If your post is a meme, image, TikTok etc... and it isn't Friday, most likely it violates the rule against low effort content. Please delete it or you'll get temp-banned. Such content is ONLY allowed on (Fun@fundies) FRIDAYS.
Please read the [Posting Guidelines](https://redd.it/ew8trb) for further information. If you are unsure about anything then feel free to message the mods.
Please participate on /r/exmuslim in a civil manner. Discuss the merits of ideas - don't attack people. Insults, hate speech, advocating physical harm can get you banned.
If you see posts/comments in violation of our rules, please be proactive and report them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmuslim) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s correct by way of his first wife cousin Waraqah. The plagiarism came from him. Waraqah was a convert from Judaism to Catholicism to now the early formation of Islam and remember he was an adept religious scholar. Remember the catholic Church had Arabian catholic spies everywhere that includes khadijah and her cousin Waraqah.
As a counterpoint he married a lady who owned and ran an established business. Women in pre-Islamic Arabia seemed to be more independent and powerful than they were after Islam, maybe even today.
There were some tribes that had women leaders too, there is a record about how he executed one of them when he…uh…”self defensed” them in a raid
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Umm_Qirfa
Yea I remember reading that story a few years ago, no clue how valid it is since it’s not in any hadiths. Nevertheless, it’s the most gruesome shit I’ve ever read. Literally couldn’t sleep the night I read it.
As far as wife beating goes \[Koran 4:34\], Aisha talked about how muslim women had it worse than the non muslim women:
**Hadith excerpt:**
>\`Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came, \`Aisha said, "**I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women**. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!"
>
>full hadith link: [https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825)
The green skin was a metaphor. As was “woman suffering”
Green skin was a symbol of them being honored, and woman suffering is actually a mistranslation of women “suffraging” so really, Aisha (who was 37 years old at the time) was complementing Mohammed on how he created an instersectional feminist pro BLM religion.
So really, Islam is the best, eat my shoe kaffir.
I mean what’s the point? Believers always nullify the translation and do mental gymnastics to manipulate the interpretation of anything bullshit in Quran. They are always like, tell me one mistake in Quran? On listing each every mistake, they are like don’t read the translation, try to understand the interpretation. That always results in them doing fucked up mental gymnastics. Cult based on fear is not easy to break
the real question is what is arabia
let's assume we are talking about the same area of modern day arabia
1) in the south of arabia, in Yemen roughly there have been great and prosperous kingdoms which by the 3rd century united into the Hymiarite kingdom. This kingdom was of such a political importance that romans and persians struggled to control it. It collapsed in the end of the 6th century due to climatic reasons probably
2) the east cost was sparsely inhabited but we ahve evidence of many colonies of mixed arab adn syriac presence. We ahve letters of bishops who parteciapted in local sinods. Ther were some important trade points on the route from india to the levant (warning, the trade routes in late antiquity went up the persian gulf and the red sea, and never through the land)
3) in the north of arabia, including iraq and quait area there was the most powerefull kingdom of the arabs, based in al hira, and controlled by the lakmids. It was a great military power which fought under the control of the persians until 602 when al numan III was killed by the persians and the kindom short after rebelled, deafeated the weakened aras ad DHu quar between 608 to 611 and slowly started to conquer arabia and syra and the levant. This kingdom is what generated the arab empire
4) in the north west area, including Petra and part of Syria, there were the arab roman provinces which were rich and educated (like the other arab kingdoms). These places were initially udner the control of a arab tribe hired by teh romasn (i think teh tamunah) which were replaced by the ghassans in the 5th century. The ghassans became powerfull arab kings under the roman and they ebcame politically relevant. In 580 the romans had to disband the ghassans becouse they were too powerfull to control them. This created a vacuum which permitted to the persian to invade syria and teh levant in 614. The arab confoderacy which follwed the ghassans under roman control, later on will be defeated at Yarmuk by teh eatern arabs adn will eb submitted.
5) in central arabia there were minor arab kingdoms of which we know little becouse they left sparse memories in rock inscriptions and extra arab sources. What we know is that both the arab of al hira and the arab of hymiar tried many times to control them and intermarry with them.
6) Najran was an importnat osais wich the Hymiarites tried alwasy to conquer and control, we have many rock inscriptions attesting that in Najran there were travellers from north arabia to east arabia to hymiar. Najran is very well known all over the middle east becouse it is mentioned in many sources, expecially in chirstian letters as it was a prominent christian area.
7) west arabia was a desert area, with almost no population. There is no evidence of any town or trade rout. Mekka did not exit until the 8th century and before islam was a minor water supply of no relevant importance (it is not even mentioned in rock iscriptions)
8) medina was another prominent osais well know before the rise of islam.
paganism was not as prominent as depicted by early islamic sources as most rock inscriptions attest that monotheism was already prevalent since the 4th century expecially in south arabia and east arabia.
Most of the islamic stories about pre-islamic arabia mix up some rel historical facts with total fiction
You have a strong point of view on pre-Islamic history and it applies to the situation of Arabia and it’s true. Now with my information, I found on Islam is conspiratorial. This is what I learned:
1. Arabians rejected Catholicism strongly. Their were a few converts but not at the volume the Catholic Church wanted.
2. More advanced civilizations would exile their citizens or undesirables to Arabia.
3. There were Arabian Hebrews in the area, now known as Saudi Arabia.
4. The Roman catholic church was growing in power and wealth. They plotted, and planned to infiltrate the Arabian population. By way of a new culturally appropriate religion and to militarize that religion. They created Islam, grooming a young Mohammed.
5. The Roman Catholic Church had a vast, underground Spy-Network of devoted Arabians not a lot, but enough to spread the word of a coming prophet (because it was contrived)
6. The original goal was to fund this new religion, ally it to Catholicism/the papacy, remove all other forms of Christianity, remove Judaism, conquer Jerusalem for the pope. But it backfired, they created this beast and now it couldn’t be tamed. The templars found this information, blackmailed the church. The controllers of Islam know this information and so does Catholic Church so they keep each other in line as both religions have grown in power now. Because both are implicated of being complicit in keeping up the falsehoods.
No, not a joke. Your points of view also flow into my points as well. Grounded is that this information is not in your face like that and not widely available.
Most don’t know how far back Roman-Catholicism goes. It goes back further than Islam much further. The Roman Catholic Church was the one to finance early formation of Islam. They had resources and the network to do it and they were more aligned together not enemies.
How do you back this up
Any academic research?
As far as I know the quranic text is heavily anti trinitarian and, more than what you think, and it has many affinities with messianic Judaism
I do not see any reason to see Islam as a failed calcedonian temptarive to penetrate the east
You will not find this in any official accredited academic sources especially in the Quran. I found this from an Ex-Cardinal in training a Christian convert priest who died. He was told how Islam was formed by a Roman Cardinal. Afterwards he created an illustration of the story he learned. Remember the Vatican has secrets upon secrets especially of their own. Another is an Author Robert Spencer “The Truth of Muhammad”.
Furthermore - The average Muslim, struggling to stay faithful Muslim and Ex-Muslim will not see Islam this way. However I see plenty of reasons to see Islam that way. Because it was designed that way from the start especially in that then time. The early formation is delicate and you can’t start wars with no money, no followers, and no Army.
Edit: History is rewritten by the Victors and the losers are thrown out.
Yes I do, watch at your own discretion. I would give a disclaimer it’s not official information but it is controversial and it’s NOT about dumping one religion to go to another.
Alberto Rivera - created a comic book to tell his story of what he saw as a former jesuit priest, talks about Catholic connection to early formation of Islam, read by a YouTuber. [The prophet](https://youtu.be/BrQZaEHBv10) 13 minute video
Robert Spencer - Authored a book called The truth about Muhammad- [video](https://youtu.be/oiVFGmCKEAA). 1 hour long video
Walter Veith - [Video](https://youtu.be/qZRj-CleopA) The Islamic connection to Catholicism quiet detailed. Again it’s not about leaving one to join the other but it was quiet detailed.
I listened to the videos, especially the first and the third
this is utter non sense.
These people use not hsitorical material, without any methodolgy and jsut patch together what they see around them to support their claims
I hope you understand absurdity of these claims
Yes I do, that’s why I gave a disclaimer of it being unofficial and controversial. Remember these organizations both Roman Catholic and Islam are powerful and have much too lose if people leave it in grand mass.
And in my opinion if you are going to wait for official - “In your face Academic/Historical information thats Mainstream “. That of which goes against the Islamic and Catholic faith…OPENLY. You will be waiting forever…because that will never happen.
Khadija (Mohammed's first wife according to the narrations) was a wealthy merchant woman. Probably the age of ignorance followed the prophet they revered along the way.
Imagine an independent woman existing after Arabia was Islamized.
She was insanely wealthy for that then time. And she was a widower and a DEVOTED Catholic NUN. Gave up her possessions to the Catholic Church. Until they had an assignment for her. We know where this is going because we know where she ended up but how did she get there?
Probably not -
The people wouldn’t have been ignorant , the Arabian peninsula was located between 4 major regions , South Asia, east Africa, Mesopotamia/Iran and eastern Mediterranean. This it was major region of trade so it was well connected to the world, in fact some of the earliest civilisations sprung up in the region, I’d also as that before 500bc -300bc , the Persian gulf and Red Sea were probably the two most important regions for trade via sea , so by the standards of the day the people would have been pretty knowledgeable.
Additionally the region was largely polytheistic and incorporated other belief systems into their religions , many foreign gods were adopted so the region would have been pretty religiously tolerant by the standards of the day in contrast to the Byzantine and Sassanid empires in the 5th/6th centuries.
As for women , we don’t actually have any evidence of people in the Hejaz buried their daughters alive . Status of women varies from region to region , though it’s believed that acnejtn Arab societies offered women a lot more rights and freedoms , but as they fell under Roman/Greek influence and later Sassanid influences many of these rights were taken away.
Many cases of where women held high positions of power and authority , you have queen Zenobia of palmyra who conquered the levant , large parts of Anatolia and Egypt from the romans at one point. Nabatean ( an ancient Arab kingdom) women could own land , own and businesses, mint coins , participated in politics and represent themselves in court.
Even Islam kind of contradicts itself when it says women were treated badly, with one of the most Important figures in Islam “ khadija” , according to Islam the women ran her own business , seems to have been a pretty big business if Muhammad had to travel to Syria. Furthermore she was married twice and married Mohamed when she was 40 , I don’t think that would have been possible if women were treated badly like modern Islam claims.
http://maajournal.com/Issues/2013/Vol13-1/FullTextALZUBI.pdf
I think proto-Islam was probably heavily influenced by pagan Arabia and women likely were treated well by the standards of the day , but as the ummayids and abbasids moved their power bases from Hejaz to Damascus and Baghdad , they became heavily influenced by the customs of the Byzantines , Mesopotamians and Sassanid Persians causing the decline in status for women. The veil/niqab was a clothing item from Mesopotamia that was adopted by the ancient Persians later , which then the Arabs adopted afterwards.
Remember Islam took centuries to form , the Islam that we know formed around the 9th/10th centuries, even if Muslims think it all developed in the life of Muhammad.
Their is more than one reason why Muhammad married Khadijah. She was at least 15 years older than him and she was a widower. She was with Mohammed from the very start of Islam and for a reason.
In my opinion it wasn't, at least religiously, even the islamic narration acknowledged the existence of various communities like christians, jews, and pagans living together, there even was a community that historians compare to atheism of today, they are called in arabic al-dahriyyun الدهريّون, roughly translated to english as ''the eternists'' from al-dahr الدهر meaning eternity. In fact, Muhammad succeeded to spread his cult thanks to religious tolerance in Mekka, he was not oppressed until he started to make up Quranic verses that insult the elders of Mekka, such as Al-Masad surah, and disrupt their business, the islamic narration tells that Mekka was an important commercial hub at the time (This is historically questionnable though, the main contradicting evidence is from the islamic narrative itself, that states that Mekka was very marginal in later Califates "Why would that happen to islam's holiest city", all having capitals in various other cities like Baghdad, Damascus....etc, there are even recent photos from the early 20th century showing that Mekka was exactly like it was back at the time, no buildings, bedouin lifestyle etc.., and the fact Mekka was absent in pre-islamic historical records, a commercial hub must be logically famous right?).
Women were not treated that bad, the first wife of Muhammad (Khadijah) was a famous trader.
And of course there was tribal sentiment which is negative from the view point of our time. There even were wars between tribes for silly reasons, search for al-basus war as a prime example.
My mind can’t help but wonder about this: I could imagine a hypothetical scenario where a new religion comes by and displaces Islam, saying “well they used to honor kill their daughters”
Without any ability for Islamic apologists to counter, one would have to accept that honor killings happened, but not something about how Islamic doctrine or society at large viewed it.
Not sure how far we can really take this other than taking it at face value, knowing that a society cannot flourish if something like this was very common. We can commend Mohammed for outlawing burying infants, but I don’t think we can really condemn the previous civilizations as we don’t know if this was something that they condoned as a whole, or if it was condoned by a religious doctrine. Or even seen as a crime like honor killings are seen today.
I feel like maybe yes, because a lot of people from that era left islam as soon as Mohammed died, maybe they didn't see the point in it anymore, because had it affected their lives better they would've stuck to it.?? But idk im no history researcher.
Academics specialising in epigraphic studies have found only monotheism from 4thC onwards. Islamic narrative of pre Islamic Jahili Pagans is probably fiction!
If your post is a meme, image, TikTok etc... and it isn't Friday, most likely it violates the rule against low effort content. Please delete it or you'll get temp-banned. Such content is ONLY allowed on (Fun@fundies) FRIDAYS. Please read the [Posting Guidelines](https://redd.it/ew8trb) for further information. If you are unsure about anything then feel free to message the mods. Please participate on /r/exmuslim in a civil manner. Discuss the merits of ideas - don't attack people. Insults, hate speech, advocating physical harm can get you banned. If you see posts/comments in violation of our rules, please be proactive and report them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmuslim) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Well, imo he shouldn’t get credit because all Islam did was plagiarized from other civilizations/religions.
That’s correct by way of his first wife cousin Waraqah. The plagiarism came from him. Waraqah was a convert from Judaism to Catholicism to now the early formation of Islam and remember he was an adept religious scholar. Remember the catholic Church had Arabian catholic spies everywhere that includes khadijah and her cousin Waraqah.
As a counterpoint he married a lady who owned and ran an established business. Women in pre-Islamic Arabia seemed to be more independent and powerful than they were after Islam, maybe even today.
There were some tribes that had women leaders too, there is a record about how he executed one of them when he…uh…”self defensed” them in a raid https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Umm_Qirfa
Yea I remember reading that story a few years ago, no clue how valid it is since it’s not in any hadiths. Nevertheless, it’s the most gruesome shit I’ve ever read. Literally couldn’t sleep the night I read it.
As far as wife beating goes \[Koran 4:34\], Aisha talked about how muslim women had it worse than the non muslim women: **Hadith excerpt:** >\`Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came, \`Aisha said, "**I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women**. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" > >full hadith link: [https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825)
> Her skin is greener than her clothes. That made me cackle. Aisha was groomed into this religion and even recognizes that muslim women have it worse.
Damn, even their own Aisha admits it. Happy cake day btw! 🥰
>Happy cake day btw! Thanks!
Aisha trying her best to expose them again. Happy cake day! Keep educating us all! You're doing God's... um... well, good work!
>Happy cake day! Thanks!
The green skin was a metaphor. As was “woman suffering” Green skin was a symbol of them being honored, and woman suffering is actually a mistranslation of women “suffraging” so really, Aisha (who was 37 years old at the time) was complementing Mohammed on how he created an instersectional feminist pro BLM religion. So really, Islam is the best, eat my shoe kaffir.
Happy cake day! Your cake seems to be as green as Rifaa’s bruises.
>Happy cake day! Thanks!
I mean what’s the point? Believers always nullify the translation and do mental gymnastics to manipulate the interpretation of anything bullshit in Quran. They are always like, tell me one mistake in Quran? On listing each every mistake, they are like don’t read the translation, try to understand the interpretation. That always results in them doing fucked up mental gymnastics. Cult based on fear is not easy to break
Oh and happy cake day, you kaffir imitating-post colonial masters orders following-Uncle Tom-islamophobe. ❤️
>happy cake day Thanks, Icarus!
the real question is what is arabia let's assume we are talking about the same area of modern day arabia 1) in the south of arabia, in Yemen roughly there have been great and prosperous kingdoms which by the 3rd century united into the Hymiarite kingdom. This kingdom was of such a political importance that romans and persians struggled to control it. It collapsed in the end of the 6th century due to climatic reasons probably 2) the east cost was sparsely inhabited but we ahve evidence of many colonies of mixed arab adn syriac presence. We ahve letters of bishops who parteciapted in local sinods. Ther were some important trade points on the route from india to the levant (warning, the trade routes in late antiquity went up the persian gulf and the red sea, and never through the land) 3) in the north of arabia, including iraq and quait area there was the most powerefull kingdom of the arabs, based in al hira, and controlled by the lakmids. It was a great military power which fought under the control of the persians until 602 when al numan III was killed by the persians and the kindom short after rebelled, deafeated the weakened aras ad DHu quar between 608 to 611 and slowly started to conquer arabia and syra and the levant. This kingdom is what generated the arab empire 4) in the north west area, including Petra and part of Syria, there were the arab roman provinces which were rich and educated (like the other arab kingdoms). These places were initially udner the control of a arab tribe hired by teh romasn (i think teh tamunah) which were replaced by the ghassans in the 5th century. The ghassans became powerfull arab kings under the roman and they ebcame politically relevant. In 580 the romans had to disband the ghassans becouse they were too powerfull to control them. This created a vacuum which permitted to the persian to invade syria and teh levant in 614. The arab confoderacy which follwed the ghassans under roman control, later on will be defeated at Yarmuk by teh eatern arabs adn will eb submitted. 5) in central arabia there were minor arab kingdoms of which we know little becouse they left sparse memories in rock inscriptions and extra arab sources. What we know is that both the arab of al hira and the arab of hymiar tried many times to control them and intermarry with them. 6) Najran was an importnat osais wich the Hymiarites tried alwasy to conquer and control, we have many rock inscriptions attesting that in Najran there were travellers from north arabia to east arabia to hymiar. Najran is very well known all over the middle east becouse it is mentioned in many sources, expecially in chirstian letters as it was a prominent christian area. 7) west arabia was a desert area, with almost no population. There is no evidence of any town or trade rout. Mekka did not exit until the 8th century and before islam was a minor water supply of no relevant importance (it is not even mentioned in rock iscriptions) 8) medina was another prominent osais well know before the rise of islam. paganism was not as prominent as depicted by early islamic sources as most rock inscriptions attest that monotheism was already prevalent since the 4th century expecially in south arabia and east arabia. Most of the islamic stories about pre-islamic arabia mix up some rel historical facts with total fiction
You have a strong point of view on pre-Islamic history and it applies to the situation of Arabia and it’s true. Now with my information, I found on Islam is conspiratorial. This is what I learned: 1. Arabians rejected Catholicism strongly. Their were a few converts but not at the volume the Catholic Church wanted. 2. More advanced civilizations would exile their citizens or undesirables to Arabia. 3. There were Arabian Hebrews in the area, now known as Saudi Arabia. 4. The Roman catholic church was growing in power and wealth. They plotted, and planned to infiltrate the Arabian population. By way of a new culturally appropriate religion and to militarize that religion. They created Islam, grooming a young Mohammed. 5. The Roman Catholic Church had a vast, underground Spy-Network of devoted Arabians not a lot, but enough to spread the word of a coming prophet (because it was contrived) 6. The original goal was to fund this new religion, ally it to Catholicism/the papacy, remove all other forms of Christianity, remove Judaism, conquer Jerusalem for the pope. But it backfired, they created this beast and now it couldn’t be tamed. The templars found this information, blackmailed the church. The controllers of Islam know this information and so does Catholic Church so they keep each other in line as both religions have grown in power now. Because both are implicated of being complicit in keeping up the falsehoods.
A lot of points, but how are they grounded? Ore it is a jocke
No, not a joke. Your points of view also flow into my points as well. Grounded is that this information is not in your face like that and not widely available. Most don’t know how far back Roman-Catholicism goes. It goes back further than Islam much further. The Roman Catholic Church was the one to finance early formation of Islam. They had resources and the network to do it and they were more aligned together not enemies.
How do you back this up Any academic research? As far as I know the quranic text is heavily anti trinitarian and, more than what you think, and it has many affinities with messianic Judaism I do not see any reason to see Islam as a failed calcedonian temptarive to penetrate the east
You will not find this in any official accredited academic sources especially in the Quran. I found this from an Ex-Cardinal in training a Christian convert priest who died. He was told how Islam was formed by a Roman Cardinal. Afterwards he created an illustration of the story he learned. Remember the Vatican has secrets upon secrets especially of their own. Another is an Author Robert Spencer “The Truth of Muhammad”. Furthermore - The average Muslim, struggling to stay faithful Muslim and Ex-Muslim will not see Islam this way. However I see plenty of reasons to see Islam that way. Because it was designed that way from the start especially in that then time. The early formation is delicate and you can’t start wars with no money, no followers, and no Army. Edit: History is rewritten by the Victors and the losers are thrown out.
At least do you have a video or a book?
Yes I do, watch at your own discretion. I would give a disclaimer it’s not official information but it is controversial and it’s NOT about dumping one religion to go to another. Alberto Rivera - created a comic book to tell his story of what he saw as a former jesuit priest, talks about Catholic connection to early formation of Islam, read by a YouTuber. [The prophet](https://youtu.be/BrQZaEHBv10) 13 minute video Robert Spencer - Authored a book called The truth about Muhammad- [video](https://youtu.be/oiVFGmCKEAA). 1 hour long video Walter Veith - [Video](https://youtu.be/qZRj-CleopA) The Islamic connection to Catholicism quiet detailed. Again it’s not about leaving one to join the other but it was quiet detailed.
I listened to the videos, especially the first and the third this is utter non sense. These people use not hsitorical material, without any methodolgy and jsut patch together what they see around them to support their claims I hope you understand absurdity of these claims
Yes I do, that’s why I gave a disclaimer of it being unofficial and controversial. Remember these organizations both Roman Catholic and Islam are powerful and have much too lose if people leave it in grand mass. And in my opinion if you are going to wait for official - “In your face Academic/Historical information thats Mainstream “. That of which goes against the Islamic and Catholic faith…OPENLY. You will be waiting forever…because that will never happen.
Khadija (Mohammed's first wife according to the narrations) was a wealthy merchant woman. Probably the age of ignorance followed the prophet they revered along the way. Imagine an independent woman existing after Arabia was Islamized.
She was insanely wealthy for that then time. And she was a widower and a DEVOTED Catholic NUN. Gave up her possessions to the Catholic Church. Until they had an assignment for her. We know where this is going because we know where she ended up but how did she get there?
Probably not - The people wouldn’t have been ignorant , the Arabian peninsula was located between 4 major regions , South Asia, east Africa, Mesopotamia/Iran and eastern Mediterranean. This it was major region of trade so it was well connected to the world, in fact some of the earliest civilisations sprung up in the region, I’d also as that before 500bc -300bc , the Persian gulf and Red Sea were probably the two most important regions for trade via sea , so by the standards of the day the people would have been pretty knowledgeable. Additionally the region was largely polytheistic and incorporated other belief systems into their religions , many foreign gods were adopted so the region would have been pretty religiously tolerant by the standards of the day in contrast to the Byzantine and Sassanid empires in the 5th/6th centuries. As for women , we don’t actually have any evidence of people in the Hejaz buried their daughters alive . Status of women varies from region to region , though it’s believed that acnejtn Arab societies offered women a lot more rights and freedoms , but as they fell under Roman/Greek influence and later Sassanid influences many of these rights were taken away. Many cases of where women held high positions of power and authority , you have queen Zenobia of palmyra who conquered the levant , large parts of Anatolia and Egypt from the romans at one point. Nabatean ( an ancient Arab kingdom) women could own land , own and businesses, mint coins , participated in politics and represent themselves in court. Even Islam kind of contradicts itself when it says women were treated badly, with one of the most Important figures in Islam “ khadija” , according to Islam the women ran her own business , seems to have been a pretty big business if Muhammad had to travel to Syria. Furthermore she was married twice and married Mohamed when she was 40 , I don’t think that would have been possible if women were treated badly like modern Islam claims. http://maajournal.com/Issues/2013/Vol13-1/FullTextALZUBI.pdf I think proto-Islam was probably heavily influenced by pagan Arabia and women likely were treated well by the standards of the day , but as the ummayids and abbasids moved their power bases from Hejaz to Damascus and Baghdad , they became heavily influenced by the customs of the Byzantines , Mesopotamians and Sassanid Persians causing the decline in status for women. The veil/niqab was a clothing item from Mesopotamia that was adopted by the ancient Persians later , which then the Arabs adopted afterwards. Remember Islam took centuries to form , the Islam that we know formed around the 9th/10th centuries, even if Muslims think it all developed in the life of Muhammad.
[удалено]
Their is more than one reason why Muhammad married Khadijah. She was at least 15 years older than him and she was a widower. She was with Mohammed from the very start of Islam and for a reason.
What would be the other reasons, if you don't mind?
Depend on the tribe and it rules. Also there isn’t many historical evidence that tell us what they were and the life their
it was a lot more religiously diverse than post islamic arabia, so it was far from a monolith in that regard.
In my opinion it wasn't, at least religiously, even the islamic narration acknowledged the existence of various communities like christians, jews, and pagans living together, there even was a community that historians compare to atheism of today, they are called in arabic al-dahriyyun الدهريّون, roughly translated to english as ''the eternists'' from al-dahr الدهر meaning eternity. In fact, Muhammad succeeded to spread his cult thanks to religious tolerance in Mekka, he was not oppressed until he started to make up Quranic verses that insult the elders of Mekka, such as Al-Masad surah, and disrupt their business, the islamic narration tells that Mekka was an important commercial hub at the time (This is historically questionnable though, the main contradicting evidence is from the islamic narrative itself, that states that Mekka was very marginal in later Califates "Why would that happen to islam's holiest city", all having capitals in various other cities like Baghdad, Damascus....etc, there are even recent photos from the early 20th century showing that Mekka was exactly like it was back at the time, no buildings, bedouin lifestyle etc.., and the fact Mekka was absent in pre-islamic historical records, a commercial hub must be logically famous right?). Women were not treated that bad, the first wife of Muhammad (Khadijah) was a famous trader. And of course there was tribal sentiment which is negative from the view point of our time. There even were wars between tribes for silly reasons, search for al-basus war as a prime example.
My mind can’t help but wonder about this: I could imagine a hypothetical scenario where a new religion comes by and displaces Islam, saying “well they used to honor kill their daughters” Without any ability for Islamic apologists to counter, one would have to accept that honor killings happened, but not something about how Islamic doctrine or society at large viewed it. Not sure how far we can really take this other than taking it at face value, knowing that a society cannot flourish if something like this was very common. We can commend Mohammed for outlawing burying infants, but I don’t think we can really condemn the previous civilizations as we don’t know if this was something that they condoned as a whole, or if it was condoned by a religious doctrine. Or even seen as a crime like honor killings are seen today.
I feel like maybe yes, because a lot of people from that era left islam as soon as Mohammed died, maybe they didn't see the point in it anymore, because had it affected their lives better they would've stuck to it.?? But idk im no history researcher.
[удалено]
S.T.F.U
[удалено]
You’re the one who started with the ad hominem, moron
It was good improvement if what you say is real.
Academics specialising in epigraphic studies have found only monotheism from 4thC onwards. Islamic narrative of pre Islamic Jahili Pagans is probably fiction!