Muslims do have a point . . .

The oldest mosque in India is from the time of the Prophet; the oldest Muslim populations (in South, East and West India) are not associated with any conquerors. Not unusual for Western historians to base Eastern history on limited information. e.g. Mills 'famous' history of India written without laying a foot in the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juma_Masjid,_Palayam
 
religions stupid full stop we would be a lot better without it. I'm sick of christians and muslims oposing it on me..
 
Last edited:
Not unusual for Western historians to base Eastern history on limited information. e.g. Mills 'famous' history of India written without laying a foot in the land.
He based his work on muslim historys and devoted his life to it.
 
Hmm and these Muslim historians were working under kings? Had no political or social bias? One of the most famous historians is Ibn Ishaq who devoted his life to studying oral traditions about the Prophet and even he included a disclaimer that his work should be taken with a grain of salt since he had no way of verifying the truth.

e.g.
There are numerous early references to Islam in non-Islamic sources, many have been collected in historiographer Robert G. Hoyland's compilation Seeing Islam As Others Saw It. One of the first books to analyze these works was Hagarism authored by Michael Cook and Patricia Crone. Hagarism concludes that looking at the early non-Islamic sources provides a much different and more accurate picture of early Islamic history than the later Islamic sources do, although its thesis has little acceptance. For some, the date of composition is controversial. Some provide an account of early Islam which significantly contradicts the traditional Islamic accounts of two centuries later.

In her book Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam, Crone states:

If one storyteller should happen to mention a raid, the next one would tell you the exact date of this raid, and the third one would furnish you even more details. Waqidi (d. 823), who wrote years after Ibn Ishaq (d. 768), will always give precise dates, locations, names, where Ibn Ishaq has none, accounts of what triggered the expedition, miscellaneous information to lend color to the event, as well as reasons why, as was usually the case, no fighting took place. No wonder that scholars are fond of Waqidi: where else does one find such wonderfully precise information about everything one wishes to know? But given that this information was all unknown to Ibn Ishaq, its value is doubtful in the extreme. And if spurious information accumulated at this rate in the two generations between Ibn Ishaq and Waqidi, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that even more must have accumulated in the three generations between the Prophet and Ibn Ishaq
 
Hmm and these Muslim historians were working under kings? Had no political or social bias? One of the most famous historians is Ibn Ishaq who devoted his life to studying oral traditions about the Prophet and even he included a disclaimer that his work should be taken with a grain of salt since he had no way of verifying the truth.

e.g.

Didn't I say I thought his statements were probably exaggerated? Since there are no firsthand witnesses around today and hindu/non-muslim sources are practically non-existent, it was about the only material there was to work with.
 
I made no claim that Inda was taken over peacefully by Islam! It was a bloody conquest! Apparently you consider SE Asia as including India. My Atlas and I consider it separate; it is between the Near Easy and SE Asia.
I did mention Indonesia but not India . . .

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
 
muslims generally are very peaceful people the imams which are equivalent to priests or rabbis like to preach peace you can't label 1.5 billion muslims terrorists and think they're all out to bomb everything because its not true i like muslims have no problem with i have a problem with the taliban and al'qaida which is a relatively small number of muslims i mean come on 1.5 billion people in one faitth are not all going to be terrorists
 
muslims generally are very peaceful people the imams which are equivalent to priests or rabbis like to preach peace you can't label 1.5 billion muslims terrorists and think they're all out to bomb everything because its not true i like muslims have no problem with i have a problem with the taliban and al'qaida which is a relatively small number of muslims i mean come on 1.5 billion people in one faitth are not all going to be terrorists

That is one long sentence;)
I don't think that anybody thinks, believes, or has said that that all 1.5 billion muslims are terrorists. Trouble is that the very small percent of muslims that are, kill an awful lot of people.
 
Hmm and these Muslim historians were working under kings? Had no political or social bias? One of the most famous historians is Ibn Ishaq who devoted his life to studying oral traditions about the Prophet and even he included a disclaimer that his work should be taken with a grain of salt since he had no way of verifying the truth. e.g.

Verifying "the Truth?" Please explain to me what that means? No historian has compiled "the Truth." All historians try to do and usually succeed is to make a MORE ACCURATE accounting of what happened than others.

So, I accept what the best historians have to say about the history of Islam and that should be good enough for anyone.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
 
Back
Top