books of seerah in English as I could and I couldn't get it out of my head how the Qur'an's changes fit his life circumstances so frequently for a supposed message to mankind. I also found the arguments of the Qur'an sorely lacking. In addition, the various stories of the Qur'an like Dhul Qarnayn and Suleiman were retelling of fictional tales that grew over time. I began to realize the Qur'an perfectly fit into late antiquity and that it couldn't really transcend it. I also discovered the true history of the Muslim/Arab conquests was far more brutal than the whitewashed version my teachers gave me. I found that Muhammad could have been troubled and still been a charismatic person like St. Hildergard, Joan of Arc, or Joseph Smith. He wasn't as remarkable and unique as I thought. I also learned more about cognitive dissonance and how people will dig in further when evidence is presented that would refute their belief in a person. The hadith tradition, which only accepts known and good Muslims, was not historical enough to really examine Muhammad even if there is information to gather from it (see works by Motzki and Schoeler). When I read books about the i'jaz of the Qur'an, I found them very unconvincing as many more works are also quite remarkable (like the Illiad). I also found the belief in the miraculous preservation of the Qur'an was unfounded as well as its claims of divine origin (A,B, C) . Basically, everything about Islam is what I would expect from man, not an Omnipotent and Omniscient Being.
Western "liberals" committed racial and civilizational treason when they mass imported Muslims to our countries and then protected them from criticism and promoted their insanely depraved religion.
Don't try to deny it. Western "liberals" routinely denounce people - like Robert Spencer and other Islam critics - as ignorant, hateful, crazy and racist Islamophobes whenever they point out how innately screwed up the Islamic religion is. Own it. Stop denying that you're directly responsible for this hostile colonization of the "infidel" West. And stop trying to brainwash everyone into thinking that Muslims mass immigrating to our countries is somehow "culturally enriching" us...
Islam is a 5th column. It always has been and it always will be. It is not a tolerant and moderate religion of peace that's no worse than Christianity. You're completely delusional if you genuinely believe that. Islam is clearly in a league all of its own when it comes to general fanaticism, violence and oppression.
There's no legitimate excuse for continuing to support this Islamic colonization of the West when accurate information about what Islam really teaches and what most Muslims really believe is readily available on the webernetz.
If you are genuinely ignorant and brainwashed about what Islam really teaches, simply type "Robert Spencer" into YouTube and watch some of his lectures. Or visit his blog called "Jihad Watch". Or read some of his books.
The problem with any argument based on the life and actions of Muhammad is that such actions are hotly contested. Historically speaking, there is little trustworthy evidence covering his life - and western historiography has struggled to make anything of what is left (scholars such as P. Crone, M. Cook and more recently Tom Holland have done a lot of work on this).
If you're interested in this topic, I suggest you get your hands on J. A. C. Brown's book 'Misquoting Muhammad'. At a fundamental level it will demonstrate how elements of the prophet's life were reinterpreted (read: rewritten) by later scholars to justify certain acts, but it also (and Patricia Crone, Michael Cook and Tom Holland concentrate on this) covers the very serious problems faced in looking at Muhammad's life historically.
It goes like this:
In Islam, one aims to be like Muhammad. He is the role model and his actions determine how one should act. Thus you have hadith telling you whether he urinated standing up or sitting down, just as a silly example. Extremist groups like IS take this to the extreme (hence they are 'extremists'). Most Muslims are willing to accept, just as Christians are in reference to the Bible, that their prophet lived within a historical context and that God's revelation was relevant to that context. For many Muslims, it is compatible that they deviate from Muhammad's example in some ways, for he lived in a different time. They focus on the positive aspects of his character, of which there truly is many - he is by all accounts a great man, kind and generous, diplomatic and peace-loving. The negative aspects of his character are ignored, for to acknowledge them would be to undermine his importance and sanctity as a messenger of God. It's around here that I personally unsubscribe from religion - I find this idea incompatible. But to many, many people, this is okay, and they remain believers. I, and all, should respect that choice.
Anyway, herein lies a very strange historical phenomenon. Usually, the further we get from a historical event, the less is known. For the life of Muhammad, however, it seems the opposite is true: the further we get from his life the more and more detail there is about him. This can be explained, but the explanation is uncomfortable for a lot of Muslims. His life was not recorded at the time. It was remembered orally - thus you have the isnad chains of the hadith - as was the qur'an which was not codified until Caliph 'Umar at the earliest. Oral transmission is not a reliable way to preserve historical truth, especially when we're talking about centuries of oral transmission. Muslim scholars of the 10th and 11th centuries, when the life of Muhammad was codified, tried their utmost to determine what was legitimately true and what was not. But a significant amount of these 'true' hadiths have been found to be problematic (see Ignaz Goldziher, for one).
