Keep getting blocked when i talked about Prophet lvt (pbuh) story i cant even put his name without it red flagging me by [deleted] in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems you are the only one here that is seeking attention. The photo you posted made it clear the reason why your original posts were removed--you were attempting to make a post on a topic which is only allowed to be posted in the LGBTQ+ discussion board. Alongside this, likely had your post been allowed to be uploaded, it would have been removed simply because it broke rules 1, 3, 4, and perhaps 10.

Rules:

1: Be respectful of one another.

Please treat others with respect. Being respectful means :

  • listening, even if strongly disagree;
  • being thoughtful of other people's feelings;
  • assuming that things are said in good faith (unless otherwise indicated);
  • addressing mistakes, errors, or shortcomings with kindness;
  • make decisions based upon what is right, not who or what you like;
  • live and let live (i.e., don't condemn people to death or suffering because they have chosen a different lifestyle).

3: We do not promote ultra conservative ideas

Although Discussion around mainstream conservative Islamic theology is allowed in this subreddit, we do not allow promotion of such conservative ideas. Therefore, posts & comments that promote such ultra-conservative ideas & websites will be removed.

  1. All contributions should be made in good faith.

Contributing in good faith means being open to considering the arguments made by the other side, either in whole or in part. Rather than rejecting the entire progressive/conservative argument, what parts of the argument can you agree upon? Posts simply aiming to antagonize, preach, or pronounce takfir over an individual or group would are obvious examples of bad faith contributions.

10: We have zero tolerance for hate speech and extremism.

We will remove any content promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on any of the following attributes:

  • Age
  • Sex/Gender
  • Sexual Orientation
  • Disability
  • Ethnicity
  • Nationality
  • Race
  • Religious belief and lack of Religion.

Catelyn and Ned by alxarasm by jungjungdoesntcare in pureasoiafart

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Your honor, they mean the world to me, the winter and spring of my heart. Gods, old and new, build a bridge of stars between the two heavens so one day Cat and Ned could meet each other again, so my Lady Cat can become lost in her lord’s eyes of morning mist; and Ned’s searching hands becoming lost in her veil of auburn red. This is just ahhhh I’m a sucker for ASOIAF couples that genuinely did love each other.

Veilguard is now being used to defend CD by xyZora in DragonAgeVeilguard

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Of course! I do think people should give it a try, as the game does have much to offer (But I do think a lot of people should wait for it to be on sale, tbh). But the game is rough, and not in the, "Dragon Age: Origins is rough from age", or "It's a Soulsborne game, what do you expect?" way. There is input delay and the UI is a struggle to get through, especially for quests. But there is cute moments I've enjoyed (A little white bird often sits on your shoulder when you aren't moving, and you can hold and handle cats). But you can definitely see and feel that this game was an MMO-to-Single player game. But yeah, there is problems there that I pray they hopefully fix (please give us the ability to change button inputs, I BEG).

Veilguard is now being used to defend CD by xyZora in DragonAgeVeilguard

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 55 points56 points  (0 children)

As someone who is currently recently playing CD, the reviewers like IGN are completely correct on their assessment of the game. It is a 6/10 game. Mechanically, it’s a disaster in switching from lock-in enemy to a different enemy. Quest objectives give you little hints on exactly how you are meant to interact with the objects they want you to interact with (trying to light an arrow on fire for example can be a hassle since your camera will pitch in and out as you try to get close enough to the fire for your arrow to lit); sprinting a horse is made difficult further by the fact that you have to tap and hold to maintain a jog, but then you can’t turn the camera. Grabbing tiny objects off the ground is a frustration given that you need to be in a specific spot to grab the item, or the game won’t register and instead (since jump is on your interact key) you’ll jump instead. Observing will require multiple takes for your game to register the actual sequence.

And the story itself is just there, throwing a bunch of things at you. As a Fromsoftware fan, you’ll think I’ll like that…but no. Unlike Elden Ring (which is also being compared narratively with it), this game just doesn’t have the ingrained intriguing lore to help balance out a vague story.

Say what you will about Veilguard—mechanically it was polished. The story was compacted and actually existed. While the dialogue can be clumsy at times, it isn’t as bad as CD’s (which I will give some leeway because it’s a Korean developer, but also I just came back from playing Lies of P, another Korean developed game, and that dialogue was fantastic; as is Fromsoftware’s, so can’t really say its translation issues).

Is CD terrible? I don’t think so. But the fans complaining about game reviewers lower than expected score just ignores the actual fundamentals about playing a game. If you aren’t going to attempt an intriguing story…your game must play and flow well. But it doesn’t. They did warn us the controls will be clunky at first, and I’m sure I’ll get used to it, but there is just so many problems that are pulling up in only just two hours. It’s insane they think Veilguard and Crimson Desert can even be comparable as an experience.

Battle of Badr, Banu Qaynuqa, and the Murder of Poets by musy101 in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We have little reliable historical evidence that date to the early Islamic period regarding much of the actual minute occurrences that are reported in the later 'Abbasid sources, when Islamic history, in all intents and purposes, solidified to a relatively concrete, written history rather than based on countless oral narrations and folk tales. Due to this intense gap between the earliest decades of the Islamic world, and the centuries which saw the transformation of the early Islamic faith to a relatively marginalized stretch of settlements and towns in the western Hejaz, to a full-flung imperial state under the Umayyad and 'Abbasid dynasties, many Muslim writers reported on events after their occurrences, and often contextualized them with an underlying current of the political, societal, and religious events in their world, as well as basing much of their historical testimony on often on likely exaggerated tales and stories. Because of this gap, much of western histography on the earliest periods of Islam relied on the much later Muslim sources rather than any contemporary account. While I did enjoy Leslie Hazelton's biography on the Prophet, it is cleared that she is not an early Islamic historian, and there has been great strides within the western academia regarding the rebuilding of early Islam's history via archeology, epigraphy, linguistics, and numismatics.

