₦airaland Forum

tbaba1234:
Go to Spain, all the Muslim mosques have become churches and you can barely find Muslims there. Spain was Muslim at some point.

Yet there are significant amounts of minorities in the Arab world. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan etc.. If the Muslim governments have forcibly coverted people, in a few generations, there will be no other faith.

Iran was Sunni as at the 15th Century but when the Safavid empire took over, they cracked down and expelled Sunni Scholarship, today Sunnis are a small minority.

If an empire wants to force people to a faith, it is not difficult. Generally, this was not the case with Muslims. It only takes a few generations.

It is just amazing how the early Muslims were able to achieve such great feat without recourse to forcefully convert people. I can only compare what the Safavid Shi'a did in Iran to what the Catholics did in Spain, it was complete hatred and annihilation of their enemies (Muslims).

I came across another interesting quote in an article:

"Michael Penn, a professor of early Christian-Muslim relations at Mount Holyoke College, is a student of early Syriac manuscripts. He came across letters written by Christians who were hostile to Islam, but he also found a document written by a Christian bishop in the middle of the seventh century that says, “Arabs aren’t opposed to Christianity, they respect our religion, honor priests and holy men. We have records of Muslim rulers helping found Christian monasteries.” Professor Penn also found an extended prayer by a Christian on behalf of a Muslim ruler. The highlight of his research, however, was a seventh-century canon law permitting Christian priests to administer last rites to Muslims as well as perform exorcisms to heal Muslims using Christian relics."

Source

tintingz:
That's why I said there are books tagged anti-islamic.

This is not the case of anti-Islamic, it is the case of facts, do you have any?!

tbaba1234:
"...of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of islam on the non-muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. "The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christiandom throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of Mohammedan [sic] governments towards them

(Arnold, Sir Thomas W., The Preaching of islam, a History of the Propagation of the muslim Faith, Westminister A. Constable & Co., London, 1896, p. 80.)

Indeed, I had wanted to add sanctuaries that are still in existence till today after the Muslim's conquest, which proves that the early Muslims were not into the came of convert or die. The evidences are overwhelming, and there is absolutely no reason to sugarcoat anything.

Demmzy15:
We can't forget the Shia Jihad on innocent Muslims of Iran and Azerbaijan.

Oh dear! Imagine the atrocities committed by the Shi'a in the name of spreading Shiism in those countries, this should be the classic case of forced conversion or die principle, it is alien to Islam and can never be justified.

tintingz:
Lol @ Wikipedia , Those that edit in Wikipedia must add references, so what's the difference in all other sites or source of information?

Like have said the said references of historian books sino presented from a site are to please the Arabs, I can decide to write books on British colonialism to please them, that's if I'm an academic historian.

Presenting the opposed historian books about the early Muslims conquest are tagged anti-islamic, you all know there are many books tagged anti-islamic.

And lastly, I've said not all historian agrees with each other on history of early muslim conquest.

This is Hugh Kennedy words a historian among the references in sino presented site.

However, what I find most relevant to today's sentiments are the wide-reaching challenges mounted in the 1970s and 1980s against the reliability of the early sources. "The result of this critical onslaught," Kennedy notes, "was that many historians, even those not convinced by all the revisionist arguments, have been reluctant to take these narratives seriously or to rely on any of the details they contain."
Source

^^^Not all historian agreed to each other even though Kennedy's history books on muslim/Arab conquest was not ruled out among the best books.

Okay, the writer wants to please the Arabs, but did he lie?! Did he not present his evidences?!

Secondly the statement you quoted above shows that many early historians had biases, for the fact that the sources are Arabs, they didn't want to take them seriously of which the author countered immediately why they should take those sources seriously...

"Kennedy argues that there are a number of reasons for a return to the early Arabic sources, including the fact that there exist sources outside of the Arabic tradition, notably the Syriac Khuzistan Chronicle and the Armenian history of Sebeos, "both written by Christians within a generation of the events they describe," that can be used to check against the Arabic literary tradition. There are also Greek, Coptic, and Latin sources, as well as archaeological records that can be used similarly."

How would you intend to tell the story of a nation without taking their own side of the narrative seriously?! It is like wanting to write the history of Nigeria, and not paying attention to what Nigerians have to say! Nevertheless, the evidences are there for all to read, I don't think if the early Muslims were that callous to force people to embrace Islam or kill them, wouldn't they be proud of their triumphs to document how they forced the people or killed them (as "instructed" in the hadith according to AlBaqir), not to even mention the fact that jizya was being collected. If they had forced people en mass, who would then have been paying this tax?!

tintingz:
- The author of the write up is Mr. Sugar boy, sugarcoating everything.

- The references he gave were indeed historian scholarly books but they share things in common, that's pleasing the Arabs, which is normal.

- Not all historian scholars will agree to the said references historian write ups as they are said to rely on textual evidence more than archaeology.

