Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedAnti-Arab propaganda

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Anti-Arab propaganda
    Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 19:59

 

Miller as you can see that there is a part of the article Fizzil's 2nd post was about the islamic conquest to persia which was done after the prophet's death.

and the 2nd part of that post and the 1st part of the 1st post of fizzil is about the religion itself and how it was formed in a theory that islam came from persia and a whole artile which lacks proofs and sources. so its clear that there argument is way weaker than the other theories (Jew/Christan)

i explained why this is considered an insult to the religion and please read the rest of my post to get what i explained.

Cyrus ,  if someone said anything against islam its not an insult to Arabs its an insult to muslims and i explained that already.

Saka, i think there is a whole article there saying what you are saying and we answered that already so no need for you to give us a summary about it, as i said they lacke proofs.

and the similarites you posted later is nothing more than useless comparison beteween Today zoroastrian to Islam. and i already explained the reliability of the Zoroastrian religion founder and their book.

also AFAIK Adam is Hebrew name not persian.

Fizzil  you are well come, and even we didnt get in a detailed research i think its clear that they dont have any evidence about Salman alFarsi theory and then the rest of the argument.

 

Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6222
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 07:35
With no doubt Islam is an Arabic religion, as you know, like Marco Polo and Maffeo Polo, Muhammad and Abu Talib were also merchants, from the youth, Muhammad accompanied his uncle on trading journeys to various countries and learnt many things from other nations, so it is not srtange that someone who has lived in the desert and never seen the prosperous Persian gardens (Pardis) and just heard about it, says to his followers: "Those who believe in the Oneness of Allah and do righteous deeds, shall have the Gardens of Al-Fardaus (the Paradise) for their entertainment." (Quran, Surat al-kahf, Ayat 107) or when hears that Persian angles are Haurvatat (impeccable) and Amurtat (immortal), thinks that Harut and Marut are two angles (Quran, Surat Al-Baqarah, Ayat 102)!
Back to Top
Saka View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 03-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 07:38

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

What? every religion have it's concepts and what you sad exist in all relgion I think you must stop it here because your argument is useless or you will bannen dude.

 

Why will I  be ban?! I just explain my theory about Islam and the other monotheist religions.

I agree with Nietzscheh:"Thus spoke zarathustra" when he said all monotheist religions are plagia of zoroastrism. I do not insult any communities. Zoroaster was the first philosopher( Not a prophet) who create the actual monotheist concept.

Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 15:03

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

With no doubt Islam is an Arabic religion.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

if Islam is a divine religion then it doesn't belong to just Arabs, so if someones says something against it, it doesn't mean that he/she is anti-Arab.

Actually you contradict yourself here. However, the issue that concerns all Arab Muslims is the one you have stated which is "Islam is an Arabic religion". Do you mean its language is Arabic? An Arab creation? For sure Arabic is the language that the Quran was revealed in, but the phrase "Islam is an Arab religion" is actually not something Arabs will be proud of more that feeling insulted. It is almost like hinting that it belongs to only Arabs.

On the other side, assuming that your phrase "Islam is an Arab religion" is correct, then if you believe in that, you should also by common sense answers your question that insulting Islam is insulting Arabs < according to your preception only.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Muhammad accompanied his uncle on trading journeys to various countries and learnt many things from other nations, so it is not srtange that someone who has lived in the desert and never seen the prosperous Persian gardens (Pardis) and just heard about it, says to his followers:!

Well that is great Cyrus, but it is all asumptions. No evidance that the prophet met Zoarast in his trade journies. In fact, he met Jews and Christian and the trade route between Mecca (Quraish tribe) and Sham (bigger Syria region) was under the Roman domain and christian arab tribes existed there, not zoroast.

Now, since both claims has failed: 1- The prophet invented Islam from Salman Al Farisi (we explained Salman came after islam establishment) 2-the prophet learned during his trade meeting zoraost (no evidance of meeting Zoroasts and the whole trade route was not even in the persian influence or domain), only one argument can survive, which is that Zoroastrianism influenced the creation of Islam (though I disagree with the term creation) through either: a- stories collected through third parties b- copying previous religions like Judaism and Christianity who (by assumption) copied Zoroastrianism.

First, Zoroastrianism is not a monotheistic religion in its origin. it is dualist- since both deities of good and evil wrestle with each other throughout eternity even though persian art has depicted Ahura-Mazda as prevailing over Ahriman. the presence of Ahriman (associated with everything bad; darkness, plauge, death, etc.) allows for Ahura-Mazda (light, generative, fire, reproduction) to be absolved from any of the so-called evil in the world. About current zoroastrianism more monotheistic? that I don't know.