I could go on, but the general moral of the story here is that the life of Muhammad is a fascinating historiographical phenomenon. Here we have possibly the most detailed account of the life of any historical individual: few humans in history have had so much written about them. Yet all of that knowledge is on incredibly shaky ground, and in reality we are left with very little, if anything, about his life.
In relation to your questions, this is just a background understanding which I think it is important. I wish to respond to them, though, on an understanding (for sake of argument) that the early Islamic historical tradition is reliable (which it is not). For the record, I'm a Western Historian with no religious biases either way, interested only in historical fact and the implications of that fact.
> Didn't Muhammad collect sex slaves
He certainly had at least one: Maria al-Qibtiyya, who was a Coptic slave (Christian from Egypt) and bearer of his only son, Ibrahim, who died as a child. The two were not married, and she was in servitude to him, having been a gift from al-Muqawqis, the Christian ruler/governor of Egypt.
Now we return to historical context, which I'm sure you would agree is hugely important. Groups like IS, being 'extreme' (as I discuss earlier), ignore historical context. But the majority of Muslims worldwide are happy to accept that this was appropriate at the time, but no longer is. For in 7th century Arabia - and indeed across the world from China to Constantinople, from Balkh to Rome - sex slaves were an accepted part of society. The Christian monarchs of medieval Europe had sex slaves. By modern standards even, almost all of those monarchs were sexual abusers - their wives were usually younger than 18, often younger than 16.
My point here, as in the next couple of points, is that context is everything. What Muslims do celebrate though is that Muhammad's treatment of women was actually far, far better than that of the cultures which preceded him. Islam gave women property rights, for example. Women in China, Iran and Europe did not have property rights. Many contemporary observers in Europe from the 7th century onwards actually express surprise at the high status given to women in Islamic society - it is unusual to them.
>"Strike at the neck" to his enemies
This is from Qur'an 47:4, and is one of many massively misunderstood passages explained by this helpful infographic. Ironically, you'll find this if you browse the top of all time on this very subreddit.
> A religious tax
This is a seriously long and complicated subject and i've already babbled on enough, but I will make one important point here: the level of tax imposed by the Arabs on the empire established under the Rashidun was significantly better than the level of tax imposed prior. Those who lived in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt etc. actually found that under Islamic government they had a far better deal than under Byzantine or Sasanian rule.
Furthermore, there was no concerted effort of conversion. The idea that Islam was spread by the sword is historically false. In Western historiography we call the conquests 'Arab', not 'Islamic', in order to make this clear. In fact, we find the opposite is true: the Arabs were very reluctant to let non-Arabs convert to Islam. The Abbasid revolution in 750, one of the great historical junctures in the political history of Islam, was a direct result of non-Arab converts (mawali) being angry that Arab Muslims were not treating them like Muslims. The conquests, and the rule of the 'Islamic' world from the 7th century until about the 10th, was 'Arab', not 'Muslim'. After ~10th century, with the Shu'ubiyya and rise of Persian dynasties, it became 'Persian', rather than Arab - but still not 'Muslim'. This idea of 'Islamic conquests' and 'Islamic rule' is historically unfounded.
I could go on, but Islam has an incredible political, cultural and religious history which I highly recommend you read about. I'm not a Muslim and not a die-hard defender of religion, nor am I anti-religious or anti-Islam. The more I learn about it, the more I find ignorance and misunderstanding on both sides. The more I realise that, as with all history and cultural development, the truth is murky and somewhere in the middle.
TL;DR: From a historical perspective, we have to be careful when talking about the life of Muhammad. Some of what you claim is true, but must be contextualised. Some is not, and represent major misunderstandings of Islam found in the west. Overall, we should all be a bit more critical of what we think we know and understand. That goes for anti-Islamic people and Muslims alike. Perhaps the world would be a better place if everyone just accepted that we all have different worldviews, and none of them are perfect.
Here.
Are.
Some.
Books.
Some.
More.
Books.
Would you like a link to my amazon wishlist to see all the books? There are a lot of non-Islamic stuff there to that you might like.
The Road to Mecca seems to be an excellent book for people contemplating joining Islam.
Brother, link them to the Islam On Demand YouTube channel. There's a wealth of information there for the uninitiated.
