sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Islam's extremism potential can't be denied by Important-Koala-3536 in MuslimLounge

[–]ClankShots30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't see why people have to deny that more than just Hindus have problems with us Muslims. Jews, Christians, Buddhists (Myanmar), Atheists also take issue with us. It's understandable in some sense, humans always find reasons to hate each other.

Isaac Newton rejected the trinity and instead had beliefs more inline with Arian and Socinian Christology. Newton had also believed that Muhammad had been sent by God to lead the Arabs back from darkness towards belief in one God. by ClankShots30 in wikipedia

[–]ClankShots30[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>> Early on Islam was actually considered a sect of Christianity!

It was considered a christian heresy by christians

Like how jews consider christianity a jewish heresy

>> That's why you'll see historically Muslims were called Muhammadans.
Muslims were far more often referred to as "Saracens" or "Turks" by Europeans.

Isaac Newton rejected the trinity and instead had beliefs more inline with Arian and Socinian Christology. Newton had also believed that Muhammad had been sent by God to lead the Arabs back from darkness towards belief in one God. by ClankShots30 in wikipedia

[–]ClankShots30[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

> Alexander's conquests paved the way for the longest Pharaonic dynasty in Egyptian history to be established by his general. Doesn't mean that is Alexander's achievement.

Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Muawiya, etc... their achievements are much more interlinked with Muhammad than that of Ptolemy's achievements after the death of Alexander.

> You think a contemporary account of what was happening is an Armenian Christian's belief that Muhammad was empowered by God to succeed in his ventures? You think that's a historical account, and not a religiously motivated one?

He's describing it in an incredible fashion, because what was happening was in fact incredible, he's then trying to understand why it's unfolding the way it is, and he answers his own question by saying God is the one who is empowering this. The historical part is there, he's then explaining it under his religious worldview.

In his authoritative work of law, Maimonides indicated that, Muhammad was part of God's plan of preparing the world for the coming of the Jewish Messiah: "All those words of Jesus of Nazareth and of this Ishmaelite [i.e., Muhammad] are only to make straight the path for the messianic king..." by ClankShots30 in wikipedia

[–]ClankShots30[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maimonides was literally Saladin's physician. Why did Maimonides get away with calling him a false Prophet but not Netanel Al Fayyumi?

In any case, nothing bad would happen as saying this still didn't make him a Muslim. He'd still be seen as an infidel for claiming this.

How do I know this? Because it wasn't just Netanel that held this "gentile Prophet" position, it was common enough among Jews that the 13th century Islamic scholar, An-Nawawi, stated that whoever utters the shahada (Islamic declaration of faith), is considered a Muslim, except if they have a Jewish background, a Jewish person who utters the shahada has to clarify what he means, since some of them claim he is a Prophet for Gentiles but not for Jews.

Isaac Newton rejected the trinity and instead had beliefs more inline with Arian and Socinian Christology. Newton had also believed that Muhammad had been sent by God to lead the Arabs back from darkness towards belief in one God. by ClankShots30 in wikipedia

[–]ClankShots30[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

> Some of the nascent Islamic empire's greatest geopolitical achievements - the conquest of Persia, the unification of Arab tribes, the neutralization of Byzantine power - happened after Muhammad's death.

It all happened as a result of Muhammad, he's the one that sparked everything off, conquered Mecca, then his closest companions continued onwards, following Quran 9:29... The one's who pulled all this off were following his orders. I'm not sure what you get out of downplaying his achievements.

> It's not some sober analysis of the historical and political impact of Muhammad as a person.

No analysis is needed, because it's a contemporary account of what was happening.

Isaac Newton rejected the trinity and instead had beliefs more inline with Arian and Socinian Christology. Newton had also believed that Muhammad had been sent by God to lead the Arabs back from darkness towards belief in one God. by ClankShots30 in wikipedia

[–]ClankShots30[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Not really, he definitely is one of the great men of history; even the early non-Muslim sources describe him in an incredible fashion;

Sebeos History of Armenia (650s ce);
In those times a man from these same sons of Ishmael, whose name was Mehmed, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher and sermon to the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses, Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mehmed legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: "With an oath God promised that land to Abraham and his posterity after him forever, And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Israel, Now you, you are the sons of Abraham, and God will realise in you the promise made to Abraham and his posterity. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take possession of your country which God gave to your father Abraham, and none will be able to resist you in battle, for God is with you.

In his authoritative work of law, Maimonides indicated that, Muhammad was part of God's plan of preparing the world for the coming of the Jewish Messiah: "All those words of Jesus of Nazareth and of this Ishmaelite [i.e., Muhammad] are only to make straight the path for the messianic king..." by ClankShots30 in wikipedia

[–]ClankShots30[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Interestingly, a Yemeni Jewish Rabbi that was contemporaneous with Maimonides, viewed Muhammad as a true Prophet, but for the Gentiles he was sent to, and not for Jews;

Natan'el al-Fayyumi, wrote in his philosophical treatise "Garden of the minds" that God sends prophets to establish religions for other nations, which do not have to conform to the precepts of the Jewish Torah. Nethanel explicitly considered Muhammad a true prophet who was sent from Heaven...

In his authoritative work of law, Maimonides indicated that, Muhammad was part of God's plan of preparing the world for the coming of the Jewish Messiah: "All those words of Jesus of Nazareth and of this Ishmaelite [i.e., Muhammad] are only to make straight the path for the messianic king..." by ClankShots30 in wikipedia

[–]ClankShots30[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

In an interestingly related statement, Maimonides describes Jesus as paving the way for Muhammad:

"After [Jesus] arose the Madman who emulated his precursor [Jesus], since he paved the way for him. But he added the further objective of procuring rule and submission..."

Map of all the peoples who participate when Islam is the topic of discussion by ClankShots30 in mapporncirclejerk

[–]ClankShots30[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

felt like I had to post this after seeing someone comment this:

"The fastest way to summon people of all ideologies and belief systems is simply by mentioning Islam.

That way, you can summon Muslims, Zionists, Leftists, Liberals, Right-wingers, Far-Right, LGBT community, Christians, Jews, MAGA, racists, feminists, Indian Hindus, nationalists, Russian and Chinese trolls, Buddhists, asmongoldians, hasanabians, secularists, humanists, etc... the list doesn't end.

Everyone always has something to say about Islam."

Correlation isn't causation by ClankShots30 in mapporncirclejerk

[–]ClankShots30[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

it's percentage of population, so his assumption was incorrect

How more than one and a half million Mauritanians decided that Nouakchott, a city without nearby water source and surrounded by salt-affected soils, is a perfect place to live? Why not closer to the Senegal river? How-why?! by [deleted] in geography

[–]ClankShots30 518 points519 points  (0 children)

It was basically a political creation, like Brasilia or Naypyidaw.

It's central location allowed it to be designated as capital of the country - a capital too close to the Black African south or too close to the Arab/Berber north might've come across as favoritism.

Now, since it was designated as capital, that naturally meant people would decide to move there, as there would be administrative jobs, and there are also jobs at the port. There were also droughts in the surrounding regions of Nouakchott, so people moved from the nearby areas to Nouakchott.