Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbaric?

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
User avatar
uncung
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by uncung »

sum wrote:Hello uncung

If a muslim develops some doubts about certain aspects of Islam, is that a sin?

sum
depend on the certain aspects.

Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by Nosuperstition »

WELL, pre-Islamic Arabia was relatively peaceful and tolerant. It had different communities living there next door to one another, a sort of early "multiculturalism"...

Then the Muslims came along bringing bloodshed and hatred all round. Entire civilisations wiped out. Unprecedented carnage, not remotely equalled by the worst tyrants who ever lived.
Pre-Islamic Arabs lived a precarious existence eating lizards and what not and dying by starvation if they had nothing to eat.But after Islam,they got the opportunity to colonise their conquered lands and thus could eat delicacies.Personally I am against invading Muslim lands to convert them out of Islam and I am also against evicting muslims from non-Muslim lands.But I only hope so that they integrate atleast to some extent and do not cause anymore trouble.
Last edited by Nosuperstition on Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.

Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by Nosuperstition »

uncung wrote:
manfred wrote:poison for minds.
for filthy minds.
Now sex is no 1 dirty thing in the muslim lexicon. Then does not hallucinating about 72 virgins a filthy thing to do?
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by manfred »

Well, personally prefer to eat lizards that I have caught over stolen things... And you forgot to mention that people in Arabia kept herds of animals, and they traded.So this caveman idyll does not fit reality.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by manfred »

uncung wrote:
manfred wrote:poison for minds.
for filthy minds.

For Muslim minds.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
uncung
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by uncung »

manfred wrote:Well, personally prefer to eat lizards that I have caught over stolen things... And you forgot to mention that people in Arabia kept herds of animals, and they traded.So this caveman idyll does not fit reality.
i dont get yours.

User avatar
uncung
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by uncung »

Nosuperstition wrote:
Pre-Islamic Arabs lived a precarious existence eating lizards and what not and dying by starvation if they had nothing to eat.But after Islam,they got the opportunity to colonise their conquered lands and thus could eat delicacies.Personally I am against invading Muslim lands to convert them out of Islam and I am also against evicting muslims from non-Muslim lands.But I only hope so that they integrate atleast to some extent and do not cause anymore trouble.
Lizards are halal.

User avatar
uncung
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by uncung »

manfred wrote: For Muslim minds.
For bad muslim minds.

User avatar
uncung
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by uncung »

Nosuperstition wrote:
Now sex is no 1 dirty thing in the muslim lexicon. Then does not hallucinating about 72 virgins a filthy thing to do?
sex is not filthy. we do exist via sex.

Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by Nosuperstition »

manfred wrote:Well, personally prefer to eat lizards that I have caught over stolen things... And you forgot to mention that people in Arabia kept herds of animals, and they traded.So this caveman idyll does not fit reality.
That piece of info on pre-Islamic pagan Arabs is what I got at historyofjihad.Even in this day and age,children starve in India due to over-population even though the country is not a desert.Now the same situation would have prevailed in the Arabian peninsular deserts as and when people over-bred.
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by manfred »

The general situation of people in Arabia could not have been worse than other people in the middle ages, as the are had influx of immigrants, such as the various Jewish groups there. If life was that horrendous, they would not have stayed.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by manfred »

uncung wrote:
Nosuperstition wrote:
Now sex is no 1 dirty thing in the muslim lexicon. Then does not hallucinating about 72 virgins a filthy thing to do?
sex is not filthy. we do exist via sex.

True...

what is filthy is that one group feels they have a right to tell others how to live, and use violence to subdue them.

I also always found it funny how the Qur'an makes a list of who MEN may NOT marry, but say nothing at all about women:
Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone, no prohibition if ye have not gone in; (those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Surah 4:23
If a girl reads that, she may be tempted to see her mom and say "But mum, when I grown up I want to marry a MAN!"

Suppose you had an "affair" with a woman and never married her. She then gave birth to a child, YOUR daughter. Some scholars argue that you may marry such a child because there is no lineage through marriage.

For example Al-Qurtubi writes:
...then the resulting child is not considered a part of a person’s true lineage. That is why a daughter born from adultery is not mentioned in Allah’s saying, ‘Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: your mothers and daughters’ (Surah 4:23) because she is not considered a daughter according to the most authentic teaching of our (Islamic) scholars and the most authentic teaching of our religion. If there is no legal lineage then there is no legal relationship; for adultery does not prohibit (from marriage) the daughter of the mother (you committed adultery with) nor the mother of a woman (you committed adultery with)

http://quran.al-islam.com/Loader.aspx?pageid=215" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In addition, Islam allows first cousin marriages, and this incestual practice can result in disease.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
uncung
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by uncung »

manfred wrote:

True...

what is filthy is that one group feels they have a right to tell others how to live, and use violence to subdue them.

I also always found it funny how the Qur'an makes a list of who MEN may NOT marry, but say nothing at all about women:

[]Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone, no prohibition if ye have not gone in; (those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Surah 4:23[/]

If a girl reads that, she may be tempted to see her mom and say "But mum, when I grown up I want to marry a MAN!"

Suppose you had an "affair" with a woman and never married her. She then gave birth to a child, YOUR daughter. Some scholars argue that you may marry such a child because there is no lineage through marriage.

For example Al-Qurtubi writes:

[]
...then the resulting child is not considered a part of a person’s true lineage. That is why a daughter born from adultery is not mentioned in Allah’s saying, ‘Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: your mothers and daughters’ (Surah 4:23) because she is not considered a daughter according to the most authentic teaching of our (Islamic) scholars and the most authentic teaching of our religion. If there is no legal lineage then there is no legal relationship; for adultery does not prohibit (from marriage) the daughter of the mother (you committed adultery with) nor the mother of a woman (you committed adultery with)[/]


http://quran.al-islam.com/Loader.aspx?pageid=215" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In addition, Islam allows first cousin marriages, and this incestual practice can result in disease.
the marriage only if the girl please to be as spouse. Not just because the men want marry whoever the girl they wish.
Marrying the cousin is allowed in all religions, nations, race, cultures, include in islam. however some people feel uncomfort marry their cousins, beside disease risks.

Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by Nosuperstition »

uncung wrote:
Nosuperstition wrote:
Now sex is no 1 dirty thing in the muslim lexicon. Then does not hallucinating about 72 virgins a filthy thing to do?
sex is not filthy. we do exist via sex.
Then what thoughts of pagan minds turned their minds 'filthy' from your point of view?
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.

User avatar
uncung
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by uncung »

Nosuperstition wrote:
Then what thoughts of pagan minds turned their minds 'filthy' from your point of view?
i dont get it.

User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3741
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by Hombre »

pert wrote:Islamophiles like to make out the Middle East in Muhammad's time was barbaric and uncivilised, but was it really?
Persians were not barbaric - only Muslim invaders had made them barbaric. A wound which lasted to this day.

User avatar
uncung
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by uncung »

Hombre wrote: Persians were not barbaric - only Muslim invaders had made them barbaric. A wound which lasted to this day.
They were.

sum
Posts: 6563
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:11 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by sum »

Hello uncung

To continue from my last post. If a muslim noted all the barbaric acts that Muhammad committed and therefore started to wonder if Muhammad really was a prophet, would that be a sin?

sum

Nosuperstition
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by Nosuperstition »

uncung wrote:
Nosuperstition wrote:
Then what thoughts of pagan minds turned their minds 'filthy' from your point of view?
i dont get it.
O.K,let me make it clear.This is what you said
uncung wrote:
manfred wrote:poison for minds.
for filthy minds.
Hey uncung,you said that Islam is a poison for filthy minds.Now which sort of a mind would you consider as filthy?
palli or halli in Dravidian languages means a village just like gaav in Aryan languages means a village.palli or halli in Aryan Mauryan Imperial era around 200 B.C designates a tribal hamlet.So many of those in South India are indeed descendants of tribals and are still keeping up that heritage.

User avatar
uncung
Posts: 2783
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:21 pm

Re: Was the Middle East in Muhammad's time really so barbari

Post by uncung »

sum wrote:Hello uncung

To continue from my last post. If a muslim noted all the barbaric acts that Muhammad committed and therefore started to wonder if Muhammad really was a prophet, would that be a sin?

sum
assume i am a dummy guy. which barbaric acts he (had had) commited?

Post Reply