Edit: Or how about an introduction written by a leading Christian thinker Hans Küng - Islam: Past, Present, Future
This one is quite good its by Abdul Shalabi, and edited by Tim Winter, its on amazon.
Assalamu 'alaikum sister :) may your life and soul be at peace, and may Allah bless you for your efforts
I second what Throwminigolf said about the sealed nectar. This book might be a good one to try though! I've found it to be a much easier read. It's not too long either, and is relatable.
Robert Spencer's Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran is excellent. Very thorough. The tag is "I read it so you don't have to"
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Infidels-Guide-Koran/dp/1596981040
I'd say it's also worth watching the author's debates online.
Also check out Acts17Apologetics for humorous and informative videos on Islam. https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics
William Lane Craig is a good resource too.
Good luck with your research!
From another comment I made:
Don't stop here! The more you know the better you are!
There are so many more amazing ones but these are the ones I recommend!
I also would recommend reading The truth about Muhammad by Robert Spencer, I'm about 70% through and it is EYE-OPENING, and also blood boiling, really that man is so disgusting you can never see Muslims the same way ever again. Pick it up if you can.
Hi there, I've just seen this, but you may be interested in the book The Qur'an in it's Historical Context edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds and featuring essays by Fred Donner, Robert Hoyland, Andrew Rippin and others who delve into the latest (as of 2007 when it was published) academic scholarship on precisely these questions.
As /u/kerat mentioned, the fringe-revisionist claim about the Quran being written two centuries after the fact is not held up by the evidence, particularly early manuscript evidence. That being said there are open questions about how our contemporary received mus'haf might have varied in that time period, particularly as we do not have the kind of manuscript databases for the Qur'an to examine variant readings the way that we have, for example, with the bible. I discuss some of these problems in an /r/askhistorians post Here and Here if it's of any interest.
AA - So I was raised Muslim but wasn’t really culturally accepted - until probably about my late teens. I had a number of friends over the years who are reverts and some close ones now who are part of our community around the IC in New York City.
There’s a new researched Quran with Bible citations -
The Qur'an - with References to the Bible: A Contemporary Understanding https://www.amazon.com/dp/099659244X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_SsxYBb4TTTEMY
Which could serve as a reference for your friend - to start to understand the parallels and similarities between Islam and Christianity.
You should also find a reverts group in either your local mosque or one of your collegiate Islamic centers - Having close friends that don’t understand reverting or become more religious for whatever reason can be challenging.
But I suppose a short rebuttal might be something along the lines of Mary Magdalene is mentioned more times in the Quran than in the Bible and our religion gives great reverence to Jesus including discussing the second coming.
Terms like (peace be upon him) and a lot of our traditional lexicon should probably be explained in more contemporary terms that she could understand as well.
Muhammed: How he can make you extraordinary
The Productive Muslim - Where Faith Meets Productivity
Dua, Weapon of the Believers
Revive Your Heart: Putting Life in Perspective
The Art of War
Khadija: The First Muslim and Wife of the Prophet Muhammed
Muhammed: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources
Dua's for success in this world and the next, over 100 Duas
Fortress of a Muslim
Reclaim your heart
These are some of the books I have at the moment and I highly recommend them after reading them. I am waiting on a few more books but a lot are non Islamic but still really useful [:
Edit: Like this
>Muslims say Bukhari and Muslim are 100% authentic
No, only the uneducated ones say that. Amongst scholars there is no difference of opinion on this. Even Bukhari and Muslim have hadith which are not authentic. This is a huge topic but the book recommendations below will help you get context around this.
You are going down a slippery path of following dogma and institutionalization of Islam. There is a reason why you (and I) gain spirituality from reading the Quran and not so the auxiliary materials.
I highly recommend you read the following books.
Losing My Religion by Dr. Lang. I think you will find Dr. Lang's experiences helpful since he went through the exact same struggle that you are going through. He too found the Quran beautiful and found it spoke to him. He too started following the institutionalized version of Islam and found it frustrating. He has good suggestions to avoid the common pitfalls. Its a very light and easy read and he answers common questions from new muslims and western muslims who are more fond of critical thinking.
and of course Misquoting Mohammed as this will give you the broad context on how Islam became institutional, how there were always differences of opinions, how culture and prejudice amongst scholars played a role in its formation, the place of Hadith and the history of its use in Islamic doctrine etc. However, this is somewhat of a dense book and will take time to get through. at least it did for me.