Second, the Jewish faith has not learned of the monotheistic God from a Zoroastrianism.   Surprisingly, the timing of this persian religion happens to match the scriptural timing of the capture of the Jews under the Persians and the time of Queen Esther - who was a Jewess!!



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 15:09
He said it is an Arab religion, as in from Arabia, his other point was that it is supposed to be the religion of all humans and not meant to be exclusive.
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 15:14

Originally posted by Zagros

He said it is an Arab religion, as in from Arabia, his other point was that it is supposed to be the religion of all humans and not meant to be exclusive.

Well Zagros it is not an Arab religion. That is why I asked how is it defined as an Arab religion to Cyrus. Is it by the use of the Arabic language? or does it have any preferrable rules to Arabs? In fact, it went against Arab culture before Islam, that is why it was strongly opposed and fought by almost all Arab tribes.

If it is an Arab religion because it is in Arabic language, can we say Christianity is an Aramaic religion? a greek one maybe? or Volga latin? Can we say Christianity is a Canaanite religion? as if it came from the land of Canaan?



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 15:21
Arabia is its place of origin that is what I took him to mean, maybe ask him for a clarification?
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 15:24

Originally posted by Zagros

Arabia is its place of origin that is what I took him to mean, maybe ask him for a clarification?

Uha, ok. Well I already asked way earlier. Let us not make assumption what he meant. Let us wait his clarification.



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 16:16
Originally posted by Saka

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

What? every religion have it's concepts and what you sad exist in all relgion I think you must stop it here because your argument is useless or you will bannen dude.

 

Why will I  be ban?! I just explain my theory about Islam and the other monotheist religions.

I agree with Nietzscheh:"Thus spoke zarathustra" when he said all monotheist religions are plagia of zoroastrism. I do not insult any communities. Zoroaster was the first philosopher( Not a prophet) who create the actual monotheist concept.

Which theory I can't see any Theory.
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Saka View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 03-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 16:19
Originally posted by ok ge

Originally posted by Zagros

He said it is an Arab religion, as in from Arabia, his other point was that it is supposed to be the religion of all humans and not meant to be exclusive.

Well Zagros it is not an Arab religion. That is why I asked how is it defined as an Arab religion to Cyrus. Is it by the use of the Arabic language? or does it have any preferrable rules to Arabs? In fact, it went against Arab culture before Islam, that is why it was strongly opposed and fought by almost all Arab tribes.

If it is an Arab religion because it is in Arabic language, can we say Christianity is an Aramaic religion? a greek one maybe? or Volga latin? Can we say Christianity is a Canaanite religion? as if it came from the land of Canaan?

Islam IS an arabic religion because arabs tried to "arabized" all non-muslim land's language: Egypt; Syria; Iran (half arabic); magreb; Pakistan (1/3 arabic)...

Christianity is pray with an universal language: latin; germanic, french....

Why?

Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 16:25
  Ok,The origion of Islam was Arabic but as a religion it is for all people and no differences between Arab and non-Arab.
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Saka View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 03-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 16:30

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

  Ok,The origion of Islam was Arabic but as a religion it is for all people and no differences between Arab and non-Arab.

I agree with you Ahmed, BUT THE PROBLEM IS : NON-ARABS HAVE TO PRAY IN ARABIC LANGUAGE.

This is not the case in christianity for example.

Why?

 

Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 16:34
Originally posted by Saka

Islam IS an arabic religion because arabs tried to "arabized" all non-muslim land's language: Egypt; Syria; Iran (half arabic); magreb; Pakistan (1/3 arabic)...

Christianity is pray with an universal language: latin; germanic, french....

Why?

So now your theory is that: Islam is an Arab religion because they tried to Arabatized the non-Muslims?

First, Your answer is here http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5543& ; ;PN=2&TPN=4

Second, you have no proof as always.

Thrid, it would be a common sense to know that forcing arabitization will result in resistance and riots in larger scale. For your information, Egypt remained a majority of christian for 400 years, what forcing you talk about??

Fourth, the fact that prayer is done in different languages in Christianity has nothing to do with forcing arabitization. It has to do with the Muslim belief that Quran has to be in its origin language, which is Arabic. If we accepted to translate Quran to other languages and call them authentic as the Quran, we would have ended like Christians, with multipe bibles. Just imagine that in English itself, one language, there are multiple version of bibles, New American Standard Bible, King James Bible, the International Standard Bible......etc



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Miller View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 487
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 16:40
 

Originally posted by ok ge

Mecca (Quraish tribe) and Sham (bigger Syria region) was under the Roman domain and christian arab tribes existed there, not zoroast.

