Follow TV Tropes
I'd like to point out that the "Sex Slave" thing and the Double Standard surrounding it are false. See here and here for details.
Should we lock this? It's a bit of an easy target for Wiki Vandals.
I respectfully submit (pun intended) links to:
(pre-emptive snark that proves my point: you're going to enforce political correctness by removing a link to that always subversive C-SPAN? really?)
Snark counter: Funny, C-Span wasn't the one talking in that video...
I changed the star and crescent image to the word "Allah" in Arabic script. The star and crescent was the insignia of the Ottoman Empire, not of Islam as a whole. Hope everyone is okay with that.
This isn't a bad topic, but what bothers me is it doesn't address sucide bombers or violent crusaders at all. Was infromation about that on here but removed?
Even if its simply people outright ingoring the qu'arn I'd still like to see how people derived such hatred from a peaceful religion
The same reason the Westboro church isn't menontioned in the Christian page. It's a fringe group that has a lot more ties to polotics, than to the religion it's self.
Because there really isnt a need for that in the Useful Notes page, they arent an integral part of the religion (and in fact the Jihad they harp on about is the one thats considered least important).
I love that Islam is given the benefit of the doubt on every single issue, and how people with obvious political angles try to pretend they're making neutral remarks. Every time there's a chance to say something bad about christianity, it's taken on the christianity page. On the Islam page, every time something negative has to be said, there's three paragraphs making excuses for it.
The above is a good example, westboro consists of a few hundred complete manicas, and is brought up an an example of "all religions have bad people". That is bullshit. MAINSTREAM Islam, professed by hundreds of millions of people, is about the same as the beliefs of westboro in its extremity.
It's been shown time and again there is a very large minority, ten to fifteen percent of muslims, that support al qaeda explicitly. Vast numbers of muslims have rioted an killed yet again over a tiny independent film.
Anyone who tries to equivocate the behaviour of modern day muslims and modern day christians as the same is a disingenuous liar with an agenda.
-Christians are not running global terror networks
-Billionaire Chrstians and Christian national government are not providing financial support to Christian terror groups
-10-15% of Christians do not want to establish by violence or otherwise, complete religious and political domination of the planet
-90% of Christians, whether in developed or undeveloped nations, do not maintain the same social attitudes to women and gays that they had 800 years ago
-Christians do not riot and kill on a worldwide scale over the dissemination of any material possibly considered insulting to their religion.
-Christians do not attempt to violently take control of any host society they form part of when they reach a certain % of the population.
Rivalin. You obviously know shit about Islam. You probably don't know a single muslim, and have never tried to meet with a Muslim community in your area. You're using information that has been shown to be false, and you're just being extremely arrogant
Lets look at an example. That so called attack because of an independent film, wasn't an attack because of that film, but was a terrorist attack. If you paid attention at all, you would of noticed that there was a large protest right after the attack full of Muslims who said that the attackers did not represent Muslims, and that they loved the ambassador who died.
Or hey, lets look at the recent Talliban attack on that little girl? She got shot because she wanted an education right? Well, if you know shit about Pakistani politics, you would find out that one shot did more to discredit the Talliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan than anything else they could of done.
What you're really forgetting, is that Muslims are people. And people get scared, and offended, and angry. People are also capable of doing amazing things, that involve great feats of willpower, and courage. Its not the religion, its just the people. Sure, the religion affects the people, just as any culture does, but it is not a purely negative or positive effect, so having a page like this that just discusses the religion, leaving politics out of it, is exactly what we need. So please, leave your hate filled dribble at home, and off this site.
For the record I agree with you rivalin, there is a double standard with regard to christianity and islam. Perhaps more importantly though I think each religion should not be judged based on the attitudes of it's believers but on the words of it's founder as read in it's holy text. The bible should be what we judge christianity by and the qur'an should be the measure of islam.
Moderator Speaking this page really isn't for this kind of discussion. If you wish to talk about such things there are plenty of places on the internet that would welcome the discussion. Here, we are working on the representation of things in fiction.
So knock it off.
Well this is a useful notes page, if this discussion invites revision on Christianity's page so be it but if there is a double standard being given to Islam that is something that should addressed.
The fact is 67% of the Sira(to say nothing of the Hadiths) is devoted to offensive war or struggle or Jihad if those are more politically correct as opposed to say, 34 mentions in the Old Testament, 9 in the Qu'ran or 0 in the New Testament(and it should be noted the Old Testament is longer than the Qu'ran, so though it has more mentions the Qu'ran has a higher frequency of violent Jihad). Perhaps for this reason it should be noted some Muslims only hold the Qu'ran to any authority despite the fact it makes up less of a third of the official Islamic trilogy and one cannot even know all five pillars with only the Qu'ran. (for comparison, there is an entire page about how Christianity Is Catholic or rather is not)
I suppose just complaining about why something is not being added should be met with "You could add it yourself" and we definitely should not be passing much judgment beyond how accurate are fictional works portraying a subject on a useful notes page but discussion on how to go about adding text, how they may be interpreted (what parts of the Qu'ran abrogate each other, which Hadiths are most authentic, ect) is valid in my view.
