Alternate history exercise - Middle East without Islam

[Quackers]

I don't know what would happen back than but for the modern era I think it would be far more peaceful. Unless Arabs have a built-in affinity for Jihad...

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't know what would happen back than but for the modern era I think it would be far more peaceful. Unless Arabs have a built-in affinity for Jihad...

That is so stupid it is not even funny.

I can't make any exact predictions due to my lack of detailed knowledge. But as I see it the Islam had two major effects:

1. It united the Arab people, created stability and strength. Prove enough is the superiority of the Arab world up until the middle of the 2nd millennium AD science- and military-wise. I also have seen a documentation about the spread of the Islam which depicted it as relatively peaceful as many citys were incorporated without a fight. This was possible because at first the Islam was very tolerant and had nothing to do with the fundamentalistic version experienced nowadays.

2. When the Arabs fall behind, it was also because the Islam changed to a more intollerant state. Where once flourishing institutions of science had been the religion would turn them in useless institutions of theology. The influence of science in the Arabian wold vanished due to a very anti-progressive policy. At the same time the importance of science became more and more popular in Europe leading to an Arabian world that made giants steps backwards and an Europe making them forward.
So in the end the Islam who had once been a blessing for the Arbaian world turned to a curse.

I think the Islam was the one big chance for the Arabs to be at eye level with the west. But on the long run they screwed up and without something uniting like the Islam I don't think they ever had a chance.
So I favour the scenario of a christianized Arab world but which is better developed and more enlightened.

 

[Masada]

This was possible because at first the Islam was very tolerant and had nothing to do with the fundamentalistic version experienced nowadays.

Most Muslims venerate the beginnings of the umma and see it as an ideal to aspire to. That's what Habalite's look back to with such reverence. Quite how you view those early days varies, it might be a metaphorical aspiration to be like Muhammad in which cases its generally harmless two of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence hold that view. Conversely you might see it as a literal goal to aspire to, complete with jizya, dhmmi's and Sharia, two of the Islamic schools of jurisprudence follow that view.

While early Islam was tolerant by the days standards, its manifestly not tolerant today. Abstaining from butchering your subject populations of a different faith is the norm now, it isn't something to be applauded for doing, you should just do it. Putting special taxes on non-believers is now frowned upon as is cutting the hands off of thieves, emancipating murders, stoning adulterers, crucifying highway robbers and stoning gays is something to frown upon. Those two schools who aspire to the literal support this view.

So you've kind of got it the wrong way round, the fundamentalist, Habalite, version of Islam isn't new, its actually the oldest and the most distinctly Arabic in flavor. Habalite's are generally called Wahhabists nowadays and include folks like Osama Bin Laden. They follow the Quran literally and believe it to the be the utter immutable word of Allah and that includes all those bad bits. They also have the narrowest reading of the Hadith. They don't like it. And the Hadith generally moderates or ameliorates the worst parts of the Quran.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Granted, so my description was too simplified, still I don't believe I got it the wrong way around.

The progressive character of the islamic world back in the days was only possible because the society was absolutly not fundamentalistic. Fundamentalism does not only mean to take a holy script literal, it means also to not tollerate other views and arguments regarding the interpretation and the religious practice.
And this was as far as I know not the case. The religious discussion had been quite liberal and the society was open-mined towards new thoughs and approaches - religion- as well as science-wise.

Later this changed, the interpretation of the Koran was indoctrinated, new ideas rejected and even persecuted. You are right when you say that debates about religion still continued. But those discussions choked the secular ones. Doctrines have to be defended and this consumes much capabilities.
It prevented the society to move on and pulped the great Arabian scientific achievements of the past.

So from this point of view even todays Islam is more backwards as it is still highly indoctrinated.

Of course the changing dealings with religion is not the only reason for the breakdown of the Arabian world. Another is for example that the silk road was replaced by shipping killing huge amounts of revenues the Arabians used to gain through trade.
But it playes an IMO importent role.

 

[Masada]

The progressive character of the islamic world back in the days was only possible because the society was absolutly not fundamentalistic. Fundamentalism does not only mean to take a holy script literal, it means also to not tollerate other views and arguments regarding the interpretation and the religious practice.

You do not interpret the Quran. You can't. It's the immutable word of God. It isn't supposed to have changed from the day the Angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad on behalf of Allah. That's why ulema rote learn the Quran in the original Arabic. They don't want to pollute the message with their own language and they don't want to interpret how they want it, they want to interpret how Muhammad intended and only how he intended. Anything else might for instance subtly change a passages meaning thus allow heresy to creep into the ummah. So you don't just take it literally, you take it as it was intended by Muhammad. Alternative forms of interpretation and practice were and always have been heretical. You can look at what happened to Ali and his followers if you want evidence of how early theological rifts were treated.