You're asking a massively important question on a medium that doesn't necessarily facilitate the type of answers that would do justice to it.
What I would point you to are some incredible autobiographical books that really explore this question beautifully. Both books chronicle their paths to Islam. Asad's book is truly an amazing read.
Muhammad Asad - The Road to Mecca
Jeffrey Lang - Even Angels Ask
Martin Lings' Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources is popular for good reason.
But the best history book I've seen is the work of Dr. Ali M. Sallabi.
It's two volumes and like 2000 pages but it's fascinating read.
I have it on PDF if you want it.
**
For understanding context, Dr. Jonathan Brown is an excellent resource. He's got several books, including his most recent Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy (he's already working on 2nd edition lol...)
Justice and Remembrance: Introducing the Spirituality of Imam Ali by Reza Shah Kazemi.
Focuses more on his thought, rather than life, but it is very well researched and written.
http://www.amazon.com/Justice-Remembrance-Introducing-Spirituality-Imam/dp/1845115260
For a comprehensive scholarly book, Hans Küng, Islam: past, present and future.
If you prefer lighter reading to introduce you to the main issues in contemporary islam, I recommend Ziauddin Sardar's [Desperately Seeking Paradise](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Desperately-Seeking-Paradise-Journeys-Sceptical/dp/186207755X
).
I learned about this connection and history after reading this awesome book, and I highly reccomend it to anyone who is interested in learning how Islam, and the Middle East, got to where it is today. It's about an Austrian Jew who goes backpacking around in mostly Arabic countries in the 1920's and has such a wonderful experience that he converts to Islam. Yes, you read that right. Very interesting read, and gives more insight into the unfortunate history of Wahhabism.
Hey I strongly recommend you read this book called the "Road to Mecca". This is really the perfect book for you, and it's one of my favorites.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Mecca-Muhammad-Asad/dp/1887752374/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345438530&sr=8-1&keywords=road+to+mecca
>A lot of people there had the good advice of reading the New Testament, which I will dive into this weekend. Any suggestions for the best way to go about it? Should it just be read in order or are there any books you'd advised to check out first or that are more important? I already know a lot about the story of Isa/Jesus from the Quran but also know the Bible account differs in many ways, though I'm also already somewhat familiar with that thanks to mentions in pop culture.
A good study Bible would help, though more often than not they have a specific political or theological bend that tends to obscure the actual words of the book. I am not a Catholic (I'm actually very much anti-clerical), but there is a small copy of the Gospels that is amazing, and probably a great first place to start - "The Four Gospels: Catholic Personal Study Edition (Little Rock Scripture Study)".
I am also personally partial to the JB Phillips "New Testament in Modern English", though it's sort of obscure, it's also phenomenal. Phillips started his translation as a minister to troops during WWII, and found that the average English soldier was not, shall we say, the most educated, and found the Bible to be hard to read. Considering that the NT was literally written in the common language of the people, using common - not high or eloquent - speech, Phillips set out to convey the NT in English as they read in the Greek. It's a real shame that the translation isn't more popular.
There is also an excellent translation of the Qur'an which compares passages to equivalent ones in the Bible. It was created to promote interfaith harmony, and if you are familiar with the Qur'an then it might actually be a good intro to the Bible. "The Qur'an - with references to the Bible".
As an aside, I really, really, really like to read, and though it's a bit more academic, one of my favorite books on Christian theology/Christology is "At the Origin of the Christian Claim". It's a short book, and actually made Jesus comprehensible to me.
Today's Ayat for Wednesday, 2017-01-11 / 13 Rabi
al-thani 1438 <br /> <br /> **You worship mere idols instead of God; they are man-made lies. Those you worship instead of God do not have the ability to provide for you. So seek provision from God and worship Him and be grateful to Him. You will all be returned to Him."**<br /> <br /> -- al-Ankabut 29:17 as rendered by Safi Kaskasإِنَّمَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ أَوْثَانًا وَتَخْلُقُونَ إِفْكًا إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ لَا يَمْلِكُونَ لَكُمْ رِزْقًا فَابْتَغُوا عِندَ اللَّهِ الرِّزْقَ وَاعْبُدُوهُ وَاشْكُرُوا لَهُ إِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/29/17/
(please share)
IslamAwakened is now available as an Android App
If you want to learn about Islam I suggest first reading a biography of the prophet Muhammad (s). I heard this book is good.
https://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-How-Can-Make-Extraordinary/dp/1535195975/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1499971154&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=muhammad+how+he+can+make+you+extraordinary
If you want to read a translation of the Quran afterwards I suggest you first read the Koran for dummies in order to grasp the necessary introductory context for the quran.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "emotionally not critically".