Edit: Beetle- The idea that we judge a religion based surely on the book its based on is really ignoring what actually makes a religion a religion. Religions change, the people part of those religions change what they focus on, disregard older customs and make new ones. Every generation will have a different criteria of what makes a person of that religion, and their all still part of that same religion. So the idea that we examine the books without context of the culture, region, and people, just seems backwards too me.
Wait a second.. You realize that the Sirat Rasula is just a bunch of first or second hand accounts about the life of the Prophet, and is no way an actually religiously binding set of documents. And, seeing as how the Sirat's spend practically their whole time gushing about how merciful the Prophet was (What, bringing up his treatment of prisoners, refusal to harm non-combatants, and the his extremely restrained method of war, and self defence) calling it devoted to offensive war is really misstating what the whole things about. As for Hadiths, Hadiths have a large amount of variance in their validity, and their followings, what with the whole not being part of the Quran thing at all. They tend to just give examples of how a good Muslim should act, or something that the Prophet did. These are really kept more as history, and some of the more controversial Hadiths are constantly being questioned. By the way, all of the Pillars are actually mentioned in the Quran its self. Check out verses 3:18, 20:14, 7:156, 2:185, 22:27.8
Oh, and please don't use Jihad in that way. Its mentioned in this article by its self that Jihad does not mean Holy War.
Finally, I understand their is a bit of a double standard here, but you need to understand that most of the things that people say about Islam is from a very warped perspective. Most of us grew up with Christianity, and its influence is so pervasive in western society, we don't really even notice it. Islam however is something a large amount of us are just not as familiar with, so we don't get the nuances, we don't get when something was meant to be read literally, or when something was simply a story. We don't get when the Devil is talking about something horrible he expects human to do, or if the Quran is telling us to do that. So frankly, I think forcing people to shut the fuck up about what they heard about Islam from some third party source, that has an obvious bias against Islam, might be the right thing to do.
That doesn't mean Islam is somehow above ridicule, or questioning. Its not. Like I just mentioned about the Hadiths, a lot of Muslims have a large amount of varying beliefs, and focus on different parts of the Quran, Hadiths, and Suras. It was actually somewhat encouraged in Islam, since for the majority of its life, the only requirement for being considered a Muslim in the eyes of Muslim Law, was just saying the phrase Liilaha Illila, which gave a lot of people the ability to tinker with their beliefs (and kill each other over em, because you've got assholes everywhere)...
Err, yeah. I tried to read the whole thing but just kept skimming through at the part where it was said the Sirat was in no way an actual set of binding religious documents. It is part of the Sunnah, The Islamic Triology, you cannot even have the five pillars without it. The Qu'ran says Muhammad was a perfect example of moral authority that you should emulate (60:4-6, 33:21) but does not really say anything about him. You can only find that imitable example in the Sirat and Hadiths, they all need each other to work, hence trilogy).
If you are a Qu'ranyun/Qu'ranist maybe you can get away with that but they are less than %1 of Islam as far as we can tell with the bulk of it being Sunnis whose Sharia is based off of all three texts and Shias who reject Aisha's testimonies but otherwise take stock in Ishaq's biography and the "Sahih" Hadiths.
While it is true most of the 164, give or take, jihad verses in the Qu'ran are not about offense there is no pretense for "greater jihad" meaning "inner jihad". There is only outer jihad, belittling of those not partaking in jihad, rewards for partaking in jihad and promises of victory in jihad but for a 165,00 word book that is only 9%.
But if I do not type "jihad", "rather fighting in Allah's (Jesus's, YHWH's, G-d's, ect) cause" the numbers do not change. There is nearly ten times as many calls for believers to fight in their god's cause in the Trilogy than the Tanakh, and the Tanakh's are all phased out by the time the New Testament arrives. The Sunnah in contrast starts out relatively peaceful (though Muslims still draw the first blood without a word of condemnation in the Ishaq's Sirat) and gets increases in calls to fight as it goes on.
The good news for the Muslims is that most of that is in the sirat. Page 675 of Sirat Rasul Allah, one of the top two authoritative preservations of Ishaq's work, has Muhammad calling for the death of poets who disagreed with him you want to ignore that and be a Qu'ranist be my guest but do not say it is not there or that it has no connection to the violence stemming from the youtube clip "Innocence Of Muslims" or attacks in Nigeria of a newspaper and beauty pageant.
According to Sahih Bukari (the highest authority of the hadith) 4:56:660 Muhammad was cursing Pagans, Jews and Christians all the way to his death bed and giving orders of how they were to be expelled from the Arabian Peninsula. If you want that thrown out too go ahead but you cannot just say it does not count because the Qu'ran says emulate the prophet and nothing about that particular hadith technically contradicts the Qu'ran and if you discard Bukari you might as well call all the hadith invalid, no Sunnah, no pillars. But Christianity survived quote well on "sola scriptura".