You are right when you say that debates about religion still continued. But those discussions choked the secular ones. Doctrines have to be defended and this consumes much capabilities.

You can't have a secular debate. There's no separation of Church and State and the Quran expressly forbids it. You also cannot attack the doctrines of Islam, it isn't like Christianity which has multiple often contradictory voices, all speaking at different times, with different messages, which can ignored at will. The Quran has one. Muhammad. And its his voice and his voice alone that matters. And you can't contradict or critically examine the messenger of Allah or ultimately Allah.

It prevented the society to move on and pulped the great Arabian scientific achievements of the past.

That had nothing to do with it. The Golden Age of Islam ended with the destruction of Baghdad, the collapse of the Fatamids, the dominance of the Turks, plague and famine and a whole host of other misfortunes which devastated the Middle East. Theological purity has little to do with.

So from this point of view even todays Islam is more backwards as it is still highly indoctrinated.

Because that's how its meant to be! Muhammad didn't talk about the immutable word of God and the Quran existing out of time for no good reason. He obviously intended the faithful to continue to obey his covenants until the world ends!

Of course the changing dealings with religion is not the only reason for the breakdown of the Arabian world. Another is for example that the silk road was replaced by shipping killing huge amounts of revenues the Arabians used to gain through trade.

Whut? That's slightly nonsensical.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Most Muslims venerate the beginnings of the umma and see it as an ideal to aspire to.

How did you come to that conclusion?
The "Rightly Guided Caliphs" as the first four caliphs were called, were later described as the "foul branch" of the Islamic rulers by Islamic historians and there is plenty reason to do so religion-wise. Ancient mythical creatures, hunting scenes, pictures of Jesus and even pictures of naked women decorated their palaces. A violation of many later Islamic values.

So you've kind of got it the wrong way round, the fundamentalist, Habalite, version of Islam isn't new, its actually the oldest and the most distinctly Arabic in flavor.

That is very arguable to say the least. In the 18th century the Wahhabi conquered the Arabian Peninsula by brutal force imposing their personnel views on any body else. Science, culture… anything that didn’t exactly go conform to their views had to be destroyed.
1803 they attacked Median – a holy city for the entire Islamic world – and pillaged the grave of Mohammed (!) because they thought it to be heretical. That was in no way a general Arabic opinion. The Wahhabi’s roots may reach deep. But they still remain a radical faction which spits on Mohammed’s principle regarding an honourable life, attacks only for the purpose of defence and the mercy for the defenceless.

Abstaining from butchering your subject populations of a different faith is the norm now, it isn't something to be applauded for doing, you should just do it.

When Byzantes was conquered, the Christians weren’t only just not slauthering them. The taxes they had to pay for their safety in Damascus were lower than the taxes Constantinople demanded. The Christian bishop who ruled the city even could keep his post. In the later Spain Moslems and Christians lived in peace together. Christian shouldn't dare to insult Mohammed or anything like that, but they could build their own churches and practise their religion freely. That has little in common with the spirit of today’s radical Islam who is about fighting Non-believers and how they are all enemies of the Islam.

So you don't just take it literally, you take it as it was intended by Muhammad.

But that is the question, isn't it? I mean you can't just travel back in time and ask that dude what he was thinking. That's where the interpretation starts.

Alternative forms of interpretation and practice were and always have been heretical.

When Baghdad became the capital and one of the richest cities in the world, a group existed which argued one could understand Allah only through reason - without the help of the Koran. Of course those people were elitist and this kind of thinking was nothing common. But it proves the tolerance practised these days.

You can look at what happened to Ali and his followers if you want evidence of how early theological rifts were treated.

This was no consequence of some theological rift but the consequence of Mohammed’s neglect. He did not clear up his succession and the same happened which happens most of the time - struggle for power.

You can't have a secular debate. There's no separation of Church and State and the Quran expressly forbids it.

But during the Golden Age Islamic philosophy was the most diverse in the world. It was influenced by the Greeks, Indians, Persians and more. By non-believers, by secular ideas. The whole culture of the Islamic world was so rich because it drew its nature from many sources. The Koran has been an impotent part - the most impotent part of that culture. But it was not the measure of all things.
Another example: In the region of today’s Uzbekistan one can find a mosque where an Arabic inscription preaches the pursue of knowledge. Is this written in the Koran? I don't think so. Still it is an value associated with the Islam at the time. Secular ideas influence basic values and what is the Koran if not a book containing the basic values for a Moslem? And in the 15th Century in Samarkand a building is constructed even bigger and taller than the biggest mosques of the city which is only dedicated to the exploration of the stars. Science bigger than Religion.