I did some digging, which I should have spent more time doing before I asked for help, and found some things that I think look interesting (here they are in case you are curious):
http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Islam-Questions-Answers-Religion/dp/1500336203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1416328416&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=questioning+islam
http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Muslim/dp/1591020115/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1416328436&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=why+I+am+not+a+muslim
http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-Apostates-Speak-Out/dp/1591020689/ref=pd_sim_b_16?ie=UTF8&amp;refRID=18AP881NZ4JVSDVSR2V5
http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-Apostates-Speak-Out/dp/1591020689/ref=pd_sim_b_16?ie=UTF8&amp;refRID=18AP881NZ4JVSDVSR2V5
The last one might be especially relevant to this sub (self explanatory).
Thanks for the response either way
Hi again, I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here but the author does do more than just post a video and add a transcript. He does, in fact, contribute the following opinions. The first is above the video and transcript:
> I confess that I appreciate when Islamists are honest about what they believe and why they believe it, especially when it comes to the murderous nature of what they have been taught about jihad and following in the footsteps of their founder, Muhammad. That’s why the following video interview with Mullah Krekar that aired on Norwegian television, is so eye-opening for those who want to continually bury their heads in the sand concerning Islam. Not only does Krekar say it’s ok to kill non-Muslims, but adds, “Muslims have the right to Kill anyone who does not respect Islam.”
This he writes below the video and the transcript:
> If you still believe Islam is a “religion of peace,” perhaps you are just being willingly ignorant and blind about the matter. Thankfully, at least the State Department took the steps to designate open Islamic jihadi cleric Anjum Choudary as a global terrorist. Now, let’s see if President Donald Trump will make good on the promise to advance the bill to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group.
That sounds like an fresh opinion which has generated a lot of discussion to me. Again, I ask you to please reconsider reinstating it. Whatever you decide, cheers.
Dishonest Muslims and their race traitor libtard allies in the West have managed to brainwash the global masses into believing the completely absurd idea that Islam is inherently peaceful and moderate and that it's been hijacked and twisted by tiny minority of extremists.
People need to check out the work of Robert Spencer. He's been exposing the true teachings of Islam - mostly to far-right audiences - for over a decade. I read his blog almost daily. I've also read almost all of his books and watched several of his lectures on YouTube. I highly suggest that whoever is reading this comment at least read one of his books or watch one of his lectures in order to enlighten yourself about the true imperialist and oppressive teachings of Islam.
Muslims really are trying to subvert the West from within. We know that for a fact thanks to a secret Muslim Brortherhood document that was uncovered during an FBI investigation into the largest Islamic charity in America. In the document they lay out their goals for destroying Western civilization from within and they also listed a huge list of allied groups that include many mainstream Islamic organizations.
Sounds like a bullshit racist conspiracy theory, right? Look it up for yourself before you pass judgement. You'll discover that it's actually true.
Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources
https://www.amazon.com/Early-Islam-Critical-Reconstruction-Contemporary/dp/161614825X
Good book on the topic by an actual refugee who tried to teach about real Islam and its roots, had to leave his country (Egypt) because of threats from clerics.
https://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Fascism-Hamed-Abdel-Samad/dp/1633881245
Then he had to leave Germany as well, he was accused of "sedition".
http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/07/hamed-abdel-samad-says-auf-wiedersehen-to-germany/
Everyone should read Islamic Fascism by Hamed Abdel-Samad
http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Fascism-Hamed-Abdel-Samad/dp/1633881245
After reading all that was recommended you should read into Misquoting Muhammad by Dr. Jonathan Brown.
> A problem only gets bigger if we don't talk about said problem.
100% agreed. And as an example, to come back to the very initial point of the thread, the main issue with most Muslim countries is that they are not within a government allowing freedom of speech, effectively hindering that immensely important action that is talking about the issues and solving them
> Genuine question, you see religion as something more good then bad but at what point would you consider that religion is doing more bad then good?
