This is very Christian. Appearing fair and reasonable while propagating all the weakest of interpretations in the Quran & Sunnah is truly a “sacrifice” for baby Jesus, of which he would be proud. An “expert” who does not even know the difference between jihad and qital is no expert.
I wish Prof Gabriel would stop interrupting and commenting in between Prof Aymans talk. He’s been interrupting just at the moment Prof is about to state the main point. He should just ask the question and let Ayman complete his replies. It was very irritating as he did it too often. Nevertheless Ayman gave very good arguments. And Prof Gabriel’s questions were good.
One concern that causes the interruptions is that for someone unfamiliar with Muslim discussions, there are so many terms that are literally from a foreign language. Like, I know "tafsir" and "mushrikun" and a few others but if a whole section of the discussion is based upon one of these words that I DON'T know then unless I am listening extremely closely, ten minutes can go by and I might have no idea what they're talking about. Another problem is that sometimes the crosstalk makes it impossible to hear either of them. Anyway I agree, it was a good discussion.
@@Zarghaam12 The later prophetic traditions were projected back on skirmishes here and and there in Arabia, correct. But the Qur'an has nothing to do with Arabia.
Never mind. I just looked him up and Raymond Ibrahim is a former librarian with absolutely no academic or scholarly background, but a garden variety far-right polemicist. Prof Reynolds does not entertain such types and never will.
Because the professor prefers living to getting un-alived! With the amount of money Qatar and Saudi dump into western universities..he is risking his career..as academics go he is brave!
@crusader_2028 there we have it, you polemicists have an unending fascination with far right conspiracy theories that even the Log Lady from Twin Peaks wouldn't believe. Nonsensical claims about the "insidious other" aside -- note how exactly similar it is to anti-semitic conspiracies from centuries ago (they simply swapped one religion for the other) -- the very fact that you conflate Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two polities at serious odds with each other, as one and the same shows both your complete lack of understanding about how the world actually works and your insidious bigotry.
I can’t help but see all the bias that is seeping through the words of Dr. Ayman. For anyone looking for a more nuanced view, I highly recommend watching 2 lectures on Blogging Theology by Professor Joel Hayward.
Ah yes, great choices. One an evangelical preacher and another a convert to Islam who works at "anti-extremist workshops". Definitely no bias there either.
@ if you watch the videos I recommend you will see that Prof. Hayward multiple times talks about his own bias and the historical method and all of that. I don’t see much of that here. In either case watching the other videos will at least help you average out the noise if you think this video is biased the other way.
@@AL-ss5wq I didn't even see this one, but I expect there to be bias indeed. What annoys me is that Muslim traditionalists like all other people who have a stake in the game (in fact an infinitely great stake!), cry about bias and orientalism without recognizing the same biases most of the time. Many Christian scholars who aren't fundamentalists, however, can do it because Europe absorbed more the Greek tradition of free thought, despite the fact that the Muslims had access to the Greeks as well. That and the fact that the core of the N.T. is in some respects anti-authoritarian, though the O.T. is not.
Islam is perfect? The first person to violate Islamic practice was Mohammed himself. When instructed to pray 50 times daily by Allah, Mohammed asked for the number to be reduced to 5 times daily. Mohammed challenged to perfection of Allah's judgment, and opposed the command of Allah. How do you reconcile Allah's perfection with Mohammed challenging the number of prayers Allah commanded? Islamic countries are impoverished, under-educated, exceedingly violent, have few to no minority protections, and treat women as second class citizens. There are virtually no significant intellectual achievements out of the Islamic world in the past 1,000 years. Those countries that have been dominated by Islam, such as Pakistan and Malaysia, achieve far less than their neighboring countries India and Singapore have managed to accomplish. Islam needs many, many reforms. As it is currently practiced, citizens of Islamic countries will continue to desire to emigrate to more developed nations.
@@YoucefB-h3q They dont have except everybody knows that he is a hallucinated man who used that as a tool to fool the crime ridden society of that time and his luck of ythat time there were numerous who were ready to loot and plunder
But is he claiming to write an actual history using those Muslim sources? I don't think so. He is basically saying this is the history Muslims wrote and if any Muslim says any differently, then he doesn't know his traditional history, or he is not presenting the full picture as per his own tradition.
Nothing is real, it’s all fake, 1400 years of multi continent multi ethnic scholarship turned out to be nothing but rhetoric and mythology. Man Islam is never gonna recover from this 😂
@@stevesmith4901 thats what they all say about each other. basically this religion is a bunch of lies the only thing keeping it together is its threat to ki ll non believers and apostates.
Interesting, but there is a lack of historical context to many of the discussions about this topic, both in the West and the Muslim world. Most people, including Western scholars, follow the common narrative of the early years of Islam on mostly Sunni sources written during the later Umayyad and Abbasid periods when the empire was growing. The triumphalism that some of us have noted, and even try to discuss, seen in this literature, depicting the rise of early Muslim polity in Yathrib, is very much a reflection of the conquests of the later years! And there is even an internal dispute among Muslims as to how much we can rely on these accounts and how to interpret them. Things are not so simple and cut and dry. It becomes an even bigger problem later, starting initially, with the rule the 2nd caliph, Umar Ibn al-Khattab who launched conquests in earnest. Some context to this too is needed. Both, Umar and his friend, Abu Bakr, launched a coup at the event of Saqiifah, on the very day the Prophet died and even before he was buried! While his family was busy making preparations for his burial, these two supposedly loyal companions raced to Saqiifah (Bani Saa'idah) to dispute over leadership of the nascent Muslim polity, despite them both having attended the event if Ghadeer just 3 months earlier where the Prophet had made his choice clear who he wanted as his successor. This was to ensure the continuation of his mission after him. And what was that mission? Change Arab society to become just and equitable. Abu Bakr, Umar and the octogenarian Uthman were simply not qualified for this, and the first two were not even literate, not knowing what was in the Quran and emphasized there in the earliest compilations by the likes of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and Abdullah Ibn Mas'uud! Conquests per se was never the original idea. The Arabia the Prophet was born in was very tribal and highly fragmented, and also violent. This was no 1st century Levant under Rome's iron fist. Arabia did not have the equivalent of Pax Romana! Instead, it was a dispersed group of fiercely competing tribes and there tribal wars, some lasting decades, like the War of Dahis and al-Ghabra (568-610 CE), the Fijar Wars and quite a few others. The majority of the Muslims follow the narrative that is also used by Western scholars, including those of Muslim origin working in Western institutions. As an academic I know full well that there is pressure to get grant to do research and publish. If you follow a particular path you will be funded most often this means following what, some of us at least, see as hackneyed narratives, many/most not uniformly accepted by all Muslims!
I’ve long hoped for even the *possibility* of an early Islam other than the triumphalist and violent one that’s nearly ubiquitous among historical scholars, contemporary academics, lay Muslims, and Islam’s opponents. As an academic, can you recommend any scholarly or traditional references through which I could learn more?
No, Yeshua/Jesus Himseld said that we would recognize them by their fruits! Violence, Hatred, jealousy, sexual immorality, predation, blasphemy, intemperance, pedohily can resume their Prophet's life.
@@dkf343 Islam is primarily represented by its central text, The Quran and not various histories that feed into "cultic" ideologies based on the primacy of someone by birth rather that GOD consciousness ! Quran would be a good starting point and you can look at various opinions and debates concerning various positions and takes in it rather than just let yourself get gaslighted by ideological bigots !
I’ve also thought this. It’s logical. However, doesn’t that imply that all of Muslim history and Hadith need to be revisited? Aren’t you implying that these sources are problematic/ahistorical?
I think his 'interruptions' are quite helpful for those who are unfamiliar with context-specific Arabic terms and names. Not everyone knows what al-hudaybiyya or ghazwat tabuk were. The guest was speaking as if the audience are experts in Islamic history.
I was expecting from this guy to show a bit of non-bias even if just for show, until he translated a clear easy arabic in a very biased way, aslim taslam أسلم تسلم doesn't mean "convert and you will be spared", it is "become muslim and you will be safe", it can be understood in many ways, but he knowingly translated it wrongly which clearly shows his bias.
In my opinion you are splitting hairs here. Both translations sound essentially the same to me. "Don't become a muslim and we can't guarantee your safety"
@jpw4610 not really it can be understood in a religious way, specially that the Qur'an says something similar talking about how believers will be in peace and safety, but this isn't the point, the point is that it is easy Arabic he could have just translated it literally considering he is Egyptian, but he didn't.
You can see the disingenuousness with how he brushes off other scholarly work It’s his interpretation or the high way. And his interpretation is built on 1400 years of sour grapes and resentment
Aslim taslim is a clear threat. You'd grasp this perfectly if Christians in the West were going around saying to Moslems, "become Christian and you'll be safe." The implication is obvious.
@@arbitScaleModels Who is "You all"? Btw, it's okay if it was less than a "whole continent"? Do Egyptians call themselves arabs? Why aren't they just "Egyptians" anymore?
Big parts of eastern Africa were enslaved by muslims centuries before western colonization even became a thing. West african slave traders also werde dominantly muslims.
Sirs,Muhammad's military expeditions from Medina can be either, depending on the motivations. Islamists and defenders of Muhammad call them defensive. Some others may call them offensive. The fact remains that it was a civil war of Quresh tribesmen for control of Kaaba in Mecca.
The discussion here is presented with an academic facade, but there’s a noticeable undercurrent of selective framing that undermines Islam's historical and theological diversity. While it's fair to critically analyze any tradition, the speaker's focus on a narrow interpretation of Jihad as primarily violent-despite acknowledging alternative perspectives such as Sufism or modernist Islam-appears reductive. Furthermore, the emphasis on 'literalist' readings of tradition, without equal weight to the socio-political contexts of pre-modern Arabia or the ethical frameworks within Islamic jurisprudence, risks oversimplifying a complex historical narrative. One significant issue often overlooked in such discussions is the tendency of pre-modern chronicles to amplify the size of armies or the scale of destruction. Historians across various traditions, including Islamic, Christian, and Greco-Roman, have noted that such exaggerations often served to glorify victories and legitimize rulers by attributing their triumphs to divine providence. For instance, studies on the Islamic conquests of India have shown how chronicles describe widespread destruction and forced conversions, yet contemporary evidence often contradicts these accounts, suggesting they were shaped by ideological or propagandist intentions rather than factual accuracy. Similarly, early Islamic battles, such as Badr, are often described with exaggerated opposing forces and divine interventions, reflecting not just the historical memory but also the spiritual and political aspirations of the Muslim community at the time. By neglecting this historiographical nuance, the speaker risks perpetuating a simplistic and polemical view of Islamic history. History often serves as a mirror reflecting the priorities and anxieties of those recounting it. Are we here engaging with Islam’s historical plurality or selectively magnifying aspects that align with broader critiques of the religion? True academic rigor lies in contextualizing events within their historical, cultural, and theological settings-not in selectively mining sources to support predetermined narratives. Moreover, the speaker critiques Islamic historiography for its supposed polemical intent while simultaneously relying on the same sources to advance their arguments. This inconsistency invites scrutiny of the speaker’s methodological integrity. Are we genuinely committed to understanding Islam on its terms, or are we projecting external biases onto it?
There is no external bias if the Quran itself projects Mohammed in leading a battles. No other religious movement in history has their leader projected as a warlord.
@@sajidervish yeah but that's something that's unavoidable. But a historian tries to be objective in any case. Bart ehrman would says history is "what probably happened"
If you are proposing an ideal epistemic framework should include detailed accounts of events from all parties then you can't propose anything as plausible... as then all is hearsay
Yes, he's a taqqiya practicing Christian who teaches in a seminary. The comment section of this channel is always full of wisdom, it should be studied by Scientists.
@ Wow! You are the authority in identifying Christians! It’s an honor to meet you. Tell me, are you a pdfile, like your hero? One thing is certain, the ideology you follow is ingenious in its methods of deception. Taqqiya, Tawriya, Kitman, Duruna etc… after all it is birthed directly from the ‘best of deceivers’.
Given it’s was a time in history of Conquer or risk being conquered ! So much of its spread was preemptive /defensive. Also it was a case of accept the allegiance to Islam (as a political authority)vs convert to the religion of Islam.
I love type of methodology from historians “everything positive is mythology and embellishment, but the negative stuff? Per the same source, it definitely happened!” Also, I reject all the history about the Romans, since we can’t validate it using Arab sources 😅 This is the type of work that makes me put History as a discipline in the same category of the gobbledygook humanities
He clearly stated that the traditional sources are biased but mostly that's what present scholars have to work with. Also, it's my understanding that information on Romans IS relatively limited, due to the relatively lacking source material. However the promising news on those burned scrolls nearby Mt. Vesuvius could add a lot to the field. Then there's the Bible, which is remarkably preserved, and the mistakes/errors/whatever in present Bibles are remarkable in themselves due to how few they are. What else would you expect from Jehovah the Almighty's book?
The problem is that the Roman sources can be validated independently on the field in major points, even if they're also full of hearsay, miracles, and pro-imperial biases, whereas the Muslim sources (like the Bible) are often much later and contradicted by independent sources and archaeological digs. The more important the motivation is, in this case to defend the most important thing in all of existence, namely the correct religion, in the minds of the believer, the higher likelihood of both involuntary distortion of memory, even by people close to the events in the 1st or 2nd generation, and systematic falsification afterwards. Doesn't mean all the falsifiable claims of history of the Bible or in Muslim sources is false. Some of it is true. But a lot of it is false too, dictated by later ideological and legitimacy/material concerns.
When you going to cover Bible? I attended a funeral at a Serbian Orthodox Church, where the priest-a nice man who bore a striking resemblance to the depictions of Christ on the walls and ceiling-quoted a passage from the Gospel that closely aligned with teachings in the Qur'an. e.g., John 5:30 * οὐ δύναμαι (ou dynamai) - "I am not able" * ποιεῖν ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ (poiein ap' emautou) - "to do from myself" (literally, "of myself") * μηδὲν (mēden) - "nothing" * καθὼς ἀκούω (kathōs akouō) - "as I hear" * κρίνω (krinō) - "I judge" * καὶ ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ (kai hē krisis hē emē) - "and the judgment the mine" (literally, "the judgment of me") * δικαία ἐστίν (dikaia estin) - "is righteous" * ὅτι οὐ ζητῶ τὸ θέλημά μου (hoti ou zētō to thelēma mou) - "because not I seek the will of me" * ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (alla to thelēma tou pempsantos me) - "but the will of the one having sent me." The issues all revolve around hearsay, which clearly contradicts the Qur'an. The vast majority are ignorant, parroting the book like drunks, while idolizing and sending praises to a deceased Prophet in hopes of seeking forgiveness for their sins-much like Catholics recite Hail Marys. None question how many would participate in acts like 'burying a woman up to her waist after she recently gave birth and then bashing her head with stones,' or marrying off six-year-olds, behaving like the worst of cattle or apes. In fact, apes are superior, as female chimpanzees typically reach sexual maturity around the age of 8 to 10 years, though they may not begin mating regularly until they are about 12 to 14 years old. 4:6 وَٱبۡتَلُوا and test ye of ٱلۡيَتَـٰمَىٰ the orphans حَتَّىٰ until إِذَا when of (future) بَلَغُواْ reach they of ٱلنِّكَاحَ the marriage (age) فَإِنۡ so if ءَانَسۡتُم perceives you (pl.) مِّنۡهُمۡ from them رُشۡدٗا (rushdan) - "rational of (maturity)" فَٱدۡفَعُوٓاْ so deliver ye of إِلَيۡهِمۡ to them أَمۡوَٰلَهُمۡ wealth (inheritance) theirs 17:36 وَلَا and not تَقْفُ thou pursue مَا what لَيْسَ not is لَكَ to you (sing.) بِهِ in it عِلْمٌ knowledge إِنَّ indeed السَّمْعَ the hearing وَالْبَصَرَ and the eyesight وَالْفُؤَادَ and the heart كُلُّ each أُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ those كُلُّ be عَنْهُ about it مَسْـُٔولًا questioned of 17:37 وَلَا and not تَمْشِ thou walk لَن in ٱلْأَرْضَ the land مَرَحًا insolent of إِنَّكَ indeed you (sing.) لَن never تَخْرِقَ breach ٱلْأَرْضَ the land وَلَن and never تَبْلُغَ thou reach ٱلْجِبَالَ the mountains طُولًا height of 17:38 كُلُّ each ذَٰلِكَ such كَانَ be سَيِّـُٔهُۥ evil its عِندَ near رَبِّكَ lord your (sing.) مَكْرُوهًا disliked of 17:39 ذَٰلِكَ such مِمَّآ from what أَوْحَىٰٓ inspires إِلَيْكَ to you (sing.) رَبُّكَ lord your (sing.) مِنَ from ٱلْحِكْمَةِ the wisdom وَلَا and not تَجْعَلْ thou make مَعَ with ٱللَّهِ Allah إِلَـٰهًا deity of ءَاخَرَ another فَتُلْقَىٰ so thou cast فِى in جَهَنَّمَ abyss مَلُومًا blameworthy of مَّدْحُورًا forsaken of Salaam
WHEN THE FULL REVEALATIONS OF THE TRUEST NAMES OR SELECTED SOUNDS NOT THERE IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY THE WHOLE RELIGION IS CONSIDERED MAKHLUK, MIND ORIGINATED, NOT FROM REAL GOD
Some of the sentiments expressed here worry me deeply. I am completely against the idea that we should, for the greater good of society, accept or foster the claim that Islam is firmly rooted in a tradition of peace, contrary to the historical evidence or religious texts. It may feel like the right thing to do in a particular context, but it is not a sustainable in the long run. One example of this approach is that persons who make claims about the less savoury aspects of the islamic tradition are labelled as islamaphobic.
@@jpw4610 Actually the historical evidence and the religious evidence doesn't indicate that Islam is religion of war. The guest narrative here is missing a lot of information. For example, the guest mentioned some of the massage that the prophet peace be upon him sent to the ruler of Coptics in that time. He did not read all the message, but he chose a certain world and interpreted them in way suits his narrative. The general meaning of the message: believe in Islam or God will curse you. Not :believe in Islam or I kill you.
@@eatingeatingeating I watched it all. The question is"Was the guest's portrayal of Islam unfairly violent or was it a true fair representation of Islam".
@jpw4610 Muslims themselves do not make the claim that Islam is always peaceful so that is a strawman. It'll be great if people stop lying that Muslims are always peaceful. The fact is, Islam gives Muslims the right to defend themselves. The first Muslims were persecuted for peaceful activities and after becoming refugees they were permitted to fight back. Why isn't this the narrative? It can only be bias against Islam.
Significance of Badr was because it was a breakaway from tribal lines. Muslims fought their pagan uncles and even fathers. So Badr was the first instance when the brotherhood of islam superceded tribal brotherhood. Now the original concept of islam was to reduce tribal fueds by declaring all into a mega tribe so that they wouldn't fight each other. This worked. Partially. The idea wad usurped because once the tribes joined islam, although infighting ceded, they found enemies outside arabia. Bigger enemies like byzentines and persians. So islam succeeded in ending local fueds, but ended up creating bigger fueds. Source: Islam in the 21st Century
By your definition, no-one would be neutral. Everyone has their background, be it Muslim, Christian, atheist, European, arab, etc. So the only way forward is for a scholar to demonstrate objectivity, stringency, etc in their research. On that basis one can assess the claims of the scholar. Otherwise, it just prejudice.
@@jpw4610 the cops are very sour that they’re a tiny minority when they were the majority Bitter people are not partial. A Coptic is not the same as a Korean or Japanese academic .
The Copts have thrived in Egypt. They were protected. No non-Christian has remained in Europe- everyone wiped out; except for the Jews but even they were completely expelled from many countries eg Spain and Portugal. In contrast, every Muslim country had non-Muslim minorities until the 20th Century. @jpw4610
I loved this guest, he was very well spoken and explained very well the issues of islamic history in this sense. Great work, should bring more people on like him. This type of conversations is intrinsic for helping the islamic world move forward and come to terms on its core issues.
Interesting to note all prophets were from arab region but not from ancient civilization. Prophets stop coming as scientific temperament grew. The reason is simple it was easy to fool ignorant masses which is not possible in present day.
To understand what is jihad, just study the life of Muhammad and his successors aggressions. Gabriel Said Reynolds should invite Llyod D Jongh or Saint Murad.
There’s no such thing as defensive or offensive pre-the modern era. It was conquer or be conquered. Still the same today, just sprinkled with inclusive talk about human rights or whatever
@@averagemoe7879 Why do you lie? Read Judges 11:12-28 or Deuteronomy 2:4-9 for a couple of basic examples. Of course ancient people had a concept of defensive character of wars and diplomacy. It was not always a chaotic situation of everybody constantly trying to conquer or backstab everyone else because of religious devotion (like the Assyrians did in fact carry out) and/or by religious devotion masking imperial interests.
@@MrBerto800 Dont judge islam based on sunnis and shias source of hadiths history. those where created for their political gain and attributed the fabricated narrations to muhammad. The Traditional Islam which majoritarian muslims following is flawed
Hi dear Muslims. My simple questionn is Can the Muslims live in peace with Christians, Jews, Hindus,Buddhist snd other smaller faiths. The answer is Big No. Simply After the Fall of Islamic Turkish Empire, the minorities in the Islamic Modern States all disappeared so my Muslim Friends who is to Islam or the poeple of Islam. I am a Christian from Islamic lands and i fully know that is very Barbaric towards any non Muslims claiming that everyone is Mohammden such an absurd.
@@YoucefB-h3q I'm not for or against the question you're responding to, but why are most/several Muslim lands so hostile to law abiding people of other religions? In my limited knowledge of MENA, there is weak protection in the law for such citizens.
You are an fooling yourself. The oldest Christian churches are in Muslim countries. During the Ottomans and every previous Islamic Empires, non-Muslim societies existed and were permitted to even have their own legal systems and education systems. With the end of those empires and the rise of Nationalism did murderous regimes occur.
There are tons of example where non-muslim society lived by their own tradition side by side with muslims in a muslim ruling state in the past. And that was the norm in a muslim state. Can you show the same in Christian ruling western states where other religious society existed/survived prior to the 19th century (begining of secular era)?
You can still find a large number of Christian Arabs in areas dominated by Islam.If Muslims forcedly convert them, there will be no Christian s and Jews in the middle east today.
@thomasbayer1843 The Ottomans had a millet system where millet means "nation". Each nation in the Ottoman Empire had the right to have their own legal system and Education system. Which Christian country or non-Muslim country, present or past, allows such a privilege to all its people - true pluralism only exists in the Islamic millet system.
May God bless him and grant him peace, Muhammad is the Messenger of God. May God bless Muhammad and grant him peace.
This is very Christian. Appearing fair and reasonable while propagating all the weakest of interpretations in the Quran & Sunnah is truly a “sacrifice” for baby Jesus, of which he would be proud. An “expert” who does not even know the difference between jihad and qital is no expert.
I wish Prof Gabriel would stop interrupting and commenting in between Prof Aymans talk. He’s been interrupting just at the moment Prof is about to state the main point.
He should just ask the question and let Ayman complete his replies. It was very irritating as he did it too often. Nevertheless Ayman gave very good arguments. And Prof Gabriel’s questions were good.
One concern that causes the interruptions is that for someone unfamiliar with Muslim discussions, there are so many terms that are literally from a foreign language. Like, I know "tafsir" and "mushrikun" and a few others but if a whole section of the discussion is based upon one of these words that I DON'T know then unless I am listening extremely closely, ten minutes can go by and I might have no idea what they're talking about.
Another problem is that sometimes the crosstalk makes it impossible to hear either of them.
Anyway I agree, it was a good discussion.
Agree Prof Gabriel's questions were very good. He always seems to ask exactly what's on my mind
He always does that
I appreciate the interjections because they are often clarifications and explanations (or probing)
Excited to watch this! As a Catholic the seemingly-aggressive nature of the early Muslim state is problematic to me.
A lot of these events are later constructions! Yes, there was 'trouble in Arabia" but there is no smoke without fire. One needs a better context!
Sorun İslam'da-barışta değil, kendilerini müslüman zannedenlerde!
@@Zarghaam12 The later prophetic traditions were projected back on skirmishes here and and there in Arabia, correct. But the Qur'an has nothing to do with Arabia.
@@paulthomas281 A nutty fringe view.
@@ertugrulkuvvetli1650the problem lies in your holey book
Why don't you bring Raymond Ibrahim who is an Egyptian Copt and a scholar in this field?
Why is his religious background at all significant to why he should be brought in?
Never mind. I just looked him up and Raymond Ibrahim is a former librarian with absolutely no academic or scholarly background, but a garden variety far-right polemicist. Prof Reynolds does not entertain such types and never will.
Because the professor prefers living to getting un-alived! With the amount of money Qatar and Saudi dump into western universities..he is risking his career..as academics go he is brave!
@crusader_2028 there we have it, you polemicists have an unending fascination with far right conspiracy theories that even the Log Lady from Twin Peaks wouldn't believe.
Nonsensical claims about the "insidious other" aside -- note how exactly similar it is to anti-semitic conspiracies from centuries ago (they simply swapped one religion for the other) -- the very fact that you conflate Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two polities at serious odds with each other, as one and the same shows both your complete lack of understanding about how the world actually works and your insidious bigotry.
@@tanshee2705 because he is an expert and speaks the truth about history. not this biased muslim source .
I can’t help but see all the bias that is seeping through the words of Dr. Ayman. For anyone looking for a more nuanced view, I highly recommend watching 2 lectures on Blogging Theology by Professor Joel Hayward.
Ah yes, great choices. One an evangelical preacher and another a convert to Islam who works at "anti-extremist workshops". Definitely no bias there either.
@ if you watch the videos I recommend you will see that Prof. Hayward multiple times talks about his own bias and the historical method and all of that. I don’t see much of that here. In either case watching the other videos will at least help you average out the noise if you think this video is biased the other way.
@@AL-ss5wq I didn't even see this one, but I expect there to be bias indeed. What annoys me is that Muslim traditionalists like all other people who have a stake in the game (in fact an infinitely great stake!), cry about bias and orientalism without recognizing the same biases most of the time. Many Christian scholars who aren't fundamentalists, however, can do it because Europe absorbed more the Greek tradition of free thought, despite the fact that the Muslims had access to the Greeks as well. That and the fact that the core of the N.T. is in some respects anti-authoritarian, though the O.T. is not.
@@nonomnismoriar9051
So you are saying Christians have the high moral ground regarding Critique their ideas more than Muslims?
im glad we have channels like this
Islam is one and is perfect, but Muslims are different and not perfect.
Delusion of a brainwashed
Islam is perfect?
The first person to violate Islamic practice was Mohammed himself. When instructed to pray 50 times daily by Allah, Mohammed asked for the number to be reduced to 5 times daily. Mohammed challenged to perfection of Allah's judgment, and opposed the command of Allah. How do you reconcile Allah's perfection with Mohammed challenging the number of prayers Allah commanded?
Islamic countries are impoverished, under-educated, exceedingly violent, have few to no minority protections, and treat women as second class citizens. There are virtually no significant intellectual achievements out of the Islamic world in the past 1,000 years. Those countries that have been dominated by Islam, such as Pakistan and Malaysia, achieve far less than their neighboring countries India and Singapore have managed to accomplish.
Islam needs many, many reforms. As it is currently practiced, citizens of Islamic countries will continue to desire to emigrate to more developed nations.
@@YoucefB-h3q They dont have except everybody knows that he is a hallucinated man who used that as a tool to fool the crime ridden society of that time and his luck of ythat time there were numerous who were ready to loot and plunder
Pdfilia is perfect?
@@rejugeorge2863 Thats the right word
Prof Ibrahim says these traditions are memories and not history. Then writes a book using those sources.
But is he claiming to write an actual history using those Muslim sources? I don't think so. He is basically saying this is the history Muslims wrote and if any Muslim says any differently, then he doesn't know his traditional history, or he is not presenting the full picture as per his own tradition.
Nothing is real, it’s all fake, 1400 years of multi continent multi ethnic scholarship turned out to be nothing but rhetoric and mythology. Man Islam is never gonna recover from this 😂
Did you read his book yourself?
@@stevesmith4901 thats what they all say about each other. basically this religion is a bunch of lies the only thing keeping it together is its threat to ki ll non believers and apostates.
Interesting, but there is a lack of historical context to many of the discussions about this topic, both in the West and the Muslim world. Most people, including Western scholars, follow the common narrative of the early years of Islam on mostly Sunni sources written during the later Umayyad and Abbasid periods when the empire was growing. The triumphalism that some of us have noted, and even try to discuss, seen in this literature, depicting the rise of early Muslim polity in Yathrib, is very much a reflection of the conquests of the later years! And there is even an internal dispute among Muslims as to how much we can rely on these accounts and how to interpret them. Things are not so simple and cut and dry.
It becomes an even bigger problem later, starting initially, with the rule the 2nd caliph, Umar Ibn al-Khattab who launched conquests in earnest. Some context to this too is needed. Both, Umar and his friend, Abu Bakr, launched a coup at the event of Saqiifah, on the very day the Prophet died and even before he was buried! While his family was busy making preparations for his burial, these two supposedly loyal companions raced to Saqiifah (Bani Saa'idah) to dispute over leadership of the nascent Muslim polity, despite them both having attended the event if Ghadeer just 3 months earlier where the Prophet had made his choice clear who he wanted as his successor. This was to ensure the continuation of his mission after him. And what was that mission? Change Arab society to become just and equitable. Abu Bakr, Umar and the octogenarian Uthman were simply not qualified for this, and the first two were not even literate, not knowing what was in the Quran and emphasized there in the earliest compilations by the likes of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and Abdullah Ibn Mas'uud!
Conquests per se was never the original idea. The Arabia the Prophet was born in was very tribal and highly fragmented, and also violent. This was no 1st century Levant under Rome's iron fist. Arabia did not have the equivalent of Pax Romana! Instead, it was a dispersed group of fiercely competing tribes and there tribal wars, some lasting decades, like the War of Dahis and al-Ghabra (568-610 CE), the Fijar Wars and quite a few others.
The majority of the Muslims follow the narrative that is also used by Western scholars, including those of Muslim origin working in Western institutions. As an academic I know full well that there is pressure to get grant to do research and publish. If you follow a particular path you will be funded most often this means following what, some of us at least, see as hackneyed narratives, many/most not uniformly accepted by all Muslims!
I’ve long hoped for even the *possibility* of an early Islam other than the triumphalist and violent one that’s nearly ubiquitous among historical scholars, contemporary academics, lay Muslims, and Islam’s opponents. As an academic, can you recommend any scholarly or traditional references through which I could learn more?
Saying that someone wouldn't know the qur'an because they are illiterate is a huge non sequitur. It's the qur'an! The recitation!
No, Yeshua/Jesus Himseld said that we would recognize them by their fruits! Violence, Hatred, jealousy, sexual immorality, predation, blasphemy, intemperance, pedohily can resume their Prophet's life.
@@dkf343 Islam is primarily represented by its central text, The Quran and not various histories that feed into "cultic" ideologies based on the primacy of someone by birth rather that GOD consciousness !
Quran would be a good starting point and you can look at various opinions and debates concerning various positions and takes in it rather than just let yourself get gaslighted by ideological bigots !
I’ve also thought this. It’s logical. However, doesn’t that imply that all of Muslim history and Hadith need to be revisited? Aren’t you implying that these sources are problematic/ahistorical?
Please please stop interrupting your guests - it would be so much better
I think his 'interruptions' are quite helpful for those who are unfamiliar with context-specific Arabic terms and names. Not everyone knows what al-hudaybiyya or ghazwat tabuk were. The guest was speaking as if the audience are experts in Islamic history.
I was expecting from this guy to show a bit of non-bias even if just for show, until he translated a clear easy arabic in a very biased way, aslim taslam أسلم تسلم doesn't mean "convert and you will be spared", it is "become muslim and you will be safe", it can be understood in many ways, but he knowingly translated it wrongly which clearly shows his bias.
In my opinion you are splitting hairs here. Both translations sound essentially the same to me. "Don't become a muslim and we can't guarantee your safety"
@jpw4610 not really it can be understood in a religious way, specially that the Qur'an says something similar talking about how believers will be in peace and safety, but this isn't the point, the point is that it is easy Arabic he could have just translated it literally considering he is Egyptian, but he didn't.
You can see the disingenuousness with how he brushes off other scholarly work
It’s his interpretation or the high way. And his interpretation is built on 1400 years of sour grapes and resentment
Aslim taslim is a clear threat. You'd grasp this perfectly if Christians in the West were going around saying to Moslems, "become Christian and you'll be safe." The implication is obvious.
Convert to Islam or become Muslim is the same thing. Spared or be safe, is the same too!
👏🙂
Very interesting
Great video
It always makes me laugh when hearing critics of Islamic conquest. When did Islam genocide and enslave entire continents like the West?
How many Berbers are there today? Trick question.
@@thomasbayer1843 You all just make stuff up. Shameful.
@@arbitScaleModels Who is "You all"? Btw, it's okay if it was less than a "whole continent"? Do Egyptians call themselves arabs? Why aren't they just "Egyptians" anymore?
Big parts of eastern Africa were enslaved by muslims centuries before western colonization even became a thing. West african slave traders also werde dominantly muslims.
@thomasbayer1843 "you all" in this context are white supremacist orientalists
Sirs,Muhammad's military expeditions from Medina can be either, depending on the motivations.
Islamists and defenders of Muhammad call them defensive.
Some others may call them offensive.
The fact remains that it was a civil war of Quresh tribesmen for control of Kaaba in Mecca.
The discussion here is presented with an academic facade, but there’s a noticeable undercurrent of selective framing that undermines Islam's historical and theological diversity. While it's fair to critically analyze any tradition, the speaker's focus on a narrow interpretation of Jihad as primarily violent-despite acknowledging alternative perspectives such as Sufism or modernist Islam-appears reductive. Furthermore, the emphasis on 'literalist' readings of tradition, without equal weight to the socio-political contexts of pre-modern Arabia or the ethical frameworks within Islamic jurisprudence, risks oversimplifying a complex historical narrative.
One significant issue often overlooked in such discussions is the tendency of pre-modern chronicles to amplify the size of armies or the scale of destruction. Historians across various traditions, including Islamic, Christian, and Greco-Roman, have noted that such exaggerations often served to glorify victories and legitimize rulers by attributing their triumphs to divine providence. For instance, studies on the Islamic conquests of India have shown how chronicles describe widespread destruction and forced conversions, yet contemporary evidence often contradicts these accounts, suggesting they were shaped by ideological or propagandist intentions rather than factual accuracy.
Similarly, early Islamic battles, such as Badr, are often described with exaggerated opposing forces and divine interventions, reflecting not just the historical memory but also the spiritual and political aspirations of the Muslim community at the time. By neglecting this historiographical nuance, the speaker risks perpetuating a simplistic and polemical view of Islamic history.
History often serves as a mirror reflecting the priorities and anxieties of those recounting it. Are we here engaging with Islam’s historical plurality or selectively magnifying aspects that align with broader critiques of the religion? True academic rigor lies in contextualizing events within their historical, cultural, and theological settings-not in selectively mining sources to support predetermined narratives.
Moreover, the speaker critiques Islamic historiography for its supposed polemical intent while simultaneously relying on the same sources to advance their arguments. This inconsistency invites scrutiny of the speaker’s methodological integrity. Are we genuinely committed to understanding Islam on its terms, or are we projecting external biases onto it?
So many many words. And yet it's just bs
Well he's talking about primary sources. Historians aren't concerned with interpretations
There is no external bias if the Quran itself projects Mohammed in leading a battles. No other religious movement in history has their leader projected as a warlord.
@@salmansheikh4377 "The historian is, by definition, an interpreter of the past, not merely a transcriber of it." --Marc Bloch
@@sajidervish yeah but that's something that's unavoidable. But a historian tries to be objective in any case. Bart ehrman would says history is "what probably happened"
If you are proposing an ideal epistemic framework should include detailed accounts of events from all parties then you can't propose anything as plausible... as then all is hearsay
Om el donia!!! ❤
Taqqiya in its purest form. Or perhaps, Tawriya, Kitman, Duruna etc. The ‘best of deceivers’ really created an ingenious system of pure deception.
Yes, he's a taqqiya practicing Christian who teaches in a seminary. The comment section of this channel is always full of wisdom, it should be studied by Scientists.
@ Wow! You are the authority in identifying Christians! It’s an honor to meet you. Tell me, are you a pdfile, like your hero? One thing is certain, the ideology you follow is ingenious in its methods of deception. Taqqiya, Tawriya, Kitman, Duruna etc… after all it is birthed directly from the ‘best of deceivers’.
@rejugeorge2863 Yes, I like lying to people.
“He doesn’t even know Arabic!”
Who?
Given it’s was a time in history of Conquer or risk being conquered ! So much of its spread was preemptive /defensive. Also it was a case of accept the allegiance to Islam (as a political authority)vs convert to the religion of Islam.
We’re talking about the Islam founded by Muhammad between 610-632 and was handed down to Abu Bahkar, Umar, Uthman.
You forgot Ali RA
I'm sorry he has two phds but he looks like deepak kalal
The PhD works on the mind not on the skin
I love type of methodology from historians
“everything positive is mythology and embellishment, but the negative stuff? Per the same source, it definitely happened!”
Also, I reject all the history about the Romans, since we can’t validate it using Arab sources 😅
This is the type of work that makes me put History as a discipline in the same category of the gobbledygook humanities
He clearly stated that the traditional sources are biased but mostly that's what present scholars have to work with.
Also, it's my understanding that information on Romans IS relatively limited, due to the relatively lacking source material. However the promising news on those burned scrolls nearby Mt. Vesuvius could add a lot to the field.
Then there's the Bible, which is remarkably preserved, and the mistakes/errors/whatever in present Bibles are remarkable in themselves due to how few they are. What else would you expect from Jehovah the Almighty's book?
The problem is that the Roman sources can be validated independently on the field in major points, even if they're also full of hearsay, miracles, and pro-imperial biases, whereas the Muslim sources (like the Bible) are often much later and contradicted by independent sources and archaeological digs. The more important the motivation is, in this case to defend the most important thing in all of existence, namely the correct religion, in the minds of the believer, the higher likelihood of both involuntary distortion of memory, even by people close to the events in the 1st or 2nd generation, and systematic falsification afterwards. Doesn't mean all the falsifiable claims of history of the Bible or in Muslim sources is false. Some of it is true. But a lot of it is false too, dictated by later ideological and legitimacy/material concerns.
When you going to cover Bible? I attended a funeral at a Serbian Orthodox Church, where the priest-a nice man who bore a striking resemblance to the depictions of Christ on the walls and ceiling-quoted a passage from the Gospel that closely aligned with teachings in the Qur'an. e.g., John 5:30 * οὐ δύναμαι (ou dynamai) - "I am not able" * ποιεῖν ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ (poiein ap' emautou) - "to do from myself" (literally, "of myself") * μηδὲν (mēden) - "nothing" * καθὼς ἀκούω (kathōs akouō) - "as I hear" * κρίνω (krinō) - "I judge" * καὶ ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ (kai hē krisis hē emē) - "and the judgment the mine" (literally, "the judgment of me") * δικαία ἐστίν (dikaia estin) - "is righteous" * ὅτι οὐ ζητῶ τὸ θέλημά μου (hoti ou zētō to thelēma mou) - "because not I seek the will of me" * ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με (alla to thelēma tou pempsantos me) - "but the will of the one having sent me."
The issues all revolve around hearsay, which clearly contradicts the Qur'an. The vast majority are ignorant, parroting the book like drunks, while idolizing and sending praises to a deceased Prophet in hopes of seeking forgiveness for their sins-much like Catholics recite Hail Marys. None question how many would participate in acts like 'burying a woman up to her waist after she recently gave birth and then bashing her head with stones,' or marrying off six-year-olds, behaving like the worst of cattle or apes. In fact, apes are superior, as female chimpanzees typically reach sexual maturity around the age of 8 to 10 years, though they may not begin mating regularly until they are about 12 to 14 years old.
4:6 وَٱبۡتَلُوا and test ye of ٱلۡيَتَـٰمَىٰ the orphans حَتَّىٰ until إِذَا when of (future) بَلَغُواْ reach they of ٱلنِّكَاحَ the marriage (age) فَإِنۡ so if ءَانَسۡتُم perceives you (pl.) مِّنۡهُمۡ from them رُشۡدٗا (rushdan) - "rational of (maturity)" فَٱدۡفَعُوٓاْ so deliver ye of إِلَيۡهِمۡ to them أَمۡوَٰلَهُمۡ wealth (inheritance) theirs
17:36 وَلَا and not تَقْفُ thou pursue مَا what لَيْسَ not is لَكَ to you (sing.) بِهِ in it عِلْمٌ knowledge إِنَّ indeed السَّمْعَ the hearing وَالْبَصَرَ and the eyesight وَالْفُؤَادَ and the heart كُلُّ each أُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ those كُلُّ be عَنْهُ about it مَسْـُٔولًا questioned of 17:37 وَلَا and not تَمْشِ thou walk لَن in ٱلْأَرْضَ the land مَرَحًا insolent of إِنَّكَ indeed you (sing.) لَن never تَخْرِقَ breach ٱلْأَرْضَ the land وَلَن and never تَبْلُغَ thou reach ٱلْجِبَالَ the mountains طُولًا height of 17:38 كُلُّ each ذَٰلِكَ such كَانَ be سَيِّـُٔهُۥ evil its عِندَ near رَبِّكَ lord your (sing.) مَكْرُوهًا disliked of 17:39 ذَٰلِكَ such مِمَّآ from what أَوْحَىٰٓ inspires إِلَيْكَ to you (sing.) رَبُّكَ lord your (sing.) مِنَ from ٱلْحِكْمَةِ the wisdom وَلَا and not تَجْعَلْ thou make مَعَ with ٱللَّهِ Allah إِلَـٰهًا deity of ءَاخَرَ another فَتُلْقَىٰ so thou cast فِى in جَهَنَّمَ abyss مَلُومًا blameworthy of مَّدْحُورًا forsaken of
Salaam
WHEN THE FULL REVEALATIONS OF THE TRUEST NAMES OR SELECTED SOUNDS NOT THERE IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY THE WHOLE RELIGION IS CONSIDERED MAKHLUK, MIND ORIGINATED, NOT FROM REAL GOD
W Jihaaad
Zoroastrians'hadith is not Qur'an.
Some of the sentiments expressed here worry me deeply. I am completely against the idea that we should, for the greater good of society, accept or foster the claim that Islam is firmly rooted in a tradition of peace, contrary to the historical evidence or religious texts. It may feel like the right thing to do in a particular context, but it is not a sustainable in the long run. One example of this approach is that persons who make claims about the less savoury aspects of the islamic tradition are labelled as islamaphobic.
@@jpw4610
Actually the historical evidence and the religious evidence doesn't indicate that Islam is religion of war. The guest narrative here is missing a lot of information.
For example, the guest mentioned some of the massage that the prophet peace be upon him sent to the ruler of Coptics in that time. He did not read all the message, but he chose a certain world and interpreted them in way suits his narrative. The general meaning of the message: believe in Islam or God will curse you. Not :believe in Islam or I kill you.
You watched nothing on this video. The presenters portrayal of Islam was very violent. You are biased or didn't watch it.
@@eatingeatingeating I watched it all. The question is"Was the guest's portrayal of Islam unfairly violent or was it a true fair representation of Islam".
@jpw4610 Muslims themselves do not make the claim that Islam is always peaceful so that is a strawman. It'll be great if people stop lying that Muslims are always peaceful. The fact is, Islam gives Muslims the right to defend themselves. The first Muslims were persecuted for peaceful activities and after becoming refugees they were permitted to fight back. Why isn't this the narrative? It can only be bias against Islam.
I think you guys should call them out openly. The biggest culprit is Sean Anthony, extremely disingenuous, manipulating the data, misleading people.
Significance of Badr was because it was a breakaway from tribal lines. Muslims fought their pagan uncles and even fathers. So Badr was the first instance when the brotherhood of islam superceded tribal brotherhood.
Now the original concept of islam was to reduce tribal fueds by declaring all into a mega tribe so that they wouldn't fight each other.
This worked. Partially.
The idea wad usurped because once the tribes joined islam, although infighting ceded, they found enemies outside arabia. Bigger enemies like byzentines and persians.
So islam succeeded in ending local fueds, but ended up creating bigger fueds.
Source: Islam in the 21st Century
Humans are clannish by nature and conquerors by nature
I was interested until I noticed he was a Coptic. Not neutral.
By your definition, no-one would be neutral. Everyone has their background, be it Muslim, Christian, atheist, European, arab, etc. So the only way forward is for a scholar to demonstrate objectivity, stringency, etc in their research. On that basis one can assess the claims of the scholar. Otherwise, it just prejudice.
@@jpw4610 the cops are very sour that they’re a tiny minority when they were the majority
Bitter people are not partial. A Coptic is not the same as a Korean or Japanese academic .
The Copts have thrived in Egypt. They were protected. No non-Christian has remained in Europe- everyone wiped out; except for the Jews but even they were completely expelled from many countries eg Spain and Portugal. In contrast, every Muslim country had non-Muslim minorities until the 20th Century. @jpw4610
what an absolutely idiotic comment. I would suggest to keep listening to Ali Dawah or Mo Hijab rather than a channel like this
@maur_sault750 Your idiotic suggestion ( either or ) of the two bigoted opposites is proof of my logical comment.
I loved this guest, he was very well spoken and explained very well the issues of islamic history in this sense.
Great work, should bring more people on like him. This type of conversations is intrinsic for helping the islamic world move forward and come to terms on its core issues.
Ayman Ibrahim is working at a Church on how to spread Christianity.
you cannot expect him to speak with Honesty .
Interesting to note all prophets were from arab region but not from ancient civilization. Prophets stop coming as scientific temperament grew. The reason is simple it was easy to fool ignorant masses which is not possible in present day.
To understand what is jihad, just study the life of Muhammad and his successors aggressions. Gabriel Said Reynolds should invite Llyod D Jongh or Saint Murad.
You're giving fodder to Muslim fundamentalists by citing amateur polemicists like this as worthy for invitation.
He should invite to show Christian aggression!
😅😅😅wait, Jihad Biggest is self defense Makki times😅😅..
That is un refutation .
Too bad the right thing is neglected 😅😅
İslam'ı-barışı isteyen bütün devletlere sesleniyorum bu değerli dost kardeşimize destek olun
It was both defensive and offensive 🤷🏾♂️
There’s no such thing as defensive or offensive pre-the modern era. It was conquer or be conquered. Still the same today, just sprinkled with inclusive talk about human rights or whatever
@@averagemoe7879 Why do you lie? Read Judges 11:12-28 or Deuteronomy 2:4-9 for a couple of basic examples. Of course ancient people had a concept of defensive character of wars and diplomacy. It was not always a chaotic situation of everybody constantly trying to conquer or backstab everyone else because of religious devotion (like the Assyrians did in fact carry out) and/or by religious devotion masking imperial interests.
It’s unfortunate that academics still don’t give any attention to Shi’i Islamic sources and their histories and communities.
Because exclusively Shia sources are much later highly partisan, and do not rely on earliest accounts, even though those were proto Shia
They were defensive invasions. Simple.
lol
@@MrBerto800 Dont judge islam based on sunnis and shias source of hadiths history. those where created for their political gain and attributed the fabricated narrations to muhammad. The Traditional Islam which majoritarian muslims following is flawed
Lol. Yeah right!
Invasions and defensive? Given by Mohammad's character!!! Wow... Just like the Jews eh?Lol!
Israel has defensive invasion
The Catholic Church had never gone to war.
Wrong! Eventually it did as did other Christian denominations. Read your history!
@@Zarghaam12 Huh? What “history” are you reading? The Church has never gone to war. Nations have gone to war.
@@TP-om8of ? Crusades.
@@asad-kc8zf That wasn’t the church.
@@TP-om8of LOL, Ok how about European wars of religion!
Hi dear Muslims.
My simple questionn is Can the Muslims live in peace with Christians, Jews, Hindus,Buddhist snd other smaller faiths.
The answer is Big No.
Simply After the Fall of Islamic Turkish Empire, the minorities in the Islamic Modern States all disappeared so my Muslim Friends who is to Islam or the poeple of Islam.
I am a Christian from Islamic lands and i fully know that is very Barbaric towards any non Muslims claiming that everyone is Mohammden such an absurd.
@@YoucefB-h3q I'm not for or against the question you're responding to, but why are most/several Muslim lands so hostile to law abiding people of other religions?
In my limited knowledge of MENA, there is weak protection in the law for such citizens.
You are an fooling yourself. The oldest Christian churches are in Muslim countries. During the Ottomans and every previous Islamic Empires, non-Muslim societies existed and were permitted to even have their own legal systems and education systems. With the end of those empires and the rise of Nationalism did murderous regimes occur.
There are tons of example where non-muslim society lived by their own tradition side by side with muslims in a muslim ruling state in the past. And that was the norm in a muslim state.
Can you show the same in Christian ruling western states where other religious society existed/survived prior to the 19th century (begining of secular era)?
You can still find a large number of Christian Arabs in areas dominated by Islam.If Muslims forcedly convert them, there will be no Christian s and Jews in the middle east today.
@thomasbayer1843 The Ottomans had a millet system where millet means "nation". Each nation in the Ottoman Empire had the right to have their own legal system and Education system. Which Christian country or non-Muslim country, present or past, allows such a privilege to all its people - true pluralism only exists in the Islamic millet system.
Islams not Islam I love that. The Islam of Muhammad is the Islam of 7th century Arabia but every Islam is inspired or influenced by this great man.