The Golden Age of Islam ended with the destruction of Baghdad, the collapse of the Fatamids, the dominance of the Turks, plague and famine and a whole host of other misfortunes which devastated the Middle East.

true

Theological purity has little to do with.

With the traditional time interval called "Golden Age of the Islam" I may agree to some extend as well. But with the Islamic world as a whole, as a competitive, strong and advanced empire I have to disagree.
That the dominance of the Turks didn't totally finish Islamic science is proven by the attack on Constantinople around 1490. Their machinery of war was modern and advanced.
Another fact: The Ottoman sultans were in their politics not concerned with the spread of the Islam. They were only concerned with the increase of their empires power. And how is that different from being concerned with spreading the Islam? Compared to the bloody religious wars in Europe of the time the Ottoman Empire was almost an island of tolerance. Jews and Christians continued to live in peace amongst them.

Whut? That's slightly nonsensical.

No that is a fact. The end of the Silk Road led to an economic climb-down for the Arabian world and this climb-down was accompanied by a cultural digression. Ottoman science started to be virtually non-existing, the people were poor, a middle class vanished.
Religious guidance was the only education they received. Secular science - which had been a great strength - was replaced by debates about interpretation of the Koran. The outcome of those debates was indoctrinated, free bodies of thought compared to Europe unknown (in all ways).

Because that's how its meant to be! Muhammad didn't talk about the immutable word of God and the Quran existing out of time for no good reason. He obviously intended the faithful to continue to obey his covenants until the world ends!

If he indented them to be obeyed as radicals claim is not known (Mantling of a woman’s face?). If he indented to strongly restrict free speech he has done his people way more harm than good. The point it that the Koran does not have to contradict a progressive spirit. It didn't in the past and shouldn't in the future.

But such a discussion is pointless if I won't admit where I have been wrong. I have been wrong in representing the dealings with religion as the driving force though all time, I can see that know.
Put its importance is not be denied considering the whole history of the Islam. And backward interpretations like the Wahhabi’s views have to be overcome if the Arabic world intends to be at eye level with the West again.

 

[Masada]

How did you come to that conclusion?

It isn't my conclusion. It's the conclusion of Muhammad and every Islamic theologian worth a damn. A cursory examination of the Quran or any basic primer on Islamic theology would show you that.

The "Rightly Guided Caliphs" as the first four caliphs were called, were later described as the "foul branch" of the Islamic rulers by Islamic historians and there is plenty reason to do so religion-wise.

The umma began with Muhammad. It didn't begin with the Caliphs. That's the point. And don't go talking about "Islamic historians" when your talking about Ali's partisans, its rather rude. And the constant use of appeals to emotions and normative statements which runs through your argument effectively invalidates it. If your forced to make an argument by appealing to my better nature and can't present it on the basis of facts why bother making it?

Ancient mythical creatures, hunting scenes, pictures of Jesus and even pictures of naked women decorated their palaces. A violation of many later Islamic values.

... obviously you have no idea about the evolution of the Hadith. In any case, both of your points were irrelevant. While Shia and Sunni hold different beliefs about when the umma ended. It doesn't detract the simple fact that they both collectively aspire to recreate it.

That is very arguable to say the least. In the 18th century the Wahhabi conquered the Arabian Peninsula by brutal force imposing their personnel views on any body else. Science, culture… anything that didn’t exactly go conform to their views had to be destroyed.1803 they attacked Median – a holy city for the entire Islamic world – and pillaged the grave of Mohammed (!) because they thought it to be heretical. That was in no way a general Arabic opinion. The Wahhabi’s roots may reach deep.

Address the point. The Habalite view is the oldest existent school of Islamic thought. I don't care if they're bastards, I know they are. I don't really care that they take the Quran literally and that they hate with a passion much of the Hadith. I really don't care. Its immaterial to the point I've made.

But they still remain a radical faction which spits on Mohammed’s principle regarding an honourable life, attacks only for the purpose of defence and the mercy for the defenceless.

They'll say the rest of the Islamic world is corrupt. They do. I don't care what your personal beliefs are. They're immaterial.

That has little in common with the spirit of today’s radical Islam who is about fighting Non-believers and how they are all enemies of the Islam.

You obviously missed the expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir and the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. Muhammad sometimes gives mixed messages, this is one of them. Even when you examine a passage you should always be cognizant of that fact that you're not interpreting it yourself, your merely attempting to arrive at the same understanding as Muhammad. Its a significant departure from what your implying.

But that is the question, isn't it? I mean you can't just travel back in time and ask that dude what he was thinking. That's where the interpretation starts.

You've never studied Islamic theology have you? You don't interpret it or frame it as a question. That's a Protestant theological proposition. The correct interpretation is the one that Muhammad wrote it to be. Its the immutable word of God, theologically it doesn't change.