Mecca was just a caravan stop over. It did not have enough significance at that time to be a trader destination. The actual trade route was between what is today Yemen and the near east. Yemen was under control of Sassanids and near east went back and fort between Romans and Sassanids, and people of that neighborhood knew about about Zoroastranism. Muhammad may have go t the information directly or indirectly It does not make a difference if someone hears the story first hand or second hand or through another religions. Now, that does not prove that this is the explanation, but many scholarly mind are probably going to adhere to this explanation for now until proven wrong. The only fact that remains is that there are conceptual duplication that can not be purely coincidental.





Originally posted by ok ge

First, Zoroastrianism is not a monotheistic religion in its origin. it is dualist-

Islam is a dualistic religion also. There is God and Devil ( good and bad ) trying to shapes the destiny of man and put man to test, and send him to heaven or hell based on which side he takes. The only significant factor changed from Zoroastranism is that god did not create the the Devil in Zoroastranism. This is contrast to Far Eastern dualistic mythology were two opposing forces keep the balance of nature.







Originally posted by ok ge

(we explained Salman came after islam establishment)



Islam or other religion were not revealed in one spot. I don't think anyone believe that god just delivered a CD ROM to Muhammad in a cave with everything on it and that was the end of it. The Quran you see today was not completely revealed and written down till long after Salman was in the picture going to Arabia to find a new messenger from god whether he found one or created one depends on what you want to believe. Again that does not prove the Salman connection , but your argument does not disprove it either here is more information on no-critical view of Islam from wikipedia

There is no one theory of Quranic origins that is accepted by all Western-style or secular scholars.

Many scholars have accepted something like the traditional Muslim version. They believe that Muhammad put forth verses and laws that he claimed to be of divine origin; that his followers memorized or wrote down his revelations; that numerous versions of these revelations circulated after his death in 632 CE, and that Uthman ordered the collection and ordering of this mass of material in the time period (650-656) described by the Islamic scholars. These Western scholars point to many characteristics of the Qur'an -- the repetitions, the arbitrary ordering, the mixture of styles and genres -- as indicative of a human collection process that was extremely respectful of the original sources. There has been no evident organizing and harmonizing of the text.

These scholars account for the many similarities between the Qur'an and the Jewish and Hebrew scriptures by saying that Muhammad was teaching what he believed a universal history, as he had heard it from the Jews and Christians he had encountered in Arabia and on his travels. Differences between the Qur'an and the Judeo-Christian scriptures can usually be explained by Muhammad's reliance on folk traditions rather than the actual text of the scriptures. There have been many studies of Muhammad's sources in the Jewish Mishnah, Gemara, and Midrash, and the Christian Apocrypha. This, of course, directly contradicts the Islamic teaching that it is the Judeo-Christian texts that are corrupt.

Western scholars also dispute the Islamic belief that the whole of the Qur'an is addressed by God to humankind. They note that there are numerous passages where God is directly addressed, or mentioned in the third person, or where the narrator swears by various entities, including God.

"Some asked what need there was for God to take oaths like any mortal being, as when he swears by the fig and olive, and by Mount Sinai (95:1); by the declining day (103:1); and by the stars, the night and the dawn (81:15-18). Above all, they asked why the Almighty had to swear on himself ..." (Walker, cited in Foundations of Islam, Peter Owen, 1998 p. 156)

Western scholars have also been bold enough to point out obscurities in the text, claiming that Muslim commentators have invented explanations rather than admit that they don't know what a word means. Some Western scholars have been actively trying to interpret these obscure words by reference to languages that Muhammad might have encountered, such as Aramaic and Syriac, and from which he might have adopted words not then found in Arabic. Some scholars have tried to resolve obscurities by positing textual corruption, and advancing plausible replacements -- which is, of course, anathema in Muslim eyes. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is complete, perfect, and uncorrupted.

Some Western scholars are less willing to attribute the entire Qur'an to Muhammad. They argue that there is no real proof that the text of the Qur'an was collected under Uthman, since the earliest surviving copies of the complete Qur'an are centuries later than Uthman. (The oldest existing copy of the full text is from the ninth century [2].) They see Islam as being formed slowly, over the centuries after the Muslim conquests, as the Islamic conquerors elaborated their beliefs in response to Jewish and Christian challenges.