Can you bring contrary opinions from other historians and their evidences?!

AbdelKabir:
yeah! they were paid by the Umayyads too

abeg no give this raafidha and his "rational" sheep heart attack

In order to prove beyond reasonable doubt of the falsehood of those who criticize narrations without adequate knowledge, one would have thought history would show how these narrations made the earlier Muslims to force people into Islam, but what is on record is contrary to this, and this is established by non Muslim historians... I now wonder why someone would just want to remain Ignorant!

"...With that in mind, we can begin to explore what historians say about forced conversions to Islam in history. In general, they say that these forced conversions did occur, but rarely. Professor Ira M. Lapidus, for example, writes that “ he question of why people convert to Islam has always generated intense feeling. Earlier generations of European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary.”

Similarly, the late Marshall Hodgson wrote in his ground-breaking work The Venture of Islam that “here was no attempt [by the Muslims] at converting the peoples of the [conquered] imperial territories, who practically all adhered to some form of confessional religion already… In the chiefly non-Arab agricultural lands, the object was not conversion but rule… The superiority of Islam as religion, and therefore in providing for social order, would justify Muslim rule; would justify the simple, fair-dealing Muslims in replacing the privileged and oppressive representatives of the older, corrupted allegiances…”

It should be noted that both Lapidus and Hodgson are considered leading authorities[/b]in the field of Islamic history. But while they offer the general statements quoted above, we can turn to the work of Hugh Kennedy, another prominent historian, for specific examples. Kennedy quotes [b]the treaty signed between Sophronius, the patriarch of recently-conquered Jerusalem, and the second Muslim caliph, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb (d. 644):

“This is the assurance of safety [amān] which the servant of God, ‘Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, has given to the people of Jerusalem. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves, for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and healthy of the city and for all the rituals which belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabited by the Muslims and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, not their property will be damaged. They will not be forcibly converted…”

‘Umar is generally regarded as having been one of the more strict caliphs, and Jerusalem was very symbolically important city for the Muslims; therefore, we have reason to believe that if the Muslims had been forcibly converting non-Muslims as they conquered their lands, Jerusalem would not have been the exception.

Decades after ‘Umar’s treaty with Sophronius, the Muslim leader ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Mūsa ibn Nusayr signed a similar treaty with a Visigothic noble (of southeastern Spain) named Theodemir in 713. One of the terms of the treaty was that “they [i.e. Theodemir’s followers] will not be coerced in matters of religion, their churches will not be burned, nor will their sacred objects be taken from them…”

...And so it makes sense that it was the institution of the jizya, and not the dramatized “convert-or-die” choice that many people imagine was put to non-Muslims, which ensured that Islam remained a minority religion in the conquered territories for a long time after the conquest. Historians suggest different figures, but generally agree that “for at least two centuries the majority of the inhabitants of the Islamic empire were non-Muslims.

Other historians confirm that, in the regions conquered in the first century of the Muslim conquests (i.e. 632-732), Islam didn’t become a majority religion until 850-1050. Nearly all of Iran, for example, had been conquered by 705; however, the empirical research of Richard Bulliet has shown that it was only in the mid-9th century that the percentage of Muslims in Iran’s population reached 50%, and it took nearly another century after that for that figure to hit 75%. Similarly, the region that makes up today’s Albania was gradually conquered by the Ottomans over the course of the 15th century, but conversion to Islam only really took off in the second half of the 17th century, nearly 200 years later. As some historians have pointed out, “if forced conversion to Islam had been the impetus behind the conquests, they were a miserable failure.”
Source

I now wonder were the forcing and coercing took place based on the quoted narrations?! I guess these historians were part of the Umayyads' conspiracies...

AlBaqir:
^^ @ Empiree, here's another scary one:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 80
Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4557

https://sunnah.com/urn/42350

Here is another case of you trying too hard to find fault where there isn’t. First question is, are Muslims prohibited from taking POW?! Can they chain them or not?!

Since I know you wouldn’t answer, here is the answer from the Qur’an:

"If you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks. Then, if you have thoroughly subdued them, the bind them firmly, so there will be a time for either generosity or ransom for them until cessation of the war." [Sûrah Muhammad: 4]

Now that the POW is "chained", perhaps by the neck as the narration you presented suggests, what would happen?! Again we go to the Qur’an:

"O Prophet! Say to those who are captives in your hands: 'If Allah finds any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you and He will forgive you. For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Sûrah al-Anfâl: 70]

Interesting, the Prophet (SAW), nay the Muslims, are ordered to offer Islam to these captives (remember, they are in a firm bind), they are to offer them Islam and not force them. I should also state categorically that these are fighters who had been captured in the battle field. But lets go into another narration to see the full explanation of the hadith in question of what transpired between a captive and his captor at war!

“This can clearly be seen in the story of Thamâmah b. Athâl al-Hanafi, an idolater who was captured by the Muslim army in battle and then brought to the mosque where he was restrained. The Prophet approached him respectfully and said: "What have you, O Thamâmah?"