When Baghdad became the capital and one of the richest cities in the world, a group existed which argued one could understand Allah only through reason - without the help of the Koran. Of course those people were elitist and this kind of thinking was nothing common. But it proves the tolerance practised these days.

I don't think you get the point. Understanding is quite removed from interpretation. Its fine to try and understand Allah. You just can't interpret Allah differently to how Muhammad did - the Prophet did not make mistakes. There's a distinct theological gap between the two.

This was no consequence of some theological rift but the consequence of Mohammed’s neglect. He did not clear up his succession and the same happened which happens most of the time - struggle for power.

There were theological rifts already. That was one of them. How do you think Ali asserted his claim to the Caliphate?

But during the Golden Age Islamic philosophy was the most diverse in the world. It was influenced by the Greeks, Indians, Persians and more. By non-believers, by secular ideas. The whole culture of the Islamic world was so rich because it drew its nature from many sources. The Koran has been an impotent part - the most impotent part of that culture. But it was not the measure of all things.

You still don't get it do you? The one constant across the Islam World is and always has been Islam.

Another example: In the region of today’s Uzbekistan one can find a mosque where an Arabic inscription preaches the pursue of knowledge. Is this written in the Koran? I don't think so. Still it is an value associated with the Islam at the time. Secular ideas influence basic values and what is the Koran if not a book containing the basic values for a Moslem? And in the 15th Century in Samarkand a building is constructed even bigger and taller than the biggest mosques of the city which is only dedicated to the exploration of the stars. Science bigger than Religion.

Its from the Hadith. So let me get this straight: you believe that a saying of Muhammad is somehow secular in nature? I believe you should also look up the purpose of the aforementioned observatory, might it be to ensure that the Islamic calender was accurate?

With the traditional time interval called "Golden Age of the Islam" I may agree to some extend as well. But with the Islamic world as a whole, as a competitive, strong and advanced empire I have to disagree.
That the dominance of the Turks didn't totally finish Islamic science is proven by the attack on Constantinople around 1490. Their machinery of war was modern and advanced.
Another fact: The Ottoman sultans were in their politics not concerned with the spread of the Islam. They were only concerned with the increase of their empires power. And how is that different from being concerned with spreading the Islam? Compared to the bloody religious wars in Europe of the time the Ottoman Empire was almost an island of tolerance. Jews and Christians continued to live in peace amongst them.

This is not what were arguing.

No that is a fact. The end of the Silk Road led to an economic climb-down for the Arabian world and this climb-down was accompanied by a cultural digression. Ottoman science started to be virtually non-existing, the people were poor, a middle class vanished.

Thesis. Your point doesn't make a whit of sense.

Religious guidance was the only education they received. Secular science - which had been a great strength - was replaced by debates about interpretation of the Koran. The outcome of those debates was indoctrinated, free bodies of thought compared to Europe unknown (in all ways).

That had been happening long before.

If he indented them to be obeyed as radicals claim is not known (Mantling of a woman’s face?). If he indented to strongly restrict free speech he has done his people way more harm than good.

Aicha wore a veil. She admits as such in the Hadith at the instigation of Muhammad. That's theological justification aplenty. Please refrain from showing your ignorance.

The point it that the Koran does not have to contradict a progressive spirit. It didn't in the past and shouldn't in the future.

No it doesn't. But your point was this:

This was possible because at first the Islam was very tolerant and had nothing to do with the fundamentalistic version experienced nowadays.

Your yet to prove that. There are differences but theologically early Islam and Wahhabism are similar.

But such a discussion is pointless if I won't admit where I have been wrong. I have been wrong in representing the dealings with religion as the driving force though all time, I can see that know.

Elaborate this. I don't have the foggiest idea what your on about.

Put its importance is not be denied considering the whole history of the Islam. And backward interpretations like the Wahhabi’s views have to be overcome if the Arabic world intends to be at eye level with the West again.

I don't fancy they care a whit what we think. I'm quite sure they'd be happy to be left alone to their own devices.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It isn't my conclusion. It's the conclusion of Muhammad and every Islamic theologian worth a damn. A cursory examination of the Quran or any basic primer on Islamic theology would show you that.

You just proved my point. Highly indoctrinated.

And the constant use of appeals to emotions and normative statements which runs through your argument effectively invalidates it. If your forced to make an argument by appealing to my better nature and can't present it on the basis of facts why bother making it?

I think you see ghosts. Why do you have to try to invalid arguments that could disturb your argumentation?

... obviously you have no idea about the evolution of the Hadith. In any case, both of your points were irrelevant. While Shia and Sunni hold different beliefs about when the umma ended. It doesn't detract the simple fact that they both collectively aspire to recreate it.

