Zobel said:

---

I don't understand this comment. Second temple Judaism had various theories about the second power in heaven, proto-Arian beliefs among them (also adoptionism etc). You could potentially see the early Christian Christological controversies as addressing these pre-Christian second temple beliefs. St John of Damascus describes Islam as a Christian heresy way back in this way. At any rate one way to see it is that small-O Orthodox Christian trinitarianism was one of the extant Judaisms in the first century, proto-rabbinic Judaism in the form of pharisaism was another, but there were others. Then Arianism, Adoptionists, Ebionites, etc all become different views which all claimed to exclusively represent authentic Judaism. Only Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity really continued - but there's no reason you couldn't put Islam right there with them.

Kinda like football, soccer, rugby all presumably each have early forms but diverged well after their single common ancestor (in this case sometime after Abraham or whatever) but before their final form arrives.

---

Well, I think both those theories are bunk, so yes, they don't necessarily make sense. I meant specifically that early Islamic practice logically would have overlapped far more with Arab Jewish ritual practice - lending that revisionist theory more credence - than the Syrian school, which is a logical conclusion if you only base your theory off coins and architecture, engage in questionable linguistics, and ignore almost all textual evidence, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to the contrary.

In the sense that Islam is continuation of Judaism, or that it is one of the three extant representations of Judaism today… I think you might garner a vehement denial from a orthodox Sunni Muslim, but I am not inclined to disagree. I buy that the earliest Islam, what existed during Muhammad's time, would have regarded itself as a continuation of the Abrahamic movement. Where I think the crystallisation of Islam as a totally separate movement occurs is not as a reaction to Christianity or Judaism - or as a mythical justification for Arab conquest - but as a result of an internal civil war between three overarching competing ideologies on the nature of religious leadership of the movement and how the role of that leader informs the practices and beliefs of that movement.

Makes sense. To clarify I don't see heresies as reactionary. I DO think definitions of heresies were often reactionary, if that makes sense?

Why would a mohammed from hejaz have travelled all the way to Byzantium to fight the Roman's/Greeks, but ignore the rest of the Arabian peninsula? And have nothing written about him in Arabia?





The actual guy, not the mythologized one, was probably a christian (Saracen) from up around Baghdad.

The Bible survives textual criticism because it is not the word of God (Jesus the Logos is).

The Bible is a compilation that took 3 centuries to compile, and quite the mix of literary styles.

The Quran? Can it survive close scrutiny as a holy text?

Redstone said:

---

The Bible survives textual criticism because it is not the word of God (Jesus the Logos is).

The Bible is a compilation that took 3 centuries to compile, and quite the mix of literary styles.

The Quran? Can it survive close scrutiny as a holy text?

---

Yes, because if you read my posts, you'd realize I have consistently made the point that the Qur'an was never meant to be a text, and that the Logos is manifested by the Imams and their progeny.

Y'all seem to be lumping all muslims into one group. They are as different as Mormons and Catholics can be.

My neighbors belong to the Ismaili sect. I'll admit I know little of their faith but I've read a bit about their leader the Aga Khan. The only way I can describe it is he is the Joel Olsteen of Islam with the prosperity angle. Has race horses, hotels, had sexy western wives, born in Switzerland etc.

Strange compared to what you see practiced in Saudi, Pakistan etc. They are from India, but I believe the Aga Khan is from Iranian decent.

Build It said:

---

Y'all seem to be lumping all muslims into one group. They are as different as Mormons and Catholics can be.

My neighbors belong to the Ismaili sect. I'll admit I know little of their faith but I've read a bit about their leader the Aga Khan. The only way I can describe it is he is the Joel Olsteen of Islam with the prosperity angle. Has race horses, hotels, had sexy western wives, born in Switzerland etc.

Strange compared to what you see practiced in Saudi, Pakistan etc. They are from India, but I believe the Aga Khan is from Iranian decent.

---

Am I your neighbor?
The only thing I would say is that the Aga Khan isn't really Joel Osteen esque in that Isma'ilism isn't really a prosperity type sect. Internally, we operate much more like a welfare state ala the Scandinavian model. The Isma'ili Imamat operates one of the largest NGOs in the world. Instead of tithing wealth, as was done in the past, the Aga Khan asks followers (especially in the US and Canada, where the Ismaili population is exceptionally educated) to donate our skills and knowledge - people who do so spend time working with NGOs in the developing parts of the world, like East Africa, Central and South Asia. All services are offered to anyone of any or no religion. Isma'ilism also stresses equality of genders and does not believe in female veiling and so our organisations serve women in maternal health, educational development, microfinance for economic independence.

The work the Aga Khan Development Network does is monumental. Not as flashy as the hotels and horses (Islam having a proud equestrian history) but there's a lot. It gets classified as "philanthropism" but for us it's part of our religious duty and stems from our religious ethics.

Thanks for that response! I'm learning more about them every day. Several families on my street.

I gotta admit Aga Khan is a bit fascinating as a person, and I'd guess he's a vastly more intelligent, in addition to vastly more wealthy guy than Osteen.

As a leader of his sect or whatever, I don't really have any insight/negative things to say about him, other than it is far from the life of an austere religious scholar, to borrow a phrase, perhaps more of a very wealthy JFK/playboy/Harvard grad.

I'm calling him the Protestant Muslim. My neighbor didn't punch me, but he was six beers in so he didn't care. Good folks and friendly.neighbors, have had much worse.

Muslims, throughout their history (up to the present day), have been the primary slavers in the world. Not just of Africans, but certainly of Europeans as well, up to Scandinavia and including Iceland etc. One man's gripping story:

How Turkey Treats Its Historic Churches https://t.co/jnJcE7WqhZ

— Uzay Bulut (@bulutuzay_) April 10, 2022

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Did he make it all up like Joseph Smith?

---

Absolutely. Mohammed is one of the worst people in history. He not only started a false movement that led to untold millions of murders and other heinous crimes in his name, but also resulted in countless millions going to Hell because they believed his deranged lies.

I think he is a historical fiction, or rather an amalgamation of several people, from up in Iraq. There's a reason the Saudi's won't allow excavations to learn more.

However, there is also an alternative theory that he, Aisha, and his mother were in fact Jewish themselves, and did actually exist in Saudi Arabia, though I am dubious about that as again nothing was actually written down for so long after 'he' died (and even then it got the geography all wrong).

Mohammed's followers have been the greatest slavers throughout history.

Your numbers are way off. Around 12 million were transported across the Atlantic in 400 years. And the death rates were insane anywhere but the Upper South where tobacco was far less labor intensive than sugar, rice, or indigo. Around 10-11 million were transported across the Sahara over 600 years. And no, 80-90% did not die on the trip. Mortality was around 20%. https://www.lse.ac.uk/Economic-History/Assets/Documents/Research/GEHN/GEHNWP11SP.pdf

I'm not sure what value you get out of trying to minimize anyone's actions in the slave trade or slavery itself. Europeans will never come out of these conversations looking good and not will anyone else.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Your numbers are way off. Around 12 million were transported across the Atlantic in 400 years. And the death rates were insane anywhere but the Upper South where tobacco was far less labor intensive than sugar, rice, or indigo. Around 10-11 million were transported across the Sahara over 600 years. And no, 80-90% did not die on the trip. Mortality was around 20%. https://www.lse.ac.uk/Economic-History/Assets/Documents/Research/GEHN/GEHNWP11SP.pdf

I'm not sure what value you get out of trying to minimize anyone's actions in the slave trade or slavery itself. Europeans will never come out of these conversations looking good and not will anyone else.

---

I didn't try to minimize anything. My cite said 11 million were transported across the Atlantic. You're saying it is 12 million; that's not something to really argue over, imho.

Second, is your assertion that mortality among trans-Saharan slave trade routes was substantially lower than my link. Ok, but the paper also shows that the Islamic slavers were, in fact, justified, and organized/run religiously.

Quote:

---

The statement about the demise of the trans-Saharan slave trade in the late nineteenth century must be somewhat qualified, in that there is evidence of the persistence of slavery in modern-day Mauritania and Sudan. See R. Segal, Islam's Black Slaves: A History of Africa's Other Black Diaspora (London: Atlantic Books 2001), ch.12. For an autobiographical account of contemporary enslavement in the Sudan see M. Nazer and D. Lewis, Slave: My True Story (New York: Public Affairs

---

Quote:

---

The caravans were ephemeral commercial entities formed to serve an immediate purpose.56 These great moving communities reflected Muslim society at large in their socio-economic stratification and organization, with an amr for leadership and a qdi to adjudicate disputes.57 The travellers elected the amr, whose position depended on his past performance and often that of his forebears.58

During his forced desert crossing as a slave, Captain Riley, who had navigated ships to many parts of the world, observed that the slave trader Sidi Hamet's knowledge of the motion of the stars was superior to his own.59

The amr's role in the realization of the caravan's commercial objectives went beyond guidance. Caravans were rarely formed for the transfer of one single commodity to one specific market, and generally took advantage of any commercial opportunities en route to pay for services, increase their capital, or convert their goods into those most highly demanded in their final port of call.60 Upon arrival at a trading centre, caravans continued to act as a single entity under the leadership of the amr, in negotiations with political authorities over tax payments and with local business coalitions over prices.

---

But you seem to want to make Europeans to blame, though your source indicates they are the cause for the demise of the trade, and the lack of figures around it?

Quote:

---

With the onset of active European involvement culminating in colonialism, any inclination traders may have had to maintain records were discouraged by anti-slavery edicts and the penalties occasionally imposed by Western powers.42 Furthermore, in the societies within and south of the Sahara, the written word was scarcely used. This accounts not only for the lack of information on the slave trade's suppliers and middlemen but also for scarcity of accounts by 'the victims of this great human tragedy [who] were silent witnesses to what they experienced and observed.'

---

As is usual, you really are seeking to just pick a fight and feel your referenced grad student paper supports your 'academic wisdom.' The limited time frame focus (14th century on until 19th century), and only on trans-Saharan trade, really isn't inclusive of course of the raids on Europeans.

The transatlantic slave trade was also justified religiously for its entire history. I also find it tiring that after tens of millions of people kidnapped, tortured, raped, and murdered and justified by religion, you want to claim Christianity should get credit for a handful of adherents pushing to end it after 400 years (while not pushing for giving the former slaves any actual rights).

I'm not claiming Islam is any better. I just find your race to the bottom disingenuous.

And the paper I've linked has footnotes and uses primary sources; if you doubt the veracity of the numbers, check it yourself.

Just gonna throw this out: abolitionism is inherently against the status quo. Do with that what you will.

Culturally enriching the UK for many years…

They weren’t just “Asian.” They were eastern Muslims. This is part of their culture (along with child brides). Calling them Asian was a way for leftists to cover up the immense damage that their open-borders-for-Muslims policies caused.

— Phoenix (@Phoenix40840160) July 13, 2022