Thamâmah replied: "Actually I have a lot going for me. If you kill me, you kill a man whose blood will surely be avenged. If you are generous, then you are generous to a man who knows how to be grateful. If you are after money, then ask of me whatever amount you like."

The Prophet (peace be upon him) left him at this point. On the second day when he approached him, Thamâmah said basically the same thing. On the third day, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Let Thamâmah go." [Al-Bukhârî (4372) and Muslim (1764)]

They unbound him and let him go. He went on his way, quickly took a bath, and returned, declaring: "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and I bear witness that you are the Messenger of Allah. O Muhammad! I swear to Allah that there was no man on the face of the Earth who I hated more than you. Now you have become to me the dearest of men. And I swear by Allah that there was no religion on Earth more loathsome to me than your religion, but now it is the most beloved to me of all religions. There was no country on Earth more despised by me than your country, yet now I love it more than any other country in the world."


Source

Thus, I boldly say, the Qur’anic verses and the story show that the narration from Abu Hurayrah is indeed authentic and it is the absolute truth!

AlBaqir:
# We have seen several verses of the Quran like "verse of sword" (sura Tawbah:5) within its contexts that such verse is restricted and limited. Kindly show us the context(s) of the above-mentioned hadith. When and where and under what circumstance the saying was revealed?!

And you call the above a challenge?!

A single verse taken out of context can be used the way you want to criticize the hadiths you had brought, but to defend the verse quoted in isolation, you would bring other verses of the Qur'an, and in some cases, you bring hadiths. When we say there is an explanation for the narrations you had presented, it means we do not take a single hadith in isolation to form queer conclusions.

The Qur'an and the Hadith goes hand in hand, but in your own case, you tried to put the Qur'an against the hadith which is wrong! I have presented verses from the Qur'an that could easily be misunderstood, but while you accept the Qur'anic verses as being contextual and justified, you failed to also see the narrations to follow suit. Your argument is not based on verifying the truth, it is as a result of your irrational hatred for the Sunni's hadith collections.

Now let me quote another version of your initial hadith that clearly shows that you just don't jump on a single hadith without seeking to learn!

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "I was given victory through Ru`b: the enemy becomes filled with Ru`b even though they are the distance of a month's journey away from me." (Ahmad #20337)

Now the word Ru'b translated as terror, is the same word used in the Qur'anic verse below:

We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers. (Q 3:151 Picthall)

We can all see that the terror hear does not mean violence or wanton destruction of lives and properties, but fear!

So what is wrong with the hadith again AlBaqir?!

Empiree:
Perhaps, we may need to define EXPEDITION. I am only speaking in the context of modern day "preemptive war" which base on fraud 90% of the time. Preemptive war in the time of rosul (SAW) was justified bcuz it was always happened after series of treason or broken treaties.. So definition of expedition in the time of noble prophet(SAW) is different from today's. That's why i disagree with people saying there is "offensive J!had" in islam. It is all defensive except for Liberating War. Liberating War requires the victims to cry out for help as Quran says


And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" Sura 4:75

This is ALL I know

1-Defensive War, which is resorted to when the enemies of Muslims attack the religion, honor, property, territories etc..

2-Liberating War, which is done to liberate all those who are oppressed, such as slaves. This form of war was normal in the early days of Islam.

3- Preemptive War, which is launched only when Muslims know for sure that there is treason against their peaceful treaties with the enemy, when the enemy has a serious plan to attack them.


So Iraq war for instance was offensive and illegal. All types of excuses like "we are protecting our interests" was/is reason for wars on other countries, and they called it "preemptive war" is nothing but fraud

You see, I only asked my question in order to understand what you meant by "stay protecting the borders". Any way, you have already answered that Muslims can also lunch offensive wars when justified, and that is what I wanted to let you know.

Secondly, whether USA lied to attack Iraq or not is not really an issue in this discussion, the fact remains that every sovereign nation has the right to defend her territories and protect her interests, even if they have to go on an offensive war. War is a strategy(overt and covert), and one of the tactics of war is a surprise attack, of which the Prophet (SAW) used in some of his battles.

AlBaqir:
There is a difference between waging unjustified war into other's land (e.g north Africa), putting terror into their heart, forcing them to accept Islam, changing their culture, language into that of Arab....These compare to Nabi's protective war?! Its a distance between heavens and the earth.

Oga Ade, you quoted hadith of the Prophet (SAW), verses of the Qur'an were quoted with the same information, instead of you to accept you were wrong with your erroneous intent, you decided to twist the narrative, stating what cannot be found in the hadith in the first place. Mind you, the Qur'an stated no compulsion, and yet stated that the Muslims should fight the disbelievers until they accept Islam, if you do not know these verses are in the Qur'an, please say so, so we can educate you, and if you do not have any problem with those verses in the Qur'an, then you shouldn't have problems with the hadiths you have presented. Like Tbaba said, Islam is not a pacifist religion, although it is peaceful.