Nope I don't. But I don't give a damn about religious theoretics. I am talking about the reality.
Of course not for the toothless farmer. That was never the question. Those people rarely get to decide about the fate of a country. But how the Arabic people were lead, how non-believers were treated, how scientists and free minds were treated, how religion influenced all that and what the actual effects for the people were. I tell you some effects: Sanitation, an actual medicine, higher productivity and so on.

Address the point. The Habalite view is the oldest existent school of Islamic thought. I don't care if they're bastards, I know they are. I don't really care that they take the Quran literally and that they hate with a passion much of the Hadith. I really don't care. Its immaterial to the point I've made.

No because being "old" is not enough to define what is "distinctly". You said that, I argued against it. Something that went against most Arabic people is not "distinct". It's radical crap.

They'll say the rest of the Islamic world is corrupt. They do. I don't care what your personal beliefs are. They're immaterial.

Well why should I care that those morons say so than? I don't get your point. It is not about personal beliefs but how the Arabian people can move on to better times. Because most just want a peaceful and decent life. No stupid holy war.

You obviously missed the expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir and the massacre of the Banu Qurayza.

I was well aware of violent outbreaks and don't see anything proven by that. I never said the Arabian world had been a heaven of peace.

Muhammad sometimes gives mixed messages, this is one of them. Even when you examine a passage you should always be cognizant of that fact that you're not interpreting it yourself, your merely attempting to arrive at the same understanding as Muhammad. Its a significant departure from what your implying.

So how do you do that if not through interpretation? Flip a coin?

You've never studied Islamic theology have you? You don't interpret it or frame it as a question. That's a Protestant theological proposition. The correct interpretation is the one that Muhammad wrote it to be. Its the immutable word of God, theologically it doesn't change.

Look human language is a tricky thing. It can be very ambiguous. And you can't just say "This is from Muhammad and therefore it can't be ambiguous." because it still is. Even God can't or at least doesn’t change the fundamental laws of inter-human communication.

I don't think you get the point. Understanding is quite removed from interpretation.

Sorry. I really don't.

There were theological rifts already. That was one of them. How do you think Ali asserted his claim to the Caliphate?

Who cares about his fancy reasons he told everybody to look good? It comes down to two individuals wanting the same power.

You still don't get it do you? The one constant across the Islam World is and always has been Islam.

I start to think you misuse this thread to spread pan-Arabic propaganda.

Its from the Hadith. So let me get this straight: you believe that a saying of Muhammad is somehow secular in nature? I believe you should also look up the purpose of the aforementioned observatory, might it be to ensure that the Islamic calender was accurate?

So it is from the Koran? Awesome, good for the Islamic people A very nice quote. And another example how the Wahhabi's intention contradict the Koran.

Are you implying that it was only build to prove how wonderful Muhammed is? Quiet a long shot don't you think?

This is not what were arguing.

Yes it is. You named reasons for the decline of the Arabian world and I contradicted them. Sounds matching to me.

Thesis. Your point doesn't make a whit of sense.

A lot of historians would like to disagree with you.

That had been happening long before.

No. As already sayed for the poor farmer, yes. For the whole society, no. I really would like to know how many other examples I have to offer.

Aicha wore a veil. She admits as such in the Hadith at the instigation of Muhammad. That's theological justification aplenty. Please refrain from showing your ignorance.

So I guess all those Islamic men and woman who have another view are just stupid deviants who don't get what's about. I am glad to have been enlightened.

Your yet to prove that. There are differences but theologically early Islam and Wahhabism are similar.

Well regarding the practical aspect - the actual reality - the Islam of the time of the Golden Age and Wahhabism are very different. I think have proved that to a considerable point.

Elaborate this. I don't have the foggiest idea what your on about.

Well I still claim that the way the Islam influenced the Arabic world has changed a lot but I admit that other factors (like the Mongols or the Silk Road) carry more weight in the whole process than I at first have written. Further on I believe you that theological-wise it has not changed as much as I thought. You seem to have more expertise in that particular area.
Any fog blown away?

I don't fancy they care a whit what we think. I'm quite sure they'd be happy to be left alone to their own devices.

Again I am puzzled why you are making this point. I simply said what harms the fortune of the Arabian people. If not for the oil on the Arabian peninsula the people would suffer from famine and poverty. One day the oil is gone. If than radicals like the Wahabbi are in charge my point will be very much the peoples concern.
EDIT: Though some improvement can be observed. Many Islamic countrys move in the right direction. - without giving up on their identity.

 

[Masada]

You just proved my point. Highly indoctrinated.

Its no different from Christians desiring going to heaven?

I think you see ghosts. Why do you have to try to invalid arguments that could disturb your argumentation?

Because they're "I THINK THIS BECAUSE IT HURTS ME" it isn't argumentation. Its emotional blackmail.