One influential proponent of this point of view was Dr. John Wansbrough, an English academic. Wansbrough wrote in a dense, complex, almost hermetic style, and he has had much more influence on Islamic studies through his students, Michael Cook and Patricia Crone than he has through his own writings. In 1977 Crone and Cook published a book called Hagarism, which argued that,

The Qur'an is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials, and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis it can plausibly be argued that the book is the product of belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions. (Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, Cambridge, 1977, p. 18.)

Hagarism was extremely controversial at the time, as it challenged not only Muslim orthodoxy, but the prevailing attitudes among secular Islamicists. Crone and Cook have since retreated from their extreme claims that the Qur'an evolved over several centuries, but they still believe that the Sunni scholarly tradition is extremely unreliable, as it projects current Sunni orthodoxy onto the past -- much as if New Testament scholars were dedicated to proving that Jesus was a Presbyterian or a Methodist.

Fred Donner has argued against Crone and Cook, and for an early date for the collection of the Qur'an, based on his reading of the text itself. He points out that if the Qur'an had been collected over the tumultuous early centuries of Islam, with their vast conquests and bloody squabbles between rivals for the caliphate, there would have been some evidence of this history in the text. However, there is nothing in the Qur'an that does not reflect what is known of the earliest Muslim community. (Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing, Donner, Darwin Press, 1998, p. 60.)

Recent archaeological finds have also shed some light on the origins of the Qur'an. In 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of San'a, in Yemen, laborers stumbled upon a "paper grave" containing tens of thousands of fragments of parchment on which verses of the Qur'an were written. (Qur'ans were and still are disposed thus, so as to avoid the impiety of treating the sacred text like ordinary garbage.) Some of these fragments were the oldest Quranic texts yet found [3]. The European scholar Gerd-R. Puin has studied these fragments and published not only a corpus of texts, but some preliminary findings. Interestingly enough, the variations from the received text that he did find seemed to match variations reported by Islamic scholars, in their descriptions of the variant Qur'ans once held by Abdallah Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and Ali, and suppressed by Uthman's order. ("Observations on Early Qur'an Manuscripts in San'a", Puin, in The Qur'an as Text, ed. Wild, Brill, 1996)




Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 16:44

Originally posted by Miller

  Muhammad may have go t the information directly or indirectly It does not make a difference if someone hears the story first hand or second hand or through another religions.

I talked about that probability already. Go back to the post. Plus, it is already assumptions. and you know what is to ASSUME.

Originally posted by Miller

  Islam is a dualistic religion also. There is God and Devil ( good and bad ) trying to shapes the destiny of man and put man to test.

Read carefully. See the highlight and when you quote that quote, complete the word Dualist-....Deities. You know the difference i guess.

Originally posted by ok ge

First, Zoroastrianism is not a monotheistic religion in its origin. it is dualist- since both deities of good and evil wrestle with each other throughout eternity even

 

 

Originally posted by Miller

 Again that does not prove the Salman connection , but your argument does not disprove it either here is more information on no-critical view of Islam from wikipedia

You said it. It does not prove the Salman connection. That is what i disupted. No more, no less.  Also, you know when it does not prove A, then A is not proven. Very simple.

Please post the link next time. The rest I will come back for it later. I am sure others will catch it too.



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 17:09
Originally posted by Saka

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

Ok,The origion of Islam was Arabic but as a religion it is for all people and no differences between Arab and non-Arab.


I agree with you Ahmed, BUT THE PROBLEM IS : NON-ARABS HAVE TO PRAY IN ARABIC LANGUAGE.


This is not the case in christianity for example.


Why?




Western Christian priests prayed in Latin and it was considered heresy to translate prayers and the bible into other languages. Hence the emergence of protestantism.
Back to Top
Saka View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 03-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 17:48

Hey Zagros you know about what i'm talking , so defend what you are and do not take part for the other side.

Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 17:51

Saka you must be kidding?

  He tried to discuss objectively and you tell him to take a side?

Dude, grow up. We are all here to discuss realities, not to take sides as Arab against Persians..I think you are a closer step toward qualifying for a ban.



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Saka View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 03-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 18:02

Hooooooooo mister cok Do not play the innocent one. Your are the first one who takes part for arabians and islam.

But I agree with that because each guy(soldier) here try to defend his own empire. Welcome to all empires

 

Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 18:04

Go read the AE code please.

   No one blamed you for defending your believes, but don't beg people to take side. It is not a soccer game

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.