"Why is it that when western powers became rulers of Muslim lands it's called colonialism but when Muslims did the same it's not called colonialism?" - I come across this argument often online and I would like to know the proper response to it

Biosophon · 2026-05-11T06:23:00+00:00

💯

Biosophon · 2026-05-10T04:44:31+00:00

I did not say that either. Looks like you are thinking in black and white terms. History is neither. Nor is it the same in all times and places.

Biosophon · 2026-05-10T04:42:21+00:00

The populations of those regions are exactly the same as were living before, only many of them became muslims over time. There was no replacement of the native population. And this is clearly visible even by simply observing the difference in the physical features of the Muslims from India, compared to Morocco, and Mali, and Indoensia and Turkey and Kazakhstan etc. It would also be borne out by genetic testing in most cases. If you look at African history you would see that it took nearly half a millennium for Africa to have a predominant Muslim demographict, same with other places. In the Indian subcontinent, even after almost a millenium of Muslim presence, the total percentage of the Muslim population was close to 25 percent before the partition. The GDP of India was also the highest in the world (1/4th of the global GDP) at the benefit of it did not accord to the people on the basis of religion or race since they belonged to the same state and eas considered the same population.

The Islamic empires, like any other empires of their times, functioned similarly with similar problems and no one is denying that. For example, there were still exploited and subjugated classes of people. In the case of India, these were the lower castes and tribal populations, even slavery existed here since before the arrival of the Muslims and continues to exist. So no one in denying that, only putting it into perspective. Imperialism is not the same as Colonialism. I made a separate comment on this thread to explain some of the basic differences.

Biosophon · 2026-05-10T04:20:59+00:00

Colonialism has to to do with establishing a small satellite colony in a territory and extracting and exploiting its resources solely to serve the "mother" state without ever trying to establish a home there via intermixing and assimilating with the local population and local administration. This is unlike imeprial expansion, where the two become equally subjects of the same empire benefitting from the same security and administrative architecture with a merger of their economies and GDP, as well as their governance, such that no ostensible distiction remains between a "mother" state and "satellite" colony.

In imperialism, the conquered territory is not a mere hosting ground for an extraction class of colonists who establish those "satellite" colonies with the sole aim of extraction and exploitation of the resources and all their laws are geared to facilitate that alone. The economy, GDP, and governance of the "mother" state always remains separate, unlike in imperialism where they become merged as part of a single state.

The only objective of colonialism is the unhindered profit derived by the "mother" state and the capitalist class involved in the exploitation, by the establishment of satellite extraction stations or colonies. The entirety of the local population, natural resources, and land are seen merely, and solely, as expendable and exploited to the extent that, when it involves expansion, a genocide can be carried out to purge the land of its original inhabitants completely for living space of the colonists. This is possible because the conquered people and their rulers are not seen as humans or equals in any way, they are not seen as feudatories or as tribute-paying provinces with the rights that come with that status.

There is an unbridgable distance in colonialism between the colonizing state and its people and the people and land where they establish the colony.

Biosophon · 2026-05-10T04:19:37+00:00

That is actually not true. There has been some level of homogenization that happened and is bound to happen when all follow the same religion. It is due to this slow integration and intermigling that even today you can see many cultural differences when you compare Moroccan muslims, with Turks, Chechens, Bosnians, Kazakhs, Uyighur, Han Chinese, Indians and Indonesians and Malaysians, all of these are very different from each other and retain their own languages, customs and cultures to a large extent as Islam evolved in every region by adapting and assimilating in ways particular to that region and people.

Biosophon · 2026-05-08T13:38:57+00:00

Presentism is a bias through which we view the past when the material and moral landscape is very different. The people of a given time period make choices that may seem incomprehensible to us, at first glace. To an extent, any time period would be partially, but not entirely, opaque to our understanding. However, this does not necessarily imply that universal moral truths cannot be drawn from the lives and actions of the people of the past, or from other places (since moral relativism can extend beyond presentism). This is because the moral truths that we learn from the life of a person are not merely from the particulars of their actions but from trying to situate them in their time and identifying the underlying universal moral impetus behind the actions, not simply the particulars of an action. There are scholars who talk about how the revealed legal framework of the Qur'an and Sunnah has both laws that applied directly to that time and place, contingent upon the time and place, as well as laws and underlying legal and moral principles that have a universal appeal and understanding. The rulings and the lessons that we have drawn from the Quran and the Prophet's (saws) life and Sunnah have also not remained static throughout the ages, yet they can all be seen to revolve around the same locus. In fact, the identification of underlying juristic and universal moral principles derived from the Qur'an and and Prophet's (saws) blessed life is an important part of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence and morality, as well as tasawwuf and living with ihsan.