Nope I don't. But I don't give a damn about religious theoretics. I am talking about the reality.

The reality is this. Most Muslims do aspire to recreate the umma because they believe when they do the world ends and Muhammad returns to them. This is a consistent view across Islam.

Of course not for the toothless farmer. That was never the question. Those people rarely get to decide about the fate of a country. But how the Arabic people were lead, how non-believers were treated, how scientists and free minds were treated, how religion influenced all that and what the actual effects for the people were. I tell you some effects: Sanitation, an actual medicine, higher productivity and so on.

You've lost me again. How does that have any bearing whatsoever to the point I've made which you've unsuccessfully tried to refute again and again.

No because being "old" is not enough to define what is "distinctly". You said that, I argued against it. Something that went against most Arabic people is not "distinct". It's radical crap.

No. You've mistaken the point I was making. Its the oldest existent strain of Islam, it's the one that has the closest theological and practical links with the umma and with Muhammad. I don't care about its modern day implications. Or the fact that you think its 'radical'. The point is that its the closest modern analogue to early Islam. There. Refute that please.

Well why should I care that those morons say so than? I don't get your point. It is not about personal beliefs but how the Arabian people can move on to better times. Because most just want a peaceful and decent life. No stupid holy war.

THE POINT I ADDRESSED HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHATEVER THE HELL YOU THINK IT DID.

I was well aware of violent outbreaks and don't see anything proven by that. I never said the Arabian world had been a heaven of peace.

Don't you see the a priori justification for Wahhabist actions inherent in those actions? Or have you missed the point again?

So how do you do that if not through interpretation? Flip a coin?

Actually you check all the old legal primers and commentaries. Or the Hadith. That's how the interpretation is maintained.

Look human language is a tricky thing. It can be very ambiguous. And you can't just say "This is from Muhammad and therefore it can't be ambiguous." because it still is. Even God can't or at least doesn’t change the fundamental laws of inter-human communication.

Yes, apparently Allah can. And Allah did. It doesn't make much sense but that's a common view.

Sorry. I really don't.

Then why try and debate on the point when you quite plainly do NOT understand it.

Who cares about his fancy reasons he told everybody to look good? It comes down to two individuals wanting the same power.

Sure, you can see it that way. But few Muslims do.

I start to think you misuse this thread to spread pan-Arabic propaganda.

Islamic world, Islam. Nothing contentious there. In the absence of Islam you don't have an Islamic world now do you?

So it is from the Koran? Awesome, good for the Islamic people A very nice quote. And another example how the Wahhabi's intention contradict the Koran.

Its from the Hadith. I've already stated that. And dismissing Wahhabi as being Luddites is plain ridiculous. They don't mind technology so long as it doesn't contradict the Quran.

Are you implying that it was only build to prove how wonderful Muhammed is? Quiet a long shot don't you think?

It was built to keep the Islamic lunar calendar accurate so Muslims would know when to begin the Ramadan and the like. That was the practical function of almost all Islamic observatories.

Yes it is. You named reasons for the decline of the Arabian world and I contradicted them. Sounds matching to me.

No, you haven't. You've waffled on about the evils of the Quran but you've ignored cataclysmic external shocks to the system which I've already referenced.

A lot of historians would like to disagree with you.

I'm sure they would if you took care to frame your point better. Its ambiguous and out and out silly. I'll leave that up to you to figure out.

No. As already sayed for the poor farmer, yes. For the whole society, no. I really would like to know how many other examples I have to offer.

[Citation needed]

So I guess all those Islamic men and woman who have another view are just stupid deviants who don't get what's about. I am glad to have been enlightened.

Here you go again. You point out how it makes no sense for Wahhabists to employ the veil because it isn't in the Quran. I point out that theologically it makes lots of sense when you take into account the Hadith. You then straw-manned my position to make up for your own inadequacies and obvious lack of understanding. Thanks for painting me as a Wahhabi.

Well regarding the practical aspect - the actual reality - the Islam of the time of the Golden Age and Wahhabism are very different. I think have proved that to a considerable point.

No you haven't provided a single concrete example of any differences.

Well I still claim that the way the Islam influenced the Arabic world has changed a lot but I admit that other factors (like the Mongols or the Silk Road) carry more weight in the whole process than I at first have written. Further on I believe you that theological-wise it has not changed as much as I thought. You seem to have more expertise in that particular area.

It has changed alot in who believes the religion. It isn't strictly Arabic in outlook anymore. That doesn't mean all that much however when the point I've been trying to make for all this time is that practically and theologically there isn't much difference between early Islam and Wahhabism.

Any fog blown away?

I'm not the one whose confusing the Hadith with the Quran.