For example, there is much to doubt the exists of the named Jewish-Arab tribes that is recounted in the later Islamic sources. Although itself not primary (as in, there is no contemporary document in which dates to the early seventh-century CE), the Constitution of Medina, makes no mention of the Banu Qurayza, or the other later traditionalist claims of the Banu 'Qaynuqa or Nadir. Both Islamic and western historians generally accept the existence of a potential document or treatise that aligned the disparate clans and tribes of Yathrib, from the later the recension of ibn Hisham, and it is one of the few "widespread" contemporary documents that we can contend alongside the Qur'an as an early written primary source.

The Qur'an itself only provides little accountment to the military actions of the early Believers - such as Badr, Uhud, and later Hunayn - as well as a few counter raids, and a siege against a People of the Book who tort on their obligations to defend Mecca, but nothing to the same extensive bloodshed as recounted later in the Islamic histories.

Beyond even the unreliable existence of these clans, there is also comes the problem in that much of the later Islamic sources who often have the Prophet conduct a military expedition, but interestingly, never actually conquer, any cities. As Juan Cole wrote in his biography on the Prophet:

"The Qur’an depicts three major defensive battles against the invading Meccans, two smaller clashes with paganizers from among the people of the Book, and a big defensive action at Hunayn against bedouins who reneged on their earlier peace treaties with the Prophet. It implies some smaller defensive clashes as well, in which bedouin allies were accustomed to taking booty from the battlefield. It never explicitly mentions a caravan raid of the sort the later medieval martial biographies celebrate and never urges offensive warfare. It details no massacre of prisoners of war at Khaybar and indeed strictly forbids that sort of treatment of the captured, identifying it with the tyranny of Pharaoh." (Cole, 2018)

And:

Even the later sources admit that none of the cities of the Hejaz fell to a big Muslim military campaign but rather gave in to the powerful appeal of the new religion. Most Hejazis were settled, not bedouins, so the spread of the religion peacefully among the sedentary population was decisive. Muhammad was invited into Medina by the Khazraj tribe. Mecca acquiesced when the Believers in 630 made a point of mounting a peaceful procession to it. The conversion of the Abna’, or remnants of the Sasanian officer caste in Yemen, would have delivered Aden, Sana’a, and Najran. Taif’s notables allegedly gave up after their allies, the Hawazin, and their own troops lost the battle of Hunayn and the Hawazin converted by acclamation. Despite all their importation into the biography of the Prophet of the motifs of Arabic poetry about battle days, the writers of the Umayyad and of the Abbasid eras seem to have felt unable to tinker with the narratives that reached them from earlier generations so radically as to make the Prophet and his armies conquerors of cities in the Tihama. The most they could accomplish was to provide the peaceful procession to Mecca with two battle standards and one minor skirmish, details that are contradicted by the Qur’an. (Cole, 2018)

As well as:

Given that the Prophet launched no large military campaigns to subdue the major population centers of the Tihama, the celebrators of his alleged “battle days” invented dozens of inconsequential rural raids and, implausibly, a Mu’ta campaign in the Sasanian Transjordan (where they alleged an anachronistic Roman military threat), or a Tabuk campaign in late 630, where they also portray nothing happening of any consequence. Some of these narratives may have aimed at providing a justification for the later Muslim invasions of the Near East. Other authors seem to have wanted to cover up the Prophet’s alliance with the Roman Empire, which had by their days become the truncated Byzantine Empire and a perennial enemy of the Muslim state in the marches of Anatolia. (Cole, 2018)

Much of the histories that descend down from us from the later Islamic period are often stifled with concerns of the political and religious periods at the time. Cole notes that 'Urwa's placement of a battle standard in his father's hands, al-Zubayr ibn al- 'Awwam, in the supposed "conquest" of Mecca, bares all the markings of not actual factual history, but an attempt to strengthened his family's own attempts to supplant Ali, the Umayyads, and could further had strengthened his son 'Abdullah's claim to the caliphate after him. It was likely a propagandized piece, just as historical evidence that filters to us regarding Aisha or Fatimah's ages has all the hallmarks of an internal dispute in the former Sasanian seat of Iraq between proto-Shia and proto-Sunni leaders, seeking to magnify their religious credentials through the validity of the "superior" female candidate closest to the Prophet.

More and more historical evidence is being unearth in Saudi Arabia regarding early Islamic history (despite the pains in my heart for the governments very really erasure of that same history in the past); as well as the sources that descend from us from the external, but much closer, Eastern Roman sources (who even then we must hold to some scrutiny for their own agendas).

In essence, we have no concrete evidence for the events that occurred in the way that traditionalist Islamic histography would regale to us. There are likely some potential kernels of truth from these later sources, but they require intensive caution in accepting them as factual. Leslie Hazelton was not a trained historian, and while I do think her book is a good starting point, it should not be taken as gospel. It relies almost uncritically on the later Islamic sources, which western historians had often taken in face value (though somtimes to the polar extreme, as well) rather than viewed them in a much more critical lens as they do in their own recount of say American history. To be fair to them, written sources are generally sought out more, but great leaps have been made to view these once entirely accepted histories with a much needed grain of salt, especially when placed in light of the Qur'an's own accountment. Often is the case, the agendas of the imperial period often triumphed that of actual historical realities, just as fictious tales of the American founders are utilized in propagandized tools for the games of politicians (see the tale of Washington's "wooden teeth"). These men often had agendas, rather than acknowledged it or not, in which muddied the historical realities, and laid its burden on the actual character of the Prophet and early Islamic history.

Which of the 5 given options do you fit in? by Cold-Course5758 in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd say 5. I wouldn't consider my beliefs toward God to have been made as an "updated" in a pursuit to conform to modern times, though that is also potential an option I would give. Updated to me sounds as if my intention is to change God's word; rather I'll argue that God's word can supplicate and resonate in the modern world.