Genuine answer, religion to me is immensely more good than bad. The bad coming from religion is the bad that stems from people creating justifications to do bad powered by religion - not from "the religion". My general view on it is: if there was no such thing as religion, the very same people will find other ways to hurt others, it just so happens that religion is a great propaganda tool towards the uneducated> A good, harmless example would be to go to South Africa where poor villages are Christian and following "self-declared prophets" who basically preach random stuff and get all the money they can from them. Will you blame religion, or the self-declared prophet for such an evil deed? I blame the latter. Oh by the way if you're interested in the Muslim side of the things I'd recommend you read Misquoting Muhammad by Jonathan AC Brown. It's a great book recollecting the history of governments openly using different interpretations of Islamic texts to drive their country towards the direction they wanted (both good and bad examples are listed, I found it to be a pretty amazing historic book tbh!)
As someone who lived in a religious society and visited several countries, you can very easily see the good that comes immediately from religion. The feeling of brotherhood, the tendency from people to naturally help each other. Random football comparison there but I guess you heard how Dortmund fans housed Monaco fans last week? That's something you'd naturally see in every place where people follow a religion: their religion taught them to look out for others. I've been housed by complete strangers in Peru (amazing Christian family), Morocco and Mauritania (Muslim families), South Africa (Christian family) and others. They were just genuinely looking out for me, it was their natural trait, and all of them insisted that it was part of their religion. I didn't even ask for anything, they insisted they wanted to take care of me! Now to draw a parallel, I have never seen someone genuinely caring that much in countries like France, Norway etc - and it's generally much more rare to see it happening in Western countries. Could this be a good argument towards what religion does good? I think so. And that's just an example. But overall you'll find that religious societies are super welcoming, caring etc - a VERY common trait in religious societies. In less educated places, religion is the best cohesive factor: it gives everyone something to strive for, and a feeling of brotherhood. Aside from all that, the impact religion has on me and my surroundings has been immensely positive.
> My best guess is is because I have lived my entire life without it and you with it and we are both having a great time.
Definitely. All in all the real focus is: if both of us are having a great time, why would any of us be wrong in the way we are having a great time? We should all aim at living together rather than ostracizing ourselves more due to separations we deem are big enough to rule people out of our life!
It was written by a revert. This is the book I was referring to.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Theft-Wrestling-Extremists/dp/0061189030
For an excellent primer on the origin of Muslim extremism as a political tool, check out the book The Great Theft by Khaled Abou El Fadl.
"Here, he successfully argues that the extremist sects of Islam, mainly Wahhabism, blatantly defy the true values of Islam. He clarifies that Wahhabism was once an unpopular, fringe, cultlike movement, which only grew through a chance partnership with the Saudi Arabian ruling family. The discovery of oil created an unprecedented infusion of petro-dollars into the fledgling, conservative belief system. The point of the book, El Fadl writes, is to define "the reality of Muslim thought as it currently exists." He focuses on the extremists' "puritan" view, exposing the hypocrisies and inconsistencies inherent in their "imagined Islam." He doesn't offer specific solutions, but he raises the issues carefully and well. Though the writing can be dry and portions read like a law school lecture, overall El Fadl's book is a fulfilling read for moderate Muslims concerned about conservative leadership and any non-Muslims who want to inform themselves about the extremists' misuse of Islam."
Related: Anyone interested in an examintion of veiling in contemporary Islam, especially North America, should check out The Quiet Revolution by Leila Ahmed.
plug for a good book about the modern history of veiling
Read Ibn Warraq, the scholarly ex-Muslim from Pakistan.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Muslim/dp/1591020115/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1372205869&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=ibn+warraq
Leaving the Fold
Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists
Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist
Why I Am Not a Muslim
Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships
In Search of the Light: The Adventures of a Parapsychologist
Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back
>contradicting stories throughout its sects, its theology is severely flawed, and not to mention, the bible sounds like a 9 year old wrote it.
You might want to read this.
Reading "Why I Am Not A Muslim" (link below) is the most informative book I've read about Islam to date. However when I went through my Qu'ran to highlight and bookmark passages I realized the author didn't have a proofreader before publication. I managed to find EVERY referenced passage usually a verse or two after his citation indicated. In a couple instances he even wrote them dyslexically and I found them by reversing the chapter and verse. If you can forgive that it's all you need to really know about Islam.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Muslim/dp/1591020115
To really answer your question though, ISIS and their ilk DO NOT cherry pick their Holy Book. They use the "abrogation of verses" rule (which is the proper way to understand the Qu'ran) and only take Allah's last word on the topic. If you only focus on those sections then the Qu'ran becomes a very short read with very specific instructions, leading to the creation of nations like Saudi Arabia and groups like ISIS. Be glad that so far most Muslims actually DO have a heart and DO cherry pick from the Qu'ran. They're the reasonable ones, the peaceful ones, the sane ones... and they are the last hope for a bright future for Islam.