Again I am puzzled why you are making this point. I simply said what harms the fortune of the Arabian people. If not for the oil on the Arabian peninsula the people would suffer from famine and poverty. One day the oil is gone. If than radicals like the Wahabbi are in charge my point will be very much the peoples concern.

I don't think they care that it harms their future. Its theirs after-all. If they want to be like that its entirely up to them.

EDIT: Though some improvement can be observed. Many Islamic countrys move in the right direction. - without giving up on their identity.

Sure. I spend a month or two a year on average in Indonesia. That's the Islam I've been exposed to and its quite different in tenor and in thought to Wahhabism.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Assuming Islam never started, can we assume that all of SE Asia will be Budhist, Philippines something pagan, and Pakistan-India not knowing the difference between eachother?

 

[Squonk]

No islam = much much stronger christianity in Asia.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

No islam = absolute peace in the world and transcendence of the human race in 2027.

 

[holy king]

No islam = absolute peace in the world and transcendence of the human race in 2027.

just one more of these anti-islamic nutcases.

there are enough wars and violence without muslims involved.

 

[Masada]

Assuming Islam never started, can we assume that all of SE Asia will be Budhist, Philippines something pagan, and Pakistan-India not knowing the difference between eachother?

Southeast Asia had Hinduism and Buddhism. The Philippines probably would have gone Buddhist.

 

[aronnax]

Assuming Islam never started, can we assume that all of SE Asia will be Budhist, Philippines something pagan, and Pakistan-India not knowing the difference between eachother?

Actually, Indonesia and Malaysia were a heavy mix of Hinduism and Buddhism, Buddhism being further away like in Java or Borneo while Hinduism heavy in Malaya

 

[Masada]

Actually, Indonesia and Malaysia were a heavy mix of Hinduism and Buddhism, Buddhism being further away like in Java or Borneo while Hinduism heavy in Malaya

There are no easily defined divisions between Hinduism and Buddhism in Southeast Asia. It wasn't uncommon for a dynasty to worship both, even the Sailendra the most Buddhist dynasty of Java participated in Hindu rituals and held to Hindu ceremonies. While the dynasty itself was Buddhist, and directed the bulk of its munificence to the Stupa's there is considerable evidence that the majority of the population were Hindu. Srivijaya the greatest Kingdom of the 'Classical Period' was ruled predominately by Buddhists, but the majority of the population of the broader league would have been Hindu. Srivijaya's rulers were perfectly fine with using tantric rituals and Hindu curses to bind their vassals. Religion in Southeast Asia is a vastly difference experience to European conceptions of what religion is like or should be like. You don't have Christians and Muslims you have Christians selectively adopting Muslim beliefs while appropriating Zoroastrian rituals.

 

[Dachs]

Assuming Islam never started, can we assume that all of SE Asia will be Budhist, Philippines something pagan, and Pakistan-India not knowing the difference between eachother?

What, imperialism?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Its no different from Christians desiring going to heaven?

Of course it is. You refer to one constant aspect of Christianity and than you equal it with the entire Islam?

Because they're "I THINK THIS BECAUSE IT HURTS ME" it isn't argumentation. Its emotional blackmail.

Allegations out of thin air will accomplish nothing.

You've lost me again. How does that have any bearing whatsoever to the point I've made which you've unsuccessfully tried to refute again and again.

Because I am not talking about theology, you are. I have already admitted that your knowledge in that area is superior. No refute to be detected.

The reality is this. Most Muslims do aspire to recreate the umma because they believe when they do the world ends and Muhammad returns to them. This is a consistent view across Islam.
[...]
No. You've mistaken the point I was making. Its the oldest existent strain of Islam, it's the one that has the closest theological and practical links with the umma and with Muhammad. I don't care about its modern day implications. Or the fact that you think its 'radical'. The point is that its the closest modern analogue to early Islam. There. Refute that please.

So picking up on your entire line of argumentation you are saying most Muslims desire is to have the Wahabbi version of the Islam as this resembles - as you have stated - most the umma.
You know very well that this is not the truth.

THE POINT I ADDRESSED HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHATEVER THE HELL YOU THINK IT DID.

Now that is what I call avoiding to refute.

Actually you check all the old legal primers and commentaries. Or the Hadith. That's how the interpretation is maintained.

Interesting, but how come that the practice of the Islam still varies a lot among the Islamic world? Do more and more people just don't give a damn about those untouchable interpretations?

Then why try and debate on the point when you quite plainly do NOT understand it.

Because I didn’t intend to write an essay about Islamic theology?

Sure, you can see it that way. But few Muslims do.

I have no trouble believing that. But healthy reasoning tells me they are wrong and I am right

Its from the Hadith. I've already stated that. And dismissing Wahhabi as being Luddites is plain ridiculous. They don't mind technology so long as it doesn't contradict the Quran.