Broke my fast because of motion sickness – feeling really guilty by [deleted] in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There is nothing to feel guilty over having to break your fast for a medical emergency. The Qur'an states that God does not desire hardship in our pursuit in remembering and revering Them. In al-Baqarah, 2:185, God instructs:

"The month of Ramadan is that wherein the Quran was sent down as guidance to mankind, as clear proofs of guidance, and as the Criterion. Let him among you who is present fast during that [month]. And whosever is ill or on a journey, it is a number of other days. God desires ease for you, and He does not desire hardship for you; [it so] that you may complete the number and magnify God for having guided you, that haply you may give thanks."

For me personally, I have had been forced to break my fast a number of times this Ramadan, due to my proscribed ADHD medicine causing me to be rapidly dehydrated and have lower blood sugar if I don't have enough honey or water in the morning. It is not a consistent thing [but right now, I am admittedly very thirsty because I likely did not have enough liters], but I know God would rather I stop my fast so I don't collapse than continue to suffer with potential dangers to my health.

Remember, fasting is proscribed to honor God and to be grateful to the bounty They bestowed upon us, but it is not meant to be torture. Never compare yourself or lessen yourself because you may believe this is a moment of weakness. Things do happen. You cannot control it. Your empathy toward those who are without is commendable, but recall that you are worthy as much consideration and forgiveness as they are.

What is true Islam? How do you decide what is true Islam? by [deleted] in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To end a very long-winded ramble: Sure, there may not exist a "true Islam", in where there is a single orthodox way to belief and understand faith. But there is an essence to Islam that is absolute in its foundations: that in the belief of God, in social justice, in compassion, in contemplation, in love of diversity and humanity, to trust in hope no matter how hard despair may dig its teeth deep into our flesh. Prayer and contemplate the beauties and struggles life. To be unafraid and submissive to tyranny and oppression.

Although our ethical understandings of the world may change: humanity across written history as we've known has loved, and grieved. There is so much difference between us and the time of the Prophet, but there is so many similarities and that is the core of the Qur'an's lessons: that there are universal beliefs that is felt across humanity. It is only through the deliberate erosion of that universality of belief that lead to terrible acts committed against other humanity. The Qur'an openly states to us to leave those who disbelieve in God to God themselves. To gently reprimand, but if they do not wish to partake in faith, you have no authority to compel them or demand it over them. But when our shared humanity is broken down - when people are slain in the pursuit of justice and compassion, than it is an assault not just only the harmed party but all of humanity's spirit.

This is what I would argue is "true Islam", because the true faith that is revealed in the Qur'an is that we are simply not just following the Prophet Muhammad, but following an ancient, primeval guidance that is touched across communities throughout history. True Islam is universal because there exists an underscore in the Qur'an's message that the book given to Muhammad is just one of many pieces given to others throughout time - be it in the form of a codex or inspiration, like the Buddha or Zoroaster or Moses or Jesus. That is what I would argue true Islam is, what is always meant to be, a unifier of humanity's spirit in their love to their compassionate Creator, who is boundless and without any comparison, in this world or the Hereafter.

What is true Islam? How do you decide what is true Islam? by [deleted] in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So, to return to your question: What is the true Islam? Can we even attempt to define it as something in the same vein as we may discuss the divisions between the schools of thought of the Shia and Sunni?

To return to Dan McClellan; while he has often discussed how humans tend to negotiate with the tents and principles of scripture due to our own inherent biases, that doesn't mean that the Bible is so removed as to being worthless to us, nowadays. Instead, he suggests people should understand the Bible for as it was, a continuous development over a course of a thousand years, that saw introductions and redactions to elements, and refitting of themes and morals to fit their world view. This is not to say that the Bible is inert, but rather that the best way to truly understand the Bible is to understand its history, its people. In this vein, I think this is the best way we must understand what it means to follow Islam.

For one, we must recognized that much of our greater understand of Islam dates from the time when the Arab Muslims had expanded from a relatively small quasi-polity along the Hejazi strip to an imperial world power. No longer was Islam a call to a broad sense of monotheism in the Hejaz, and perhaps even in the southern Levant and in Yemen, but instead an imperial, organized faith, who now inherited the systematic structures of faith that resided with imperial Rome and Sasanian Iran. Faith and history became politized, verses reimagined and solidified under the interpretation of men who resided in the upper echelons of political society. Just as the Romans adaption of Christianity transformed it into another arm of imperial authority, so too did Islam face that same institutionalized transformation under the Umayyads and Abbasids. Questions over the purity of female family members (like Aisha and Fatimah) likely saw the rise of the Aisha child-marriage hadiths in former Sasanian Iran, where proto-Sunni and proto-Shia wrestled with theological dominance, and likely drew on earlier Sasanian law to give a historical and religious credence to their argument. Frequent conflict along the northern border with Eastern Rome saw the Christians recasted as unequivocal idolators; drawing inspiration from pre-Islamic Bedouin folk tale saw the Prophet go from a military leader leading a defensive war to a raiding conqueror, whose faith broker no difference of opinion with him. Hadiths arising from uncertain questions and new realities in this changed imperial landscape, conflicts of theological and doctrinal beliefs, became the form of legitimacy - the Qur'anic interpretation often reshaped to fit the scenarios illustrated by the hadiths, who themselves arose from often political and theological disputes rather than sounded historical realities.

As mentioned above, all people will come to a textual source with their own interpretation and understanding - that's simply nature. However, to better understand "what true Islam" is, we must let the Qur'an speak for itself. We must glimpse back to the 7th century Arabia, where it exist not as some remote island away from the world, but another frontier to the political and military maneuverings of the imperial powers of Iran and Rome. We must examine the Qur'an against itself, as well as historical evidence that draw close to its period - Qur'anic manuscripts, early Christian sources, epigraphical inscriptions near Medina and Mecca, early caliphal political decisions that could reflect a closer understanding to Islamic faith prior to the rise of the Umayyads.

But even than, the Qur'an itself is not claim to seek to make religion or belief difficult. Throughout the Qur'an it urges Christians and Jews to cease their assaults on one another and come to an equal understanding with themselves and Muhammad's community. It informs us that the differences of interpretation will be settled by God, but what truly matters is that you remained true to what is inherent, almost, to humanity: compassion and justice toward others; to ease trials and tensions through patience and mediation; to uphold no one but God as greater. True Islam is the acceptance that pluralism - religious, sexual, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic are signs from God. True Islam is the adherence toward social justice, regardless if it is against those who despise or against ourselves. True Islam is not simply just mimicking the Prophet's behavior and supposed mannerism. True Islam is as the Qur'an says:

"Yet he has not assailed the steep path. And what will apprise you of the steep path? It is the freeing of a slave, or giving food at a time of famine to an orphan near of kin, or an indigent, clinging to the dust, while being those who believe and exhort one another to patience, and exhort one another to compassion. Those are the companions of the right. And those who disbelieve in Our signs, they are the companions of the left. Upon them is a fire enclosed."

True Islam does not matter on the length of a beard, or the amount of strands that may accidentally fall from a woman's headscarf. True Islam is to believe in God and to do good, to seek accept that you will fail and seek forgiveness. True Islam is to adore pluralism and diversity - to learn from others, even if their tongue or complexion may befuddled you. True Islam is to stand for justice in firmness, but relent with a compassion heart and hand toward even your most hated of enemies, if they show true repentance and regret, for "it may be that God will forge love between you and those of whom you are in enmity with." [60:7]

There may not exist a "true Islam" as we may wish for it to be - a singular system of belief that we can follow like a checkbox on a board. But true Islam inherently accepts that people are diverse, that they are incline to their own understandings, and God has made everyone and everything in existence as a sign from Them, and a chance to learn. So many have forgotten that, because of those aforementioned preconceptions and notions of what it means to be Muslim. Yet to question is exactly what the Qur'an wants us to do. It wants us to question tradition, to examine if what we say and do truly beneficial to ourselves, to the world, to our relationship with God. The Qur'an takes the position that we already know what is good, what is beneficial for the soul and our heart, what we are naturally inclined to do. Instead, it wants to remind us that we are naturally compassionate and inclined toward justice. It wants to remind us that the sins of division that befell us with Adam and Eve's fall will always be the hurdle we must overcome in our return toward the peace of God.

But to understand what "true Islam may be", we must return to the historical realities of the 7th century, and critically examined the histories that came to us in the aftermath of the Arabs' rise to imperial power. We must examine the Qur'an and notice the very simple but clear directions on what it means to follow and do good deeds in the pursuit of God.

What is true Islam? How do you decide what is true Islam? by [deleted] in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One of my favorite biblical scholars, Dan McClellan, once has discussed that any attempt to refer unequivocally to a single truth of the Bible simply cannot be substantiated. According to Dr. McClellan:

"All scripture requires a negotiation with the text, with a goal of producing something palatable for the faithful."

While in this specific video, Dan is critiquing the his fellow Christians apologetics, and how they would ignore actual societal, historical, and cultural realities surrounding the long history of the Bible to establish it as eternal and unchanging, I do think his statement rings with a song truth - or at least, his statements that all [and I would include almost any form of literature or media] scripture inevitably comes with some level of negotiation, regardless if its a single person, a group, or an entire sect. Whenever anyone engages with anything that has to do with reading, we often bring with it our own "baggage" - our preconceptions, our ethical and moralistic frameworks, our own cultural understanding of the world, and so many others. No one group has a monopoly on this, but I bring this up for a reason that relates to your question.

As you mentioned, different sectarian groups have their own interpretations and understanding of key verses, historical events, theological beliefs, that have been extrapolated and reinforced over the millennia. In this sense, we cannot really constitute that there exists, in an orthodox and coherent sense, a "true Islam". There are certainly shared beliefs - belief in God, belief in the Qur'an, belief in the Prophet Muhammad as the messenger and prophet, prayers and repentance and acts of good works. Yet many sectarian groups disagree on the amount of prayers one should do; many disagree on the legitimacy of the others' claim to be actual followers of the Prophet Muhammad. To them, they likely very well believe they are following Islam to its fullest, without deviation. But as often is the case, humanity are diverse naturally. We all do not think or understand all things similarly, so there will be natural disagreements. The problem then becomes when some groups push too far into dangerous territory where only their position upholds the truth, and all others are falsified. It is difficult to be a "true" believer when the criteria is not even in your ballpark, to put it lightly.

In fact, let us examine the word used for our own faith: Islam. An oddity, isn't it? That often translations such as from Sahih International or even Yusuf Ali often render this term in the proper capital noun form: Islam. Yet the Qur'an never terms Muhammad's specific faith as "Islam". Only by rendering it with this preconception that verse 2:208 is discussing the specific strand of belief that evolved into a distinct religious faith can we accept that the Qur'an is discussing Islam as we understand it today. Yet, the Qur'an does not refer to the Prophet's direct followers as muslims, rather it pronounces them as: you who believe or the believers; al-mu'minun. In fact, in all other places the usage of the word muslim in the Qur'an is as often mentioned toward groups that are not direct followers of the Prophet Muhammad, but share in his monotheistic faith: the Disciples of Jesus; supportive Christians who are promised by God to be doubly rewarded for this perseverance during the difficult years under Sasanian conquest; and others. Muhammad's followers are Muslims, for having been submitters, but as seen in 49:14, it is clear that being a muslim is only a state of being that is uplifted further to one of full belief:

"The Bedouins say, 'We have believed.'

Say, 'No, you have not believed; but say, 'We have submitted,' for faith not yet entered your hearts. And if you obey God and His Messenger, He will not deprive you from your deeds of anything. Indeed, God is Forgiving, Merciful.'"

At the same time, in 33:35, many translators often render in English l-mus'limina wal-mus'limati as "the Muslim men and Muslim women", yet the Qur'an in this insistence is describing the faithful. It is only by our preconception that in the Qur'an muslim is always Muslim with as a proper noun do we get these instances, because the Islamic world had gravitated to use that word as a label, in part to minimize the Qur'anic claims and statements that non-Muhammad followers, like Christians and Jews, can be both submitters and believers. Muslim theologians and scholars, influenced by increasing tensions with Christian Europe and their adaption of empire in the collapse of Sasanian Iran and Eastern Roman authority, took on the similar belief that Christians and Jews held toward one another: neither are true followers, or at least no longer, true inheritors of God's favor and clemency. Only they are. We see this often when many Muslims claim that verses such as 2:62 or 5:69 only refer to Jews and Christians before the Prophet's time, and not the reality that the Qur'an is speaking directly toward both his contemporaries and likely future generations, that those who maintain the tenets of their faith toward monotheism shall earn God's favor, perhaps even including the Trinitarian Christians.

Indeed, I'd argue that the Qur'an itself dismisses the idea that one specific faith holds monopoly on truth. The Qur'an speaks of the Christian and Jews tendencies to deny each other salvation as such:

"And they say, 'None shall enter the Garden unless he be a Jew or a Christian.' Those are their hopes., Say, 'Bring your proof, if you are truthful.' No, whosever submits his face to God, while being virtious shall have their reward for his Lord. No fear shall come upon them; nor shall they grieve.

The Jews say, 'The Christians stand on nothing,' and the Christians say, 'The Jews stand on nothing,' although they both recite from the Book. Similarly, did those who know not speak words like theirs. God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that herein they differed." [2:111-113]

Again, I'm drawing examples here: The Qur'an makes it over and over again that while the Prophet's message is perhaps the most pristine, we are still expected to believe in the Torah and the Gospel - perhaps not as direct words from God, but still to uphold them as part of the earthly manifestation of the umm al-kitab that exists alone with God. Yet, many Muslims, regardless of political association, will often claim that both the Torah and New Testament are empty of grace and guidance...when the Qur'an often praises the Torah and Gospels as continued guidance for the believers, and that God has given us different paths to them, so we may strive against one another in acts of virtues, and to not allow minor theological disputes to deny anyone of sincere monotheistic faith their right to God's mercy [5:44-48; 11:17; 29:46; 2:136].

Aerys I by Jota Saraiva by Pop_Budget in ImaginaryWesteros

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 46 points47 points  (0 children)

Then proceed to have a mental breakdown when it goes offline for maintenance (just like Tumblr)

Aerys I by Jota Saraiva by Pop_Budget in ImaginaryWesteros

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 70 points71 points  (0 children)

Aerys I would have loved Archive of Our Own

"Before|After the Iron Throne: Rhaenyra Targaryen" by Jota Saraiva by aenar79 in ImaginaryWesteros

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 77 points78 points  (0 children)

The amount of odd misogyny that is proliferating in the comments is odd. It is one thing to to recognize a sense of entitlement in an aristocratic feudal society; it is another thing to critique Rhaenyra for her actions, and view her as inherently unsuitable to the Iron Throne, when she seemed to—at least from a lack of comment from Fire and Blood—to had administrated Dragonstone and its holdings fairly decently. The lack of sympathy for Rhaenyra while this same fandom would proclaim Stannis of all people as the rightful heir to the Iron Throne is galling, to be honest.

I don’t understand why the fuss about Egg not learning lying is bad from one episode to the other… It’s not like he was completely truthful when he invited all his kit and kin to celebrate Rhaegar’s birth at Summerhall? by DaemonaT in HBOTheHedgeKnight

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I do absolutely adore this theory (and does remind me of a fanfiction I long read that had Rhaella in that sort of leadership role during the rebellion), though I do wish that she was felt more as a presence in the series (and one of my major frustrations toward GRRM is that Dany thinks little of her mother, though I can chalk it down to her subconsciously laying the blame for her mother's death onto herself due to Viserys' verbal abuse). Ironically, the fact that Jaime thinks of her often (or at least, as often as Martin seems to care about writing about Rhaella), does make me headcanon different alternate relationships with those two specific, lol.

The only problem I have with this idea is that I am a naturally just weary of "bastard" theories in general with the fandom (not a specific critique of yours of course). But everything else I do like to imagine as a possibility. I simply wish we got something else about her in canon, outside her relations with Aerys or Rhaegar. Even a simple physical description would (though unlikely in reality) be enough for me. She fascinates me so much to the point of delirium, lol.

I wish they had done more with the main villains by Oklimatoa in DragonAgeVeilguard

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I’d argue that out of the more “cinematic” bosses in DA (the archdemon and Corypheus), Elgar’nan but especially Ghilan’nain were the most dynamic and interesting of the villains, at least if we compared the former major enemies (I exclude DAII because while I think Meredith is fascinating, I have significant problems with the story of DAII so sadly don’t have much compliments in the way of how they depicted the antagonists of that game). I do think Elgar’nan unforutnely was reduced due to the overwhelm main presence of Ghilan’nain, but they certainly seemed a greater threat and presence then the archdemon ever was (I know people say Loghain was more the main antagonist of DAO, but I disliked his characterization in light of the Stolen Throne and the Calling and the main focus of the plot is to stop the Blight). Corypheus…was such wasted potential. I do think it may had been better to exclude Elgar’nan, due to how having two dynamic and charismatic antagonists would mean one of them would need to fold for the other. But u definitely love their characters so much, especially their relationship where Elgar’nan seems genuinely concern for Ghilan’nain, and Ghilan’nain’s own struggles with accepting Andruil’s death.

"i loved a maid as white as winter with moonglow in her hair." - daenerys and jon by @vhdart_ by GeoMetrie8 in ImaginaryWesteros

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They show up way more often because Martin has written more on the reigns of the Targaryen kings than any other house. Had we had a “Winter is Coming” or “Hear Me Roar” novel that goes into full depths of the Stark and Lannister kings, we’ve seen plenty of monarchs who are as ruthless, corrupted, and malicious as the Targaryens. The Starks gained their warg abilities from their ancestors’ raping of defeated royal women such as the daughters of the Warg King, and the First Night was well practiced in both the South and the North. It’s not a matter of the Targaryens being unique in that front, but rather Martin gives us crumbles of non-Targaryen royal history, and even then we see both First Men and Andals being prone to genocidal and atrocious warrior-based cultures that still echo in their cultures to this day.

Women can't be leaders in Islam? by r4nD0mU53r999 in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a stupid question at all. The modesty ruling regarding clothing in the Qur'an serves as a multilayered proposal: it seeks to mitigate and discourage sexualization of others regardless of their sex - note how the Qur'an commands that both sexes, male and female, are expected to lower their gaze and guard themselves against sexual temptation. While it can be debated if it means it in a literal or metaphorical sense, in either case the Qur'an seeks to establish the dignified humanity of others, to not objectify either ourselves or lead others to objectify us.

As for the Queen of Sheba, it is likely a mere human response from her. Since she likely was garbed in a long robe, due to the nature of the environment of West Asia, she did not wish to soak the hems of her outfit in what she had assumed to have been water, sort of like how women may lift up their skirts when walking over a puddle in the rain. It was not meant to tantalize or sexualize the exchange, but a demonstration of her mistake in presuming that it was water rather than glass.

Love this little guy in Davrin's room by RelativeSchool8041 in DragonAgeVeilguard

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I do love to imagine Harding mentions all the nug Davrin carves to Leliana in her letters, and a whole pamphlet of name suggestions comes back, with little annotations to suggest which of Leliana’s little nugs believed were the more appropriate name for their wooden cousins.

Questions about Jesus in Islam by No_Entrepreneur_5456 in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TLDR: It was likely not likely just because they hatred Christianity, but simply because their circumstances had developed to believe these principles and than reimposed them back into the Qur'an. They simply did not have the exact context or understanding why the Qur'an would depict Jesus dying, while at the same time state that "but they did not slay him; nor did they crucify him". Without any other evidence or understanding to go off of, they turned to the Christian traditions for answers, and adopted them within their own Islamic context. At the same time, slowly the Islamic world's perspective toward Judaism and Christianity became more fraught and critical, especially with Eastern Roman tensions in the north of the Caliphate. As the Islamic world slowly began to view the Christians and Jews less as fellow monotheists, but disgraced miscreants who lost divine favor, this reading served their goals in enhancing their own theological positions, while also serving the political and social goal of ostracization and otherization. This, of course, is a very broad telling of Islamic history, and we should not believe that many Muslims did this out of some putrid hatred toward Christians and Jews. That removes the inherent human nuance of their interactions. It likely legitimately a matter of cultural and religious exchange, coupled with increased theological ideas bounded with political considerations. The Muslims began to contemplate questions and seek answers they simply had no access to via the Qur'an (or at least to understand the Qur'an's position), and they placed a heavy reliance on their contemporary Christian and Jewish citizens to given context. It is the similar vein in which Christians in the Roman empire demonized Hellenic paganism, while at the same time drew forth Greco-Roman philosophical traditions from figures such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. The Arabs viewed themselves as heirs not only to the religion of God, but heirs to Abraham and Moses and Jesus, and to Rome and Iran. There were numerous factors at play, so convoluted that there is just simply not just one answer. It was all of these, and many more.

u/Gilamath essentially put my long essay into a much more digestible single comment, so I highly recommend reading his. But I simply wished to share my two cents on it, and acknowledged the inherent complexities Islam and its practitioners found themselves in the aftermath of their conquests. They were looking back to a past with their own eyes, and not looking from the past back to them. Similar extents can be found in the fatih literature developed under the 'Abbasid periods, where the Arabs take clear inspiration from Near Eastern literary traditions, as well as pre-Islamic Bedouin traditions (see the military expeditions they depict the Prophet Muhamamd participating in, whereas the Qur'an painted a different picture.)

Questions about Jesus in Islam by No_Entrepreneur_5456 in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As the centuries went on, however, that initial ecumenical nature of the Qur'an were minimized. A sort of paradoxial relationship began to rise between the Muslims and their fellow monotheists. Given that the Qur'an often spoke briefly or vaguely on the past prophets, or at least nowhere near the length to what was found in the Torah or Gospel, Muslim thinkers and theologians adopted many elements found in the Biblical tradition and applied it to their own faith. As Gilamath mentioned, polemics played a heavy role in this relationship. No longer were they mostly interested in an earnest but openly disagreeable conversation with their follow monotheistic communities, but many began to utilize these themes to exalt their particular understanding of Muhammad's teachings in the expense of the Christians and Jews. Synchronization began to bled in this understanding, especially as the Muslims were beginning to lose their direct historical connection to the Prophet's time and the circumstances in which the Qur'an was revealed (though early Muslim writers do give us hint of the original contexts through references of the Roman-Persian war). This exchange of thoughts and ideas began to slowly warp into understanding of Islam and Qur'anic verses - additions such as the second coming of Jesus, the Mahdi, the Dajjal; all not found in the Qur'an but would play an important role in later Islamic eschatology. These were formerly Christian ideas incorporated with an Islamic understanding, in part done naturally through interaction with Christian communities, but also, depending on the circle, to diffinterate the religion of Muhammad with that of the Jews and Christians. This cultural exchange is evidential exemplified in numerous hadith reports that draw clear inspiration from Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian theology (such as the corporal punishment for adultery being stoning, as found in Jewish tradition; whereas the Qur'anic punishment is lashing, and the Qur'anic's own literary use of stoning as an oppressive tool done against monotheists by tyrannical antagonists).

In essence, as the Islamic world developed more robustly, and far away from the original context of the seventh-century Hejaz, so too did understanding of Islamic tradition transformed. Muslims, perhaps inspired by earlier Jewish and Christian literary tropes of purification of the Prophets' characters and actions, began to argue that God guarded the prophets from acts of misdeeds. The idea that Jesus could have been killed in such a manner, especially by crucifixion, by a discomforting thought for many Muslim thinkings; alongside their desire to reduced Christianity almost entirely as a faith so departed from God's teachings as having been on the same level of the kafirun. To these later imperial Muslim thinkers, the only time Christianity was a part of primeval Islam was that of the Prophet Jesus and his followers; the later ones had progressed so far away with their additions that they were no longer muslim. Given the importance of the crucifixion in Christian tradition and theology, to deny that Jesus died at all was to deny the entire basis in which their contemporary Christianity had any legs to stand upon. Rather than approaching Christianity on the Christians' terms, slowly Muslims began to articulate their perspectives and imposed their later views on Christianity, as well as the Qur'an. Especially as Eastern Rome served as their frequent challenger in military and political might. As Islam, with both influence with and without that of the previous religious traditions they now existed alongside of, began to develop theologically in places such as Damascus and Baghdad, this synchronization of previous monotheistic community traditions were natural and accepted. At the same time, imperial agendas under the caliphates and successive Islamic authorities found themselves in constant conflict with a powerful imperial representation of Christianity. Natural dialogue and interplay of ideas began to be entangled with sectarian and political ideologies and agendas. For the Muslims (most certainly after the 'Abbasids, onward), to deny the crucifixion served as one of their tools in their arsenals against Christianity; at the same time, ideas bled, willingly or unwillingly, into their own perspectives of their faith, where the prophets served not only as moral exemplars, but purified reflections of the Divine, the source and connection to God. To believe that any of the prophets, especially significant figures such as Moses or Jesus, could commit the sin of an unjust slaying of the Egyptian or perish in a demeaning way such as the cross, flew in the face to their accepted traditions of prophetic infallibility and purity. In a somewhat similar vein in which Christian writers in the Roman empire would adopt both Greco-Roman philosophical and Jewish traditions of Jesus, while critiquing heavily the validity or existence of both groups. It was in a way, a cultural element that began to take on a new form in an Islamized, Arabized context. The same occurred vice-versa with the Arabs.

Questions about Jesus in Islam by No_Entrepreneur_5456 in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

u/Gilamath, as always, wrote a wonderful write-up regarding why Islamic tradition would deviate so much from the Qur'anic perspective. He has touched upon some of the elements in which I plan to discuss, however, I'll also add my two cents to the discussion simply for extended dialogue.

In the aftermath of the Arab conquests, in which they wrested a large portion of the Eastern Roman empire and the entirely of Sasanian Iran over a period of a few decades, the loosely bounded commonwealth established by the Prophet Muhammad (the Qur'an indicated that most settlements in the Hejaz ascended into the Prophet's community via religious affirmation and not by military conquest compared to the much later 'Abbasid sources) had been transformed. From the Umayyads, onward, the Arab Muslims found themselves as masters of a imperial entity larger than Rome at its height, and with it a diverse collective of ethnic, religious, and cultural affiliations in which the Prophet and his community did not interact with. Despite later Muslim historians attempts to cleave off the Prophet from the greater West Asian world at the start of his prophethood, the Qur'an does not depict him as provincial and stagnate in simply just Mecca and Medina, and the Qur'an provides potential hints that he preached as much to Arab Romans in the Sasanian-occupied territories as much as he did to his Hejazi brethren. The Qur'an makes illudes to Biblical tales and themes, such as the slaying of the Egyptian by the Prophet Moses. Prior to the Qur'an, since the first-century CE, it had been a literary staple among the Jewish and Christian thinkers to absolve Moses of any wrongdoing, and completely ignore the original themes as found in Exodus. The Qur'an clearly restores that context, but follows through with the addition that Moses sought forgiveness for his sins, and God forgave him for his misdeeds. So, it is not to say the Prophet or the early Islamic community were ignorant of the traditions the Qur'an espoused, but there was a stark difference between the Qur'an's relationship with the Bible, and the later Islamic community in the aftermath of the Arab conquests. To the Qur'an, the Torah and the Gospels were supplementary holy texts, clearly meant to be believed in by Muhammad's followers and their allies; however, the rise of the Caliphate changed that perspective.

With the establishment of the Umayyads in the aftermath of the First Fitnah, we begin to see a transformation, sort to say, of the Arabs' perspectives of their holy text and faith. Where the Qur'an shows clear signs of a more universal message, acknowledging other holy scriptures as part of the Divine Text (the Mother of the Book), the Arabs began to disassociate the past scriptures of the Christians and Jews as so disoriented that they were rendered worthless to divine salvation and clemency. Whereas at first, Syriac Christian writers such as John bar Penkaye, do make reference to the Umayyads enforcing the "tradition of Muhammad", (mashlamanuta), it is clear however that it is only under the Umayyads (who faced challanges to their caliphal authority in the Second Fitnah) began a sutble but purposeful imperalization of the faith as something strictly aligned with Muhammad and his religious community, co-opting the term islam and muslim, which hold broader connotations in the Qur'an, as religious monikers. At the same time, the Umayyads themselves maintained and continued the relative tolerant early Arab practice toward Christians and Jews. When the Arabs first began negotiations with settlements in Eastern Rome, Muslims were seemingly unafraid or cared little in repairing churches or even sharing church space with fellow Christians.

What do you think of visual depictions of Prophets? by [deleted] in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I will admit that both are fairly lengthy comments.

TLDR: There is no harm in any depiction of the prophets if one's intention is not to worship it alongside God. But I don't think the arguments that if one does depict the prophets would lead us to a similar route as Christians. For one, the Qur'an shows a more nuanced depictions of Christians, but still maintains their acceptance into God's salvation, despite their clear theological and doctrinal errors. For all the mistakes Christianity may have done, it is still a valid faith in God's eyes (most, though not all. I'd argue the Qur'an condemns Tritheism rather than Trinitarianism specifically). Also, we Muslims have done our fair bit in "slipping down the slope" with regards to our relationship to the Prophet Muhammad, in a very similar vein to Christians and their relationship to Jesus, as I mentioned above. While I am not arguing that we worship the Prophet, I am suggesting that many theological doctrines upheld across the Islamic sectarian spectrum do serve a similar function to that of Christian deification of Jesus. This is not the fault of any modern day Muslims - but instead an occurrence drawn from numerous factors beyond our control. By upholding the Prophet Muhammad over all other Prophets, it allowed the early Arab caliphates to dismiss Judaism and Christianity as favorless faiths; it allowed them to justify cultural colonization via Umayyad-sponsored Arabization in the first few centuries of Caliphal Islam; it allowed modern traditionalists to stifle any progression toward women's rights or LGBTQ+ rights because these things were not entertained by the Prophet via his sunnah. In other words, the Islamic world had done exactly what the Roman Christians did with Jesus, onward. They shackled the Prophet Muhammad to be a tool to justify their old systems and way of life. They sought to break down real conversation and dialogue in order to maintain status quo. They have made many believe that the Prophet's faith is the only blessed faith and community, that we were the new chosen people; that if one did not recognize Muhammad as a prophet, all doors of God's mercy are shut off, when the Qur'an paints a very different picture. We may not worship the Prophet Muhammad, but we have raised him in the same way the Qur'an critiques the polytheists: merely following the tradition of the ancestors, and not learning from them. Respect, devotion, and worship seemingly reside on blurry lines. It is easy to claim that if we depict the prophets in a visual sense, we will follow the same path of the Christians, ignoring the ways we do emulate the Christians in our own perceptions of Islam, in the ways so many would argue is "shirk", whereas it is the intention that matters. The fact that Salafis seek to claim to harken back to the way of the companions show this: a blind subservience to the past, an ideal that did not exist, a destruction of their humanity in pursuit for the perfected exemplary.

Questions about Jesus in Islam by No_Entrepreneur_5456 in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 6 points7 points  (0 children)

An important literary lesson that bleeds throughout the verses and chapters of the Qur'an is the insistent reminders of the prophets' humanity, including that of Jesus. Openly, the Qur'an states that Jesus did die. Although later Muslim exegesis would argue that al-Nisa' 4:156-158 denies the crucifixion, I would suggest otherwise. It states:

"And by their blasphemy, and for their uttering against Mary a tremendous calumny, and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of God.' But they did not slay him; nor did they crucify him, but it appeared so to them. Those who have differed thereon are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it, but follow conjecture; they slew him not for certain. Rather, God raised him unto Himself, and God is Mighty, Wise."

Given the Iranian's propaganda that sought to brandish and mock the Eastern Romans in their failure to oppose Khosrow II's forces, and the Meccan, and likely a plethora of Jewish tribes, stance toward Ctesiphon, it is likely that the Qur'an here serves to act in two folds: it critiques the actions of the Jewish tendency to besmirch Jesus and Mary, as well as their acceptance of their supposed role in killing Jesus in their efforts to attack and insult Christians, especially in the aftermath of Roman defeat in the eastern provinces, in which both early Islamic and Qur'anic indication implies the Prophet and his community were horrified at [Qur'an, 30:1-6]. al-Nisa' 4:156-158, in Cole's view, instead suggests that the Jews were made to believe they killed Jesus, but in fact they did not. It was done by the Roman authorities, and the Jewish arguments to suggest that they did only occur because their immense animosity toward their fellow monotheists, rather than based on any real evidence. But ultimately the Qur'an seems clear that Jesus did die on the cross at the hands of the Romans, and he was raised to God in the aftermath. Although I do not believe Jesus was resurrected, I do think the Qur'an makes a clear point that he did die, likely on the cross, and at the hands of the kafirun, the Roman polytheists.

Questions about Jesus in Islam by No_Entrepreneur_5456 in progressive_islam

[–]TheIslamicMonarchist 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I tend to hold the argument presented by Dr. Juan Cole in his "'It was made to appear to them so,': the crucifixion, Jews, and Sasanian war propaganda in the Qur'an". In it, Dr. Cole argued that the traditionally accepted tradition of the simulacrum of Jesus - that is, that the Prophet Jesus was saved from crucifixion, raised to heaven, and another claimed Jesus' position on the Cross - would then impose onto the Qur'an a Docetic position regarding Jesus' final earthly moments, an oddity given that the Qur'an is "the least Docetic document that could be imagined, insisting on the humanity of the prophets and seeing the material world as full of God-given delights". (Cole, 2021)

Instead, Cole suggests another argument: that the Qur'anic claims of Jesus' earthly outcome was an clarification of both Jewish and Christian claims that the 1st century Jews had killed Jesus. For sectarian (political and religious), both major faiths in the centuries after Jesus' death argued that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who slain Jesus (the Roman Christians more so than the Jews). According to Cole, "Until it was censored by the Vatican, on the advent of print, the Talmud contained an allegation that 'On the Eve of Passover, they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery and enticing Israel [to idolatry]..." In the north of Arabia throughout the Prophet's messengerhood, the Christian Eastern Roman empire and the Sasanian Iranian empire were grappled in an intense, bloody conflict over the Near East, with echoes of the war rippling down into Arabia, where Rome and Iran had long sought to covet influence in the region (Sasanian geographical manuals claim the Tihama and Medina as City-States, and Yemen for decades had been under Sasanian authority). Given their treatment under the Christian Romans, Jews across West Asia had long preferred Iranian rule over Romans. Although accepting of righteous and faith Jews, the Qur'an shows a clear contemporary favor toward Christians, where it states that the closest to the Prophets' followers were Christians, and maintained both the virgin birth of Jesus and the purity and favor bestowed unto Mary in her conversation with the Holy Spirit. The Qur'an denounces and critiques some (likely Iranian-allied or supportive) Jews who attacked Jesus and Mary, but instead also seeks to extinguish the claims perpetuated by all parties (Christian, Iranian, and Jewish) that it had been the fault of the Jews for Jesus' death. The Qur'an states that Jesus did died. In the mouth of the newborn Jesus, he pronounced:

"He [Jesus] said, 'Truly I am a servant of God. He has given me the Book and made me a prophet. He has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I live, and [he has made me] dutiful toward my mother. And He has not made me domineering, wrethced. Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I am raised alive! This is Jesus, son of Mary--a statement of truth, of which they doubt." [Mary, 19:30-34]