Check out 'Why I am not a Muslim' by Ibn Warraq
Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R. Puin have apparently been making a highly minimalist / skeptical argument. This is the homepage of the research group Inarah (in German):
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the work seems controversial; at least two of the collaborators use pseudonyms (Luxenberg and Warraq); and the work is being pursued in Germany, by non-Muslims. Could such study ever be meaningfully embraced by a wing of Islam, a la the liberal Protestant mainline in Christianity? I have no idea... Muʿtazila sounds like a candidate, except per Wikipedia, "By the end of the 15th century, Mu'tazila had essentially ceased to exist as a held position." Maybe the Ismailis? But it only takes a few assassination attempts to make people nervous...
Die dunklen Anfänge: Neue Forschungen zur Entstehung und frühen Geschichte des Islams (2005)
https://www.perlentaucher.de/buch/die-dunklen-anfaenge.html
The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History (2009)
https://www.academia.edu/8011113/Hidden_Origins_of_Islam
Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten islamischen Jahrhunderte (2008)
https://www.amazon.de/Schlaglichter-beiden-ersten-islamischen-Jahrhunderte/dp/3899302249
Der frühe Islam. Eine historisch-kritische Rekonstruktion anhand zeitgenössischer Quellen (2010)
https://www.amazon.de/Islam-historisch-kritische-Rekonstruktion-zeitgen%C3%B6ssischer-Quellen/dp/3899300904/
Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources (2013)
https://www.amazon.com/Early-Islam-Critical-Reconstruction-Contemporary/dp/161614825X
http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/83/3/868.short?rss=1
press:
>There a lot of conetmporary records of him being around. What he did is a lot more questionable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad
If I had a nickle for every time that I was sent the wikipedia for the "Historicity of Muhammad" I'd be a rich man. There aren't any satisfactory contemporary non-Islamic sources referencing "Muhammad" as a ruler/leader until well after his "death" in 632. There aren't even any before 632, when he was allegedly alive. The earliest describe the Arabs of MHMT, which is what I am pretty sure is a Christological term for Jesus in ancient Syriac, but nothing about the character himself until later. These descriptions could easily be similar to how the Christian Chi-Rho brandishing Byzantines could have been called "The Romans of Christ" or something along those lines.
Basically, Early "Islam" was non-Trinitarian Christianity where God had no Sons but Jesus was the highly revered prophet. There is also very little about Muhammad inside the Quran itself (only mentioned twice by name, whereas Jesus mentioned ~60 times). And in both, "Muhammad" could be synonymous with Jesus, aka Allah's Messenger.
How familiar are you with the non-Trinitarian Christian sects Nestorians and Arians? Because those two sects were hugely popular in Africa (thanks Vandals and Visigoths), the Levant, Persia, and Arabia. Then after the Council of Nicea where the Divinity of Christ was recognized as a core Christological belief, making the non-Trinitarians heretics many were exiled to Eastern Persia. Ancient Syriac (Christian Aramaic) was the primary language of the religion, particularly in the Levant, Persia, and Arabia Petraea. This is where the "Quran" was actually written, as a Christian liturgy of Christian and Jewish stories. The ancient Syriac word meaning "Liturgy of Christian Texts" is pronounced "Qur-i-an" and with the dotting removed, looks identical to the Ancient Arabic word for "Quran". This Qurian was meant to bring unity amongst the Christians and Jews to follow the true messengers of God. From Musa (Moses), to Daud (David), to Isa/MHMT (Jesus/"Praised One") while remaining consistent with Monotheism.
After the collapse of the Sassanids ~620 AD, these Eastern Christians assumed power and moved to Damascus. After a while the new Empire needed to develop a uniform Identity for its people, which was fairly diverse (both religiously and racially). This is why the Sira (Biography) of Muhammad came out centuries after his death as well the earliest Hadith. Modern Islam is built way more on the Sira and Hadith than the Quran, which (if you have read) reads exactly like Christian texts.
If the Islamic Record is to be trusted...
Here are (some) of my sources. Hope you like scholarly books and articles referencing ancient Syriac Christian sources and their influences on Ancient Arabic primarily:
&#x200B;
I must admit I am a really big fan of Hamed Abdel Samad, he has written great books like Islamic Fascism which go through the history of Islam and promote a reform on the political and legal parts of the religion. Also he contributes a lot to the debate about islam in Germany.