That has probably changed by now. But in the really radical days when they conquered Saudi-Arabia they pretty much opposed everything of the Western world (except rifles of course).

It was built to keep the Islamic lunar calendar accurate so Muslims would know when to begin the Ramadan and the like. That was the practical function of almost all Islamic observatories.

Well the version I heard was that its builder was exiled and the building torn down by religious fanatics. Might be wrong thou. But you will have a hard time connecting all science of the Islamic empire with the Islam itself.

No, you haven't. You've waffled on about the evils of the Quran but you've ignored cataclysmic external shocks to the system which I've already referenced.

Whut? I have ignored nothing. I could prove this with a quote of our discussion within a second but I will not reward your inaccuracy regarding my statements.

I'm sure they would if you took care to frame your point better. Its ambiguous and out and out silly. I'll leave that up to you to figure out.

Feel free to inform yourself if you don't understand. But that trade triggers wealth and the lack of it triggers poverty is so simple and basic that a sceptical individual as you should comprehend it.

[Citation needed]

It is very simple. Where society stands still and science is virtually non-existing the economy will decline. Innovations don't come up, you can not participate in trade anymore as you have nothing special to offer, the cities lose their wealth, the powerful snatch whatever is left.

I point out that theologically it makes lots of sense when you take into account the Hadith. You then straw-manned my position to make up for your own inadequacies and obvious lack of understanding. Thanks for painting me as a Wahhabi.

The problem is you judge based on some very old arbitrary, religious rules. Like they would be the measure of all things. I strongly disagree. I judge on how this religion is enacted, how it benefits they people, how the people practise it and to what extend they accept it. And in contrast to those rules THIS differs A LOT (as you have said by yourself). This is absolutely not irrevocably. Prove? As you seem to know a lot about the Islam you should also know how different the Koran actually is followed. Of course many things are similar or the same, but many are also very different. Like the aspect of the veil. Or how the Koran is enforced. Or how women in general are treated and so on.

No you haven't provided a single concrete example of any differences.

AHHHHHHH.... Don't know if I really wanne scream or hysterically laugh.
A secular perspective on the Islam. It happend, I proved it. A huge amount of religious tolerance (construction of churches). It happened, I proved it. Freethinker which made innovations possible (medicine, sewer system). It happened, I proved it.

It has changed alot in who believes the religion. It isn't strictly Arabic in outlook anymore. That doesn't mean all that much however when the point I've been trying to make for all this time is that practically and theologically there isn't much difference between early Islam and Wahhabism.

Citation needed

I'm not the one whose confusing the Hadith with the Quran.

Fair enough

I don't think they care that it harms their future. Its theirs after-all. If they want to be like that its entirely up to them.

Yea like Saudi-Arabia is having public polls.

EDIT: I actually don't believe that you are a nutty Islamic fundamentalist ;-) I am not even sure that you are Muslem. When I attack you with my as you claim emotional arguments I do only so to show the gab between theology and the actual consequence for the whole society. Because my point remains that caused by the changing role of the Islam in society the Islamic society itself changed which in the end contributed to the decline of the Islamic world. Because it's role changed to the worse. To more fundamentalism, to less space for freethinkers, to less openess. Just you don't get any false impressions of what I am trying to explaine here.
And yes I love complicated sentence structures.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Ehh, Alternative History assumes too much. Their are simply two many variables in "Post Predicting" the past if something is changed. Unacceptably more so then in normal historical pursuits, in which much more data is present to research from.

That being said, the Byzantines would probably be in a much better position without Islam. The Sassanids would eventually collapse and a new Persian order would arise. The Roman-Persian wars would probably continue indefinitely. The Crusades would either not occur, would occur at a later date, or would be smaller in scale. I think this would depend on how far an eventual Mongol invasion would press into the Levant or perhaps if a Persian successor state would be able to defend itself or even divert the invasion somehow. If not, could the Byzantines defend it? (This assume the Arabs are still a bunch of squabbling tribes that have never united into a force to be reckoned with).

Also... perhaps the West would launch a crusade anyway, to get rid of the Orthodox Byzantines... of course, perhaps the East-West schism would not emerge...

See what I mean, you have to assume too much in Alternate History.

 

[Dachs]

Ehh, Alternative History assumes too much. Their are simply two many variables in "Post Predicting" the past if something is changed. Unacceptably more so then in normal historical pursuits, in which much more data is present to research from.

It's not a science, it's an intellectual exercise. And you can usually extrapolate a fair amount.

The Sassanids would eventually collapse and a new Persian order would arise.

Why do you think so?

I think this would depend on how far an eventual Mongol invasion would press into the Levant or perhaps if a Persian successor state would be able to defend itself or even divert the invasion somehow.

Don't assume the Mongol invasion will happen as OTL. :3