AlBaqir:
When you have hadith that says "I am to fight people until they proclaim shahadatain", I ask what kind of Islam is that when Allah says, " let there be no compulsion in religion"?!

Before going to war with the disbelievers, Jews and mushriks, did the Prophet (SAW) ask them to accept Islam?!

What did the Prophet (SAW) do to his enemies (who were fighting him and he was fighting them) who then proclaimed the shahadatain?!

AlBaqir has moved from one topic to another, he seems not to know which point he is talking about, and lacks the humility to accept that he was wrong quoting the hadith and making false claims about it in the first instance.

@Empiree, did the Prophet (SAW) stay in Medina to protect her borders and wait till the enemies invaded them?! Did the Prophet not send expeditions to conquer some territories?!

Demmzy15:
His case is just pathetic, whenever he sees no one is falling his Shia propaganda, he quickly shifts to just misguide. If you don't subscribe to my shi'i teachings, then you must be misguided at all cost.

It is very pathetic, I pray Allah (SWT) guides him and make him see his errors before it is too late

AbdelKabir:
come on.....don't you know a sunni five year old kid knows the Qur'an better than these rawaafid?

But AlBaqir was a Sunni before becoming a Shi'a, at least he would have learnt about these ayaat then even if he is now more preoccupied with other matters... I'm not understanding this Shi'a matter at all o, it is discombobulating me

Demmzy15:
Akhee, hey, here's another one

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Qur'an 9:5

But one would have thought AlBaqir knew these verses exists in the Qur'an, and there are appropriate explanations, adequate analysis and contextual understandings, which ought to have made the narration a non-issue.

AlBaqir:
Abi o. Two opposite characters, yet they will argue its the same. Welcome to the world of troglodytes.

We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers. (Q 3:151 Picthall)

golpen:
I think we should just quit these arguments already. Remember what the prophet pbuh said about who quits arguments first.

More so, it's evident that someone has seen his own "epic-fail" points and has resulted to stretching the dialogue with ridiculous answers for people to dwell on. That's a better way to unmanly say "I've been wrong, but now I agree and now I get it" and sneak out of the argument. Even his followers have deserted him and you can see shame!

May Allah grant us goodness and guide us all through the right path.

Ameen, Jazakumullah khayran brother.

vedaxcool:
It is unfortunate you have resorted to lying.... lying in the clear face facts.... may Allah guide you to truth. Reasoning does not equate lying. .. If the premise of your entire argument is based on lying then I am sorry to say you are not Reasoning but being a liar. Even the most knowledgeable scholars put at the end of their opinions Allah knows best in cases where their opinions seems very good or in straight forward matter that is accepting that their knowledge is limited....but in your sad case of lying you should have at least stated that your opinion is simply speculations at best and at worst guess work and that is the point of asking
you whether you undertook an autopsy. ..a knowledgeable person would have said no while an ignoramus would have said Yes because he cannot properly reason. The sad part of this story is that you act like you know things when in fact you simply are poorly informed and have decided to use your poor knowledge to make up claims that have no basis.

Brother Sino this is not about refuting him but asking him to provide valid evidence .... he cannot ... a sensible person would have simply acknowledged that the prophet kids could have died from a range of causes .... because there is no possible way to verify the real causes of their deaths.....But a true believer would have said It is Allah's decree that they die at the time they died because from Allah we come and to him we shall return. .. it is not about the cause but that Allah set their time to die and they died as he willed it. You can never dialogue with someone who willfully lies in the face of clear reality.

Apparently he is just being belligerent, of course I had asked him to prove his assertions, but he has been basing his arguments on assumptions and speculations, and focused only on genetic defects, which could have killed any child who are also not from related parents.

Indeed the most accurate answer for a Muslim is that Allah (SWT) knows best and it was their time, but he and AlBaqir had made fun of such statement with regards to abiku and sickle cell anemia, so I doubt they believe in the fact that Allah (SWT) had already destined people to die at a particular time.

tintingz:
I've proven that third cousins are related which shows that Muhammad (SA) and Khadija(RA) will share some percentage in DNA. And it is problematic when a society are recurrence in consanguineous marraige, What other prove do you want?

You have not proven anything, where is your proof of what killed some of the Prophet's (SAW) children?

You see, when I tell you that you do not know what you are talking about, it would seem that I am insulting you. You had presented a scientific report that we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps on another thread, so sharing DNA isn't an issue here, that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about genes!

Secondly, I had repeated more than once, consanguineous marriages is not and can never be the cause of genetic defects! If you had understood this, you would know that there are risk of genetic defects in non-consanguineous marriages too!