Unfortunately he gets fuck all support from the government, who instead give millions to Saudi and Turkish radical organizations like DITIB who run over 800 mosques in Germany filled with hate preachers.
People like this have never received any support... and they are the only ones with an organic and long term solution to the problem.
The book ("Der Untergang der islamischen Welt" eng.: "The decay of the islamic world") by Hamed Abdel-Samad is only available in German. His book "Islamic Fascism" is available in English though. I bet it's interesting too.
http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Fascism-Hamed-Abdel-Samad/dp/1633881245/ref=sr_1_1/181-5597179-6227443?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1449353523&amp;sr=1-1
Though the part about Waraqa is only like 2-3 pages in the book anyway.
He is refering to this (arabic) book, which is banned in Lebanon:
"Priest and Prophet : Research On the Rise of Islam"
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Arabic/book/hariri/priest_prophet_book.pdf
There's also a French translation, none in English it seems.
A quick Amazon search shows these two books [1] [2]. Warning: I didn't read them and I don't know if they're good books.
"The Road to Mecca" by Muhammad Asad
Idk if its exactly the same, but try this its by Abdul Wadod Shalabi
its a very interesting book.
Relevant Knowledges:
Leila Ahmed - A Quiet Revolution: The Veil's Resurgence, from the Middle East to America
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004XDTODO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&amp;btkr=1
Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!
Here are your smile-ified links:
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00903HTIE/ref=cm_sw_r_wa_awdb_06TrzbNDSAW50
---
^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly&nbsp;bot
According to the book I'm reading, What the Modern Martyr Should Know: 72 Grapes and Not a Single Virgin, the phrase "b-ismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīmi" means "in the name of the loving and beloved God" in Syro-Aramaic, one of the languages used by Christians in the Middle East. This is important to note because it is theorized that Islam is an offshoot of Syrian-Christianity. Here's a screenshot of the page with Christoph Luxenberg's translation of the phrase.
What you're asking is pretty much what "A World Without Islam" by Graham Fuller tries to answer.
http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Islam-Graham-Fuller/dp/B009WJBDG0
Read this and have your book report on our desks this time next week.
http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Islam-Graham-Fuller/dp/B009WJBDG0
I wrote a long response, but decided not to post it. Looking at your other comments, I am not expecting a fruitful discussion here.
Instead, here's a thought provoking book you (or others) might be interested in: A World Without Islam. The book posits that if there never had been a religion called Islam, we'd have had the same problems in our world today. Mainly because it's not about religion; it's about geo-politics. People in all ages have used religion to inspire themselves for achieving their secular goals. Give it a read, if you haven't already.
Peace!
So basically, you accept Quran, but anything more than that such as certain hadith, have to be taken with a pinch of salt and seen if it is really authentic. The way I go about it is,
Most of the controversial issues regarding Islam stems from hadiths that are single-chain narration. That means only ONE person reported hearing it from the prophet pbuh, and ONE student from him, and so on. Sahih Muslim and Bukhari unfortunately do accept a lot of single-chain narrations.
&#x200B;
I personally am wary of accepting a single-chain narration.
&#x200B;
There's this good book that talks about all of these issues with hadiths etc by Jonathan Brown. Misquoting Muhammed
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm
You'll also find some good stuff in The Truth about Muhammad http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant-Religion/dp/1596980281 and the Complete Infidels guyed to the Koran http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Infidels-Guide-Koran/dp/1596981040/ref=pd_sim_b_1
No, you did read one hadith about Aisha saying she was six probably from a propaganda website and ignored all the other hadiths that contradict this one, that "6/9 years old" hadith is not reliable and not part of the earliest and most trusted hadith collection (Muwatta), Muslims who lived in Medina at that time rejected that hadith as fabricated and it came from Iraq and not Arabia.
Shit like that exists because of the shia/sunni split, of course Muslims couldn't resist fighting eachothers for power, Aisha was a political figure not a little girl and she led a rebellion that's why many slander hadiths exist about her. That specific hadith was canonized in the 12th or 13th century with the rest of bukhari by an Ottoman vizier iirc and had absolutely no value before that.
Early Muslims didn't give a shit about hadiths because of their unreliable nature, I doubt you're interested in reading anything that isn't propaganda but since it's my field I'll recommend you two books on this topic The Introduction of ḥadīth in al-Andalus by Isabel Fierro and Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy by Jonathan Brown
TL;DR : Hadiths were the equivalent of shitposting for early Muslims, Aisha was a strong political figure and many contradicting hadiths about her age exist.