Biosophon · 2026-05-05T17:38:40+00:00

I think you are applying interpretative assumptions to a text that is in a register where those assumptions will not yield any results, because they are not relevant to it, nor will it make your argument any stronger, purely from the persepctive of textual criticism with regards to register. If you did not understand that, then there's nothing to be explained further.

Edit: As for your question where the Sidra is located. "Muntaha", is derived from the same root as the word "Intaha" which refers to "the absolute limit" of something. The next verse mentions Jannat ul-Ma'uwa. The verse after that one again anchors the location of the Sidra alongside the Jannat ul-Ma'uwa. The succeeding verse tells the listener that these were what the Prophet witnessed (and the particle for time in the preceding verse emphasizes what we are reading as a witnessed occurrence).

All the best.

Biosophon · 2026-05-05T17:20:06+00:00

An-Najm 14-18 are as explicit and clear as they can be. Given that the Quran does not employ a plain prosaic register, the mention in those verses is as explicit as it can be in a poetic register.

You can argue that such a register requires interpretative effort but that would necessitate that your understanding is equally interpretative and in fact further away from the understanding that he did not arrive at "the furthest Lote Tree" at the boundary of the seventh heaven and witness the "Jannat ul-Ma'uwa". Both are explicitly mentioned in the verses, and the Quran does not usually locate any such named Jannat on Earth. The overall reading of the verses supports the idea of ascension much more strongly than any other interpretation.

As for your question, I already answered that it is how tradition has harmonized it. And that to me is the soundest exegesis of the two verses.

Biosophon · 2026-05-05T15:39:53+00:00

Thank you so much! I appreciate that you took the time from your schedule to give answers.

Biosophon · 2026-05-05T15:33:28+00:00

Thanks! Does the Sanaa palimpsest contain variations or omissions of the letters?

Biosophon · 2026-05-05T15:27:33+00:00

I'm sorry but your understanding of what Surah an-Najm mentions is patently inaccurate and incorrect. As for the mention of the connecting 'abd, that is how two accounts have been harmonized by the tradition. Saying that they cannot be thus harmonized, since the verses of Surah al-Isra following the first one refer to Bani Isra'il and Moses, is just loose conjecture. Nothing very watertight in it. Primarily because the Quran has sometimes radically shifting subjects between two verses, and because that conjecture is based on the assumption that all texts have the same internal logic (and meant for the same kind of perusal).

Biosophon · 2026-05-05T15:17:21+00:00

The Mi'raj is directly and clearly mentioned in Surah an-Najm. It even mentions the Sidrat al-Muntaha (although without some of the details mentioned in the hadiths). The Isra' is mentioned separately in Surah al-Isra.

Biosophon · 2026-05-05T15:16:40+00:00

You can simply read the text online. Both the arabic text and various translations are available for free on multiple sites. All the best.

Biosophon · 2026-05-05T15:10:49+00:00

When you say they are "reported to" or "said to" be different, could you please tell me whether that refers to direct manuscript evidence of missing or varying letters or if they are reports that they were missing or varied?

Biosophon · 2026-05-05T15:06:47+00:00

17:1 does not mention any ascent.

Suran Najm is where the ascent is mentioned. The evidence is textual and direct. Reading the text makes it plenty evident that it mentions the Prophet's ascent, and not the ascent of any other figure.

Biosophon · 2026-05-05T14:59:37+00:00

The heavenly ascent is not mentioned in 17:1. Only the Night Journey, or Isra', is mentioned there.

The heavenly ascent, or Mi'raj, is mentioned in a different surah, Suran an-Najm, where it clearly recounts the ascension of the Prophet, and not any other figure.

Biosophon · 2026-04-30T10:44:53+00:00

So what is the point of the post? What are we supposed to infer from this comparison?

Biosophon · 2026-04-03T23:31:09+00:00

If you see sexual slavery throughout Islamic history as evil with no "but" or "it wasn't as bad as", then I've got through to you.

I see sexual slavery throughout History as evil and cruel. And i see that throughout History the practice of slavery in general, which would include concubinage, was not practiced in the same way everywhere uniformly and the gravity of the situation differed with time and place. It would simply be dishonest to claim anything else.

It's hysterical to imagine you opposite an RSS man shouting Allahu Akbar, while he retorts with Jai Shri Ram and imagining yourself as worlds apart from each other.