Sorry Sider, but there is no Highest Authority of Hadiths. Instead, their are hundreds of scholars who all research the history, context, and words of the religion, and release their interpretations for other Muslims. I don't know where you're getting this idea of the triliogy being required for Muslims, but its just not true, and Muslims often pick and choose which Hadith's they follow based on the Fatwas of the Imam's they trust, which is expected in Islam.
The Quran is the only completely binding part of Islam, and many of the oral and written histories and parts of the religion varies massively from area to area. Also, I already mentioned how all five of the pillars are mentioned in the Quran, so I don't know why you keep saying without the Sirat, they'd be no Five Pillars.
Like I said, without discussing it with Muslims themselves, all our interpretations really come off as warped, since we just do not have the context that Muslims do about their own Religions.
Uh , yo do know the so called "Terrorists" only make 0.4% in Europe and 4% in the US , right ?
If we're going to be relative with Christianity, let us think about the 2 most high profile extremist organizations of their respective religions. The Westboro Baptist Church, an organization which offends people by protesting at funerals and being wildly discriminatory, has a membership of 39. The Islamic State, an organization which offends by beheading Kafirs, as well as everybody who follows a different sect of Islam has a membership of 250,000. There are 2.4 billion Christians, where as there are 1.6 billion Muslims. Acting like there is any similarity is dishonesty with yourself.
Extremism is an Islamic problem, and should be talked about on this article, instead of an advertisement for Islam.
This wiki is not somewhere you can hawk your propaganda, of any sort; we have a Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement for a reason, and if you read the actual Qur'an, you'd realize extremism is not a core tenet of the faith, ergo not worthy of a summary.
If you see advertisement because it doesn't agree exactly with your dogma, that's not the article's problem.
That user ^^ has been perma-banned, for the record. Please don't flip out like this, though. It doesn't stop anybody.
My bad. Moral Myopia is my personal Berserk Button. Sorry.
Islam's 'emblem' isn't really the crescent moon and star. In fact, the closest thing it has to a religious symbol is a calligraphic representation of the Arabic, 'There is no God but God and Muhammad is His Apostle'.
Critical Research Failure: "The marriages were not strictly political; he did have sex with them (even though one was only nine years old)."
Aisha was not nine years of age, that is pure Abbasid Caliphate Bullshit. She was listed as one of those who fled to Ethiopia and recalled it later. Her elder sister Asma who was ten years older than her died at age 100 in 73 A.H. (692 C.E.), so that means Aisha was born 17 B.H. (602 C.E.). Aisha was also present at the Battles of Badr, Uhud, and several others where she carried water and tended to the wound which is a physically demanding task and if she were nine or ten, Muhammad would not have allowed her to have been present and indeed he ordered all the youngsters to stay in Medina during those battles to protect them especially when one considers the near catastrophic disaster at Uhud in which Muhammad nearly lost his life.
It is mentioned that the Hadith is unreliable, it should probably be clarified as to exactly how unreliable.
Interesting. My personal Arab/Muslim contact in the Middle East might be interested in investigating this one, though I can't guarantee that he'd have a good chance of getting any results.
So in other words it is not critical research failure because that would imply anyone who knows anything about it would recognize it as wrong. The very existence of one Hadith says that cannot be the case. Let us find out how authentic it is.
What.. No Cider, thats not how Hadiths work.
First off, Most Muslim Scholars are constantly arguing about the validity of Hadiths, and their meaning, and that particular Hadith is often translated with Aisha being aged anywhere from 15-24 (With Thomas G's explanation being one of the reasons for this). Hell, Aisha's very existence is something that scholars are known to question.
That, and that particular line was definitely put their with its offensiveness in mind, regardless of its validity, so I think its okay that we got rid of that line anyway. And yes, we can talk about the double standard again, but getting rid of flame bait that is likely to be false anyway, is probably best for everyone anyway.
Uh no, critical research failure means anyone who knows anything at all about the subject immediately knows it is false. The claim that Aisha was told to stay away from the battle because she is young is kind of invalid if their marriage had been consummated. She would not have been considered a child anymore then and would be expected to perform whatever was necessary for her husband. Besides, Al-Tabari vol.12 p.107 says that women and children often went to battlefields for supportive services and Tabari is the most respected Islamic historian.
The fact is Sahih Bukari 7:62:64, the highest authority Hadith, says she was nine and as this does not contradict the Qu'ran in anyway you cannot just abrogate part of it. You throw out Bukari and Tabari you throwout the entire Hadith and maybe the sirat with it and then you cannot have the five pillars of Islam, there can be no Sunnah to follow.
Stop calling him the Highest Authority, he isn't, and not to mention, if you actually checked the book, his original translation doesn't actually list an age, but instead implies she was young, not nine. In fact, some scholars even believe the word used there was just a way to imply she was a virgin without saying it.
Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. No one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years. Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly.
"who claimed descent from an Umayyad prince who fled to Spain the rise of the Abbasids"
There's a word missing between "Spain" and "the". "During"? "After"?
Lotta vandals on this page.
I thought jihad meant "to struggle". Meh. /nitpick
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?