Thirdly, the shared genes (which are where the defects resides) gets reduced with how far apart the blood relatives are. For first cousins, the shared common genes are 12.5% and this is where science had said the risk for inherited birth defect is 2% higher. Now I ask you what percentage of genes would be shared between third cousins from the mother's lineage, before you now go to the Prophet (SAW) and Khadijah (RA)?! http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/Genetics-Fact-Sheets/FactSheetConsanguinity

Fourthly, you do not have any evidence of what killed some of the Prophet's children at infant, you only have assumptions, and assumptions are not facts, for the fact that there are indeed other causes of death over 1400 years ago, then without empirical evidences, you cannot know for certain what killed any child at that time.

Fifthly, Using Darwin's marriage to draw correlation with the Prophet (SAW) is fallacious, Darwin and his wife were first cousins, even at that, the death of his children are only speculatively attributed to inbreeding, two out of the three, died as a result of infections, and the last child cause of death is unknown. One of his child had down syndrome, and that is not as a result of inbreeding!

Lastly, using an incomplete information to arrive at a conclusion is fallacious, and you have employed a lot of fallacies on this thread.

tintingz:
Probably Khadija.


Most of their infant death are caused by genetic defects.


Taah!

Third cousins still share common ancestor, It seems you don't get it, Arabs are full of consanguineous marriage, too much relation marriages producing anomalies genes.

It seems you skip this part:

Repeated consanginous marriages within a group are more problematic. After repeated generations of cousin marriage the actual genetic relationship between two people is closer than the most immediate relationship would suggest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

Now this support my argument. The genes of many Arabs are full of anomalies(autosomal), too much incest practice.

Even tho the percentage of third cousin might decrease but it doesn't rule out that they are not related and not risk of having genetic disorder.

According to Family Tree DNA's figures there is a 90% chance that third cousins will share enough DNA for the relationship to be detected, but there is only a 50% chance that you will share enough DNA with a fourth cousin for the relationship to be identified.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-DNA-do-third-cousins-share

We are talking about Prophet Muhammad and Khadijah's mothers being third cousins, not the prophet (SAW) and Khadijah (RA). I am very sure their mothers didn't marry each other, I am lost at what you are trying to prove here...

tintingz:
The OP himself confirmed, Prophet Muhammad (SA) married one of his cousin. Like have said Arabs are known to practice incest, it is part of their culture, you don't need Sherlock Holmes to tell you there won't be anomalies in many Arabs gene. Even till date it is getting higher.

Which cousin did the Prophet (SAW) married that gave birth to genetically defective children?! Can you answer?!

tintingz:
many of His children died at early age.

So?! 1400 years ago, it was only genetic defects that kill children, no?!

tintingz:
Khadija(RA) and Muhammad (SA) are still cousins whether distant or miles away, they are genetic related(Khadija's mother was cousin to Muhammad's mother), you can disagree, that's not my business.

Note, Khadija's mom was a [b]THIRD COUSIN [/b]to the Prophet (SAW)'s mother, that is three generations apart...

Let me help you with a quote from your most favorite site, Wiki:

"The percentage of consanguinity between any two individuals decreases fourfold as the most recent common ancestor recedes one generation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

Now, it is not as if there is no risk in marrying a non relative when it comes to genetic defects, it is only that the risk is higher by 2% for first cousins, and the further apart, the risk becomes same as any individual, and that is if there is a genetic defect in the gene pool.

Now I have proven that the Prophet (SAW) and Khadija (RA) are not within the risk of consanguineous marriage, this has destroyed your assumptions...

tintingz:
He's still calling me a mad person.

Let me educate you about reasoning, you said the Greek-Egyptian copt son died at infant how many, one right? Is there any other infant death of her children, if there is you can mention them. Your logic is weak.

Now reason with this, Charles Darwin 3 three children died at early age due to inbreeding(cousin-cousin marriage), another three suffered a defect. It's clearly shows it is inherited to genes.

Prophet Muhammad (SA) children died at infant except Fatimah(RA), Arabs are known to practice incest even before Islam came to them, it is an Arab culture, now imagine the anomalies genes they must have passed to offspring. Till date Arabs are the highest rate in genetic disorder.

Now ponder on this before you start your bully attitude.

You have not presented any fact about the Prophet's (SAW) marriage to his cousin and prove inherited genetic defects, remember, the risk is only higher in first cousins...

Mind you, it wasn't only Fatimah (RA) that didn't die at infant, and the Prophet's wife Khadijah (RA) (that gave birth to most of his children) was a distant cousin (very far apart, in fact, we can even say they are not related). You should do more research before you makeup your assumptions...

AlBaqir:
First, I'm afraid I don't follow this thread much. The subject matter piss me off. [b]Whoever anybody marries is his choice but don't tell me "cousin marriage" was institutionalized by Islam.

[/b]Second, if you think tingtingz is going too far in his thought and questions, you will be doing worse by asking him to shut his mouth or never to ask again. It might not be important to you but it is to him for a reason best known to him. I was trained to respect people's free will. The best you can do is debunk his thought intellectually, again, intellectually. Questions stricter than that will be asked by non-Muslims. What do you prepare as answer(s)? Are you gonna ask them to keep quiet while we call ourselves defender of faith (at least against non-muslim)?

Third, apparently, my being a Muslim is by virtue of my parents and the environment I grew up from. That's why I am of belief that those that do not heard of Islam throughout their lives or know nothing good about the deen (except violence, terrorism, hatred of others etc), will not be judged equally as me in the sight of Allah. However, I grew in faith with rational understanding of the deen (not dogmatization). I explore, scrutinize and research anything seem ambiguous to me..

Quran argued mostly philosophically not dogmatically.

The ball is in your court to answer his questions by clearing his doubt. I wish the guy can travel back in time to ask the Prophet himself. Part of the saying of Nabi was, "ask me anything and I swear I will answer you. And imagine a sahabah asked him, who is (was) my father? Nabi answered him.

Bros, what does the title of the thread says?! and which section are we?! If a topic about marriage and who one marries is started in the family section, I wouldn't bother, even if anyone claims there is a lot of benefit in same sex marriage. But we are in the Islamic section, we are guided, we don't just write based on our whims and desires, we have the Qur'an and we have the Sunnah! I asked you a question but you didn't answer, so I'll ask again. Is your cousin part of the prohibited women to marry from the Qur'an?! If cousins are not included in the Qur'an, and we have it in record the Prophet (SAW) and his ahl-l-bayt practiced it, then do you have the right to prohibit it?! Is cousin marriage permissible in Islam or not?! If it is permissible, does it not mean that it is institutionalized in Islam?!

Secondly, tintingz had been adequately answered, I said I do not know what killed the children of the Prophet (SAW), what is certain is that, it was their time to die, those that died young, and the ones that died older... I don't know what answer tintingz is looking for, since he is a researcher, he should go and find out and come back to educate us, since he believes his question has some value to this topic.

Thirdly, people are given the freewill to seek for knowledge and search for the truth. Doubts that are stemmed from ego, pride and false assumptions about the reality would have no positive value to an individual. You need to have intellectual humility/open-mindedness before you can reach true knowledge and appreciate the truth. Asking questions is not the problem, your attitude and manner of questioning as well as your responses speaks volume about you and your state of mind.

AlBaqir:
Baba Ibadan , tintingz, Empiree, Please pardon my late arrival to this thread. The comments are just too much for me to read piece by piece.

# Please is anyone here saying cousin marriage is recommended by the Quran? I'd like to see the verse.

# Islam is not a religion of Arab rather it is a universal religion which respect all customs/culture so far it is not in direct contradiction with any rulings of Islam. Cousin's marriage is one of those prevalent Arabian culture that preceded Islam. Islam was never the founder of it. Anyway, Islam did not object it in those area where it is being practiced. The risk is yours. Its like As vs As. While it is not Haram, it is highly recommended on medical advise that such a marriage should be avoided.

# In this part of the world, Yorubaland, such a thing in my culture is absolutely not welcome. Is this idea against Islam? Hell no!

How convenient.

So the Prophet (SAW), and his ahl-lbayt practiced consanguinity, and you are here saying it is Arab culture. Indeed you have no shame, so your cousin is your mahram right?! So you are adding cousins to the prohibited women we cannot marry according to Islam right?! Did Allah (SWT) forget (audhubillah) to mention cousins in the Qur'an when listing those you cannot marry, because you as a Yoruba man, it is taboo to marry your cousin right?! I never thought you would go this low...I pity you seriously....Perhaps share why the Prophet's children died young, was it as a result of cousin marriage like your friend suggests?!

tintingz:
I don't know about the latter phrase.

"(There's) no such thing as a stupid question" is a popular phrase that has had a long history. It suggests that the quest for knowledge includes failure, and that just because one person may know less than others they should not be afraid to ask rather than pretend they already know. In many cases multiple people may not know but are too afraid to ask the "stupid question"; the one who asks the question may in fact be doing a service to those around them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_such_thing_as_a_stupid_question

You can see how "stupid question" is very important.

So how has your stupid question helped you in the quest for knowledge?! do you now know what killed the prophet's children?! Can you get samples to test your theories?! Is the answer(s) to your stupid question solve any problem?!

tintingz:
But they are suffering from genetic defects

Genetic defect is a global problem, it is not exclusive to the Arabs, you should know that most diseases are linked to genetics, even if they are not inheritable.

tintingz:
Why did Allah created genes and genotypes?

Don't reduce Allah(SWT) to we humans.

Allah is all-knowing and merciful.

Gene and genotype are some of the characteristics of life on this earth, without them, you wouldn't be here.

And when did you start believing in Allah (SWT)?!

tintingz:
Muhammad (SA) children died at early age and it doesn't ring a bell that something must have happened? Something inherited.?

Like they say : "There is no such thing as a stupid question"

And why involving Albaqir to my discussion, do I look a shia fellow? Do I sound like someone that need support fans or cheer leader so far in this thread?
Anybody can contribute to this thread.

Something inherited like what?!

Let me help you complete your quote up there, "there is no such thing as a stupid question, only inquisitive idiots" I bet you never knew...

By the way, AlBaqir has been your fan, and a cheerleader, he was also supporting inbreeding is the cause of birth defects, and I am quite surprised that he is now quiet. Not to mention that the Prophet's grand children Hassan(RA) and Hussein (RA) were as a result of consanguineous marriage, well if you do not know, they didn't die while they were children.

tintingz:
The thing is, since the risk is high in consanguineous marriage why can't people just avoid it, I'm not against people's choice marrying or having relationship with their cousins, I'm only concerned about the future generations.

Your concerns have been noted, those directly involved are living their lives, marrying their cousins, and enjoying themselves, at least, we have no report that suggests that the Arabs are going or would be going into extinction as a result of their consanguineous marriages...

tintingz:
Humans are not super-Gods we are just humans, but the super-being is all-knowing yet no warning of genetic disorder in incest.

You should be the one to think.

You got it all wrong, your car was never designed to kill you right?! So Allah (SWT) never permitted cousin marriages to harm you, so if you find harm in it, do not ask Allah (SWT) what went wrong, are there precautions you ought to have taken yourself?! You do not over speed and ended up having accident, then you now start blaming the manufacturer of the car for making it have a speed reaching 180 Km/h right?!

tintingz:
A reminder that can't remind people about the risk in what He permitted.

Do you have a problem with reading?! Allah (SWT) warns you not to harm yourselves, what other warning do you want?! Food is good for the body, Allah (SWT) provided us with the means to nourish ourselves, and made permissible what is lawful, and prohibited some, when you go ahead and start eating junk foods, and end up with obesity or cancer, do you expect the Qur'an to warn you specifically of cancer and obesity and prohibit junk food?! Is do not harm yourself universal, comprehensive and adequate enough for those who think and reflect?! #Think!!!

Yoruba would say "abo oro la n so fun omoluabi, to ba de inu e, a di odindin" "A word is enough for the wise", The Qur'an is speaking to people who (are willing to) apply their intelligence...

tintingz:
- You make no sense here, Arabs practice incest more than any other nation why won't there be high Rate in genetic disorder? you will be the forth person here I will ask what killed Prophet Muhammad (SA) children in infant.

I don't know what killed them, but certainly it was their time to die, as you yourself would die at any time whether by diseases or by any other means, not to mention that you are not the first person to ask silly question like this, and Surah Al-Kawthar was specifically revealed for such people, you may pick a copy of the Qur'an and read...

I was looking forward to AlBaqir to come and support you on this, I guess, his eyes don dey clear small small....

tintingz:
- If you see a doctor for genetic test on marrying your cousin, I'm very sure here in Nigeria a doctor will advice you not to marry your cousin because the case is no different from genotype.

- The risk of genetic disorder on related couples is higher than that of non-related couples, you don't need Bruce Wayne or Sherlock Holmes to tell a consanguineous marriage will produce an anomalies gene in their offspring. The super-being allows cousin-cousin marriage yet it doesn't tell them the risk behind it, now Arabs are full of genetic disorders.

If there is a genetic defect, it is probable, (and that does not mean they can't give birth to healthy kids), if not, their kids would be normal! If you marry today tintingz, and you or your wife is carrying a defective gene, it is also probable to give birth to defective children, even if you go and marry a Chinese woman. And if non of you have a inheritable genetic disorder, your environment and other factors, may lead to you having defective children!

@bold I would ignore the fallacy and would only ask, we humans invented cars, do you know that these cars can cause your death?! #Think!!!

Please read my first post on this thread to see a comprehensive warning from Allah (SWT) the creator...And again, the Qur'an is revealed as a reminder to those who use their intelligence appropriately.

Jazakumullahu khayran @golpen for your analysis. One fact that is incontrovertible is that inbreeding is not the cause of birth defects. While it may increase the risk of having defective children, this can only be true, if there is indeed a genetic problem in the family, and the rare defects are what we are talking of.

Consanguinity and Autosomal Recessive Disorders
In mathematical terms, consanguinity does not alter the allele frequencies of common disorders, but increases the probability of a mating between two individual heterozygotes for the same recessive mutant allele. In this regard, the risk for birth defects in the offspring of first-cousin marriage is expected to increase sharply compared to non- consanguineous marriages particularly for rare autosomal recessive disease genes, because for common recessive conditions, there is a high chance that the abnormal gene may be carried by unrelated spouses and may be expressed in their progeny

http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/pdf/1742-4755-6-17.pdf

This above shows that even though consanguinity increases the risk for "RARE" autosomal recessive disorders, if unrelated couples also get married, and either of the spouses is a carrier of a recessive condition, then such condition maybe expressed in their offspring.