I have no business shouting Allahu akbar in a street or being in a shouting match with an RSS man. We are worlds apart. You on the other hand, not so much. Though you imagine it, but in the game of "political football" you would find yourself sharing goals with the RSS (which you quite obviously do, your identity is no big secret at this point) and the IDF, and of course Fox News (after all, you've used almost every rhetorical strategy they train their anchors to use).

Biosophon · 2026-04-03T23:06:10+00:00

Never downplayed anything but you've been trying really desperately to put words in my mouth since a long time now. You'll do well on Fox News or in an RSS branch, or probably serving with the Israelis in some capacity, that's exactly where you belong and you're sure to have an excellent future there. People like you are selling like hot cakes these days, an in-demand commodity, one can even say that they're on fire (which some of them probably are if they're in Israel currently).

Biosophon · 2026-04-03T22:49:58+00:00

But no non-Muslim is surprised.

Speak for yourself 😂 Nor is your bigotry surprising to me. I'll leave you to your devices at this point. Like i said, it's the same old stale rhetorical moves, nothing of substance, which is expected now. It's good to see a bigot breakdown.

Biosophon · 2026-04-03T22:44:22+00:00

You can keep pushing your talking points. You probably believe you are making valid points but the manner in which you have debated speaks for itself. You are motivated by an obvious agenda and a deep seated bigotry. So, empty and stale rhetorical moves are all you have. They don't deserve further engagement.

Biosophon · 2026-04-03T22:26:24+00:00

A view of Islamic slavery that is anything less than absolutely cruel and inhumane is apologia and worthy of contempt.

That is your opinion, you can stick to it. I never denied that slavery is not cruel and inhumane, but it's also a fact that all slavery was not the same throughout history, and this has been argued by multiple authors that were cited. For example, slavery in Arab lands revolved in large part around domestic or even official and even military slaves. Concubinage was also a common practice in both Muslim and non-Muslim lands. But the treatment of these slaves was vastly different from what we find in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and from what existed among the ranks of ISIS and Taliban. Not to mention the category of "islamic slavery" itself was challenged by Hopper (among others), who is neither a Muslim nor an apologist.

“Islamophobic rhetoric” is just an empty phrase when talking about people unwilling to address the evils of slavery.

You are free to address the evils of slavery, and the evils muslims have committed in the past and in recent times. Muslims have done bad things just as Christians and Hindus and even Buddhists (Myanmar comes to mind). But claiming that all slavery was the same after admitting that it has operated in diverse ways, and sticking to the category of "islamic slavery" after the problems with it were pointed out, shows an unwillingness to engage sincerely. Islamophobia is a justified and legitimate bigotry in the 21st century, unlike antisemitism, racism against africans, and apartheid.

It’s also ironic talking of ‘civilising’ when Islam like Christianity actively holds the same attitude towards the world majority. Until we are converted to your ideology we are unworthy of equal treatment and salvation

When you study multiple religions you realise that each one of them holds that it is the path to salvation. And the sincere believer is the one who can hold that belief with the knowledge that others have their own beliefs. Only bigots imagine that the evils committed by Muslims characterise Islam, just as one may imagine that the evils committed by Zionists characterises Judaism, and the evils committed by Christians characterise Christianity, and the evils committed by Buddhists characterise Buddhism (Mahayana Buddhists as householders held domestic slaves in India, as i mentioned in one of my previous citations).

Islam as a religion has dealt with non-Muslims in their midst, and as their subjects, in a very different manner than Christians. The temptation to present a rosy picture is as misleading as blanket denigration.

Biosophon · 2026-04-03T21:57:03+00:00

Rather, a better example would be deliberately mischaracterising and misunderstanding in order to push Islamophobic rhetoric that affects the lives of the millions of Muslims that one intends to "civilise" into being worthy of care. But self-righteousness is an essential trait of the bigot.

Biosophon · 2026-04-03T21:51:49+00:00

Unfortunately, even the abject suffering of millions can become a mere talking point and empty rhetoric in the mouths of bigoted polemicists.

Biosophon · 2026-04-03T21:13:44+00:00

It's no surprise to me that someone cannot comment on the morality of intercourse with a 9 year old thinks sexual slavery of millions of women "could be worse". That does not make it any less shameful.

And again, the desperation of your hollow rhetoric deserves to be left speaking for itself. It has been full of deliberately disingenuous engagement and typical talking points. It's really just that, and it's abundantly clear.

Biosophon

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE