Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm looking for some factual, unbiased history concerning Muhammad and Islam in particular, and also about the Crusades. When I do some web searching, I tend to find the extreme camps-the Islamic side, all "PUBHey" and about how peaceful and what a "perfect man" Muhammad is. And then the other side that portrays him as a warlord, a conquerer, a man who practiced or at least supported rape and slave trading, and a pedophile with a 6 year old wife. Some paint the Crusades as Christian aggression-others as a battle to free oppressed and enslaved people from the rule of Islamists. Did Muhammad promote "kill the infidels"?
So-what are some good sources to go to for a relatively unbiased discussion and education? (I don't want to post on the Islam forum-it's basically nothing but Islamic propaganda and even asking questions will get you CD prison). Can we have a factual discussion? Thanks.
There are a number of good books that are not written by the faithful on either side.
A History of the Arab Peoples by Hourani is very highly regarded and covers the history of Islam in full context. Like many subjects on which a reader is uninformed and lacks a grounding, it's too easy to read about Islam in a very narrow focus that pays little attention to the overall context of times, nations, other religions etc.
Such as... Islam is an Abrahamic faith, the third iteration of what became Judaism. Islam worships Jesus (Isa)... as one of the prophets, not the messiah. If you hold or go into this exploration with the common notion that Islam is something made up from whole cloth (or gold plates) in the 600's C.E. (aka 0 A.H.), your bias will keep you from understanding things even on a secular level.
Once you understand the long history and general culture, reading more specifically about Islam will... be more productive.
Also understanding that the Muslim factions causing the most trouble in today's world are the equivalent of fanatic Baptists who want to kill everyone they can't bring to Jesus and rewrite the Constitution as a religious document. You probably don't think all "Christians" fall into that category; leaving any such notion about Muslims behind at the door will be a good start.
FWIW, Baptists may be seen as the face of religion in the South, but they are rarely fanatic. Church of God, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, et al are the more fundamentalist Christian religions.
Trying to make sense of the more recent religions without examining the roots misses all the context that went into their creation and evolution. Once you have a grasp of the previous religions and cultures, it becomes possible to read with some understanding of author bias AND how spin, misinterpretations, and politics twisted history into myth and/or allegory.
FWIW, Baptists may be seen as the face of religion in the South, but they are rarely fanatic. Church of God, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, et al are the more fundamentalist Christian religions.
Conceded. I was in the middle of the rise of the SBC and it remains my touchstone for inexplicable dogmatism and fanatic nonsense.
Quote:
Trying to make sense of the more recent religions without examining the roots misses all the context that went into their creation and evolution. Once you have a grasp of the previous religions and cultures, it becomes possible to read with some understanding of author bias AND how spin, misinterpretations, and politics twisted history into myth and/or allegory.
What you didn't quite express with that is that you have to read about religion as history... not as or from gospels or condemnation tracts. Many historical figures did things the reader does not have to like or even fully understand; knowing that Mohammed did this or that should stand on its own, not be a trigger for religious bias (or conversion). Or Joseph Smith. Or David Koresh. Or Jesus, for that matter.
I'm looking for some factual, unbiased history concerning Muhammad and Islam in particular, and also about the Crusades. When I do some web searching, I tend to find the extreme camps-the Islamic side, all "PUBHey" and about how peaceful and what a "perfect man" Muhammad is. And then the other side that portrays him as a warlord, a conquerer, a man who practiced or at least supported rape and slave trading, and a pedophile with a 6 year old wife. Some paint the Crusades as Christian aggression-others as a battle to free oppressed and enslaved people from the rule of Islamists. Did Muhammad promote "kill the infidels"?
So-what are some good sources to go to for a relatively unbiased discussion and education? (I don't want to post on the Islam forum-it's basically nothing but Islamic propaganda and even asking questions will get you CD prison). Can we have a factual discussion? Thanks.
I can't help you with Muhammad. There is inevitably an issue when researching historical figures who are also religious icons, as most of the scholarship into those figures tends to be undertaken by the faithful who obviously have skin in the game. You'll find the same dynamic trying to have a factual discussion about Jesus and/or the Apostles, for example.
Moving onto the Crusades, you seem to be equating them with Islam, so I gather you're primarily (maybe solely) interested in them to the extent that they targeted Islam. For this, I recommend Thomas Asbridge's The Crusades. Also, if you'd like to focus on perhaps the two most notable figures of the Crusades, John Gillingham's Richard the Lionheart and John Man's Saladin are excellent, though each obviously have a lot of material that is not about the Crusades at all.
On a side note, be advised that the Crusades did not take place solely in the Middle East and did not target solely Muslims and Muslim lands. There were numerous Crusades against apostate Christians in Europe, Crusades against pagans in Scandinavia and the Baltic (along with those against Slavic Orthdox Christians, these are often known as the Northern Crusades), and against Muslims in the Europe (the Balkans and Iberia). Finally, a lot of Jews were targeted in the Crusades, though generally just opportunistically or by happenstance. Whipped into a religious fervor and having to wait for the months it took to walk to the Holy Land, the pious often satisfied themselves with pogroms along the way. Also, Jews who fought side-by-side with Muslims in defense of cities such as Jerusalem were mostly put to the sword along with the Muslims by the conquering Crusaders. Simply put, there's a lot more to the Crusades than Christian-vs-Muslim in southwest Asia.
Getting accurate unbiased history in this area of human experience is more difficult than in many other areas, as the sources themselves may have strong bias. In reading about religious figures as historical figures and events as historical events, the context of the times and earlier times allows dissonance to be held with more comfort, and mystical events to be demystified, while still holding the "reality" of the myth as important to the religion.
An easy example of myth and reality is our myth of the "Liberty Bell." Historical reality is rather bland until Lincoln and a poem about it, but then it became a fetish or icon. Similarly, a "pillar of smoke by day and fire by night" could reference a burning artesian oil well on fire. The point is that studying religion as history is not as simple as retracing a battle plan or life of a public figure such as B. Franklin (who has had VOLUMES of books written by and about him), but requires holding alternate timelines and quasi-historical events without dismissal.
In fairness, I know none nor have I heard of "are the equivalent of fanatic Baptists who want to kill everyone they can't bring to Jesus and rewrite the Constitution as a religious document." any Baptists fanatic or otherwise who want to kill everyone they can't bring to Jesus etc.
So I don't see the legitimacy of offering that as an equivalency.
OP, a good study of comparative religions would help you as you seek information. At least get you started.
mostly, i have found, the original sources are scribes who were hired by, or devoted to, the "big shots" who achieved
that status either by dynasty or by prophesy and adherence. those who "did not make it" did not pay scribes enough.
so...bottom line: every single historical account is biased by some amount since it survived.
Islam worships Jesus (Isa)... as one of the prophets, not the messiah. If you hold or go into this exploration with the common notion that Islam is something made up from whole cloth (or gold plates) in the 600's C.E. (aka 0 A.H.), your bias will keep you from understanding things even on a secular level.
I'm a former Mormon who went to Catholic school and is now a Muslim. Islam does not worship Jesus, but reveres him both as a Prophet and the Messiah. We declare that Jesus, peace be upon him, is a human being born miraculously from a virgin and was not God in the flesh. We believe he will come back at the end of times to kill the Antichrist.
Quran, chapter 4/171 :
Quote:
O people of the scripture*, do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about God except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of God, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation from Him. Therefore, you shall believe in God and His messengers. You shall not say, "Trinity." You shall refrain from this for your own good. God is only one god. Be He glorified; He is much too glorious to have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. God suffices as Lord and Master.
*The Bible
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
practiced or at least supported rape and slave trading, and a pedophile with a 6 year old wife.
Muhammad peace be upon him, never supported rape, there is no source indicating that anywhere in his biography or the books that compile his teachings. What was allowed, was treating a female war prisoner as a wife but her consent was always required.
He never supported slave trading either, slavery was a reality in the Arab world and he encouraged slave masters to free their slaves, but did not compel them to do it.
He never claimed to have married a 6 year old, nor did the wife ever said she was 6 year old when she was married. This was claimed by a man who was not a witness to the marriage and never heard it from Muhammad himself or any of his companions. This infamous claim stayed in books until nowadays, but is unfounded. Actually, Muhammad did say not to consummate marriage with prepubescent girls.
Wars in his time were mostly fought in self defense against pagans and Jews who attempted to eradicate the early Muslims. Later on, wars of conquest were fought, and before that many Prophets had waged war to conquer land for God : Joshua, David, Solomon come to mind. And may peace be upon all the Prophets. Islam strictly forbids targeting civilians, or forcing others to become Muslims.
Islam means peace but there is a big misconception. Many Muslims will say it means peace on earth, while it actually refers to inner peace one enjoys when worshiping their Creator, and ultimate peace which the believers will attain in Heaven.
The best book to clarify any misconception about Islam is the Quran :
I'm looking for some factual, unbiased history concerning Muhammad and Islam in particular, and also about the Crusades.
When I do some web searching ...
So-what are some good sources to go to for a relatively unbiased discussion and education? (I don't want to post on the Islam forum-it's basically nothing but Islamic propaganda and even asking questions will get you CD prison). Can we have a factual discussion? Thanks.
What is "truth"?
You won't find any unbiased resources.
Different power groups have competed for control of the eastern Mediterranean seaboard for several millennia. M I L L E N N I A, long before Greeks and Romans were even on the map.
The origin of the episode you refer to starts when the Romans, with the help of conquered post-Alexander Greeks, established control of the entire Mediterranean and in particular of the mostly Semitic-speaking eastern Mediterranean seaboard.
Many Semitic-speaking eastern Mediterraneans were never happy about Greco-Roman domination and they repeatedly attempted to revolt and drive them back westwards.
They finally succeeded in the early/mid 600s, and by the 700s had conquered the entire eastern and southern Mediterranean, as well as the northwestern Mediterranean, and they threatened the north-central/eastern region, including Rome itself and Constantinople.
Some centuries after the Germanic invasions of the northwestern quadrant of the Roman Empire - which under Charlemagne became Europe - still lingering power groups centered around Rome rallied the Europeans, led by the Normans, reconquering Britain (England), northern parts of Spain and Portugal, Sicily and southern Italy, then the eastern Mediterranean seaboard and the northeast quadrant of the Mediterranean under the Greek-speaking eastern Roman Empire, as well as forays into eastern Europe (Russia).
Call that "crusade" if you want.
These so-called "crusaders" attacked so-called "christians", "muslims", "jews" alike, roughly in that order, and even each other, it made no difference to them.
By around 1300 the Semitic-speaking peoples of the eastern Mediterranean seaboard again succeeded in expelling the westerners, until around 1800 when the Europeans returned with industrial-era weapons and social organization.
And here we are today.
All the ideological crap that surrounds this episode is camouflage, for various purposes. If you want "truth", pay no attention to it, and look at the flow of power, resources, and weapons instead.
Good Luck!
Last edited by bale002; 06-09-2019 at 06:20 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