I now ask, what is the problem?! Since unrelated couples can also pass on defect to their progeny, and then being expressed, why then the uproar against Islam and permissibility of cousin marriages?!

FriendChoice gave an example of sickle-cell, fortunately, sickle-cell is also autosomal recessive in pattern of inheritance. Islam does not talk about prohibiting the marriage to a sickle-cell /carrier (AS), and if you marry such a person, your marriage is Halal (permissible). Of course there are better ways of managing sickle-cell, and even proposed cure, just as there are test centers in areas with high consanguinity marriages, and research in treatment and cure of genetically related birth defects.

To buttress the exaggerations, here is a report that captures the rate of birth defect in Arab countries compared to the West:

"The recent report by March of Dimes estimated birth defects to be >69.9/1000 live births in most Arab countries, as opposed to <52.1/1000 live births in Europe, North America and Australia. Lower observed rates of 7.92/1000 births and 12.5/1000 births were registered in the UAE and Kuwait, respectively. In Oman, among 21,988 births, 24.6 per 1000 births had major malformations." (ibid.)

It should be noted that the above figures for the Arab states cannot be exclusively stated being as the result of consanguineous marriages, for there are conflicting reports of association, not to mention other factors responsible for birth defects...

With the way some people are arguing, One would have thought the whole Arabs are now deformed and defective based on their continued practice of cousin marriage....

Jazakallahu khayran @AbdelKabir for sharing, it is very important that Muslims know that cousins are not part of those we cannot marry and therefore apply proper Islamic etiquette when in contact with them, although sometimes, it may be difficult due to cultural reasons, but that is not an excuse as such. It should also be noted that in some cases, the unguarded association with cousins, and even other close relatives, lead to immoral acts...

This issue was brought by an atheist to this section to condemn Islam and Muslims, here is one of my response (edited) to him, which I think may be beneficial here...

Cousin marriage is permissible in Islam, it is not compulsory, there are benefits and not until recently, we hear and see a problem associated with it such as this.

So what does Islam prescribe?

Allah Says in the glorious Qur’an, “and don’t take your souls to destruction” , in light of this verse, a Muslim is not expected to get involved in things that may harm him or his family(progeny inclusive ) (Scholars have used this verse to make fatwa against smoking, which is not explicitly stated haram in the Qur’an), So when the disadvantages of a permissible act are so prominent and has to do with life, Islam gives us the right to abstain from it.

Be that as it may, Islam goes in pari passu with development in beneficial knowledge; hence the advancement and understanding which science has brought would help in preventing cases of birth defects.

It is a fact that prenatal diagnoses are available in analyzing most genetic disorders in fetus; I also learnt recently that there are centers for testing to-be couples in the Middle East which diagnose these diseases… In 1990, The World Islamic League passed a fatwa permitting abortion up to 120days after conception if the fetus is diagnosed with a serious disorder.

All in all, there is awareness about it, and proactive steps are being taken to tackle this problem. Check this site: http://www.cags.org.ae

Most of these birth defects are as a result of mutation in the genes, even if you go and marry from Russia, if your spouse is a carrier of a defective gene (or is affected with a disorder) and it is inheritable (Autosomal, X,Y linked etc. dominant or recessive), the chances of your children having a genetic disorder is probable. The reason why a background check is necessary before you go all lovey-dovey and saying, marry me or yes I do.

https://www.nairaland.com/1448664/muslim-countries-found-highest-rates

Medknight:
Evolution as "a change in allele frequencies over time" is a fact. Read this: http://quranscientificerror..com/2013/08/re-quran-scientific-errors-on-evolution.html

Let me add some more information, by the way, a very apt article from the link you presented….

So I watched the video tintingz recommended, (I guess because she is a Muslim, and she kept repeating evolution is a fact)... Well, I could only pick DNA homology, as one of the major prove of evolution, that we share like 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, and thus this DNA code for the same proteins in both organisms, thus those DNA were conserved…While I do not argue with the fact of shared DNA, I say this does not prove evolution in any way as much as fossil records or anatomy do with its lack of transitional intermediates, If anything, homology proves one Creator i.e an Intelligent Designer! Of course life has only one source; therefore, there shouldn’t be a surprise if such relationship is found!

"The DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein- mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed “junk DNA,” which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression…

…The ape to human species change would require an incredibly rapid rate of mutation leading to formation of new DNA, thousands of new proteins, and untold cellular, neural, digestive, and immune-related changes in DNA, which would code for the thousands of new functioning proteins. This rate of mutation has never been observed in any viral, bacterial, or other organism. The estimation for DNA random mutations that would lead to intelligence in humans is beyond calculation. Therefore, the recently discovered molecular differences between apes and humans make the prospect of simple random mutation leading to a new species of Homo sapiens largely improbable…

…Finally, bacterial evolution or adaptation offers an excellent opportunity to see mutation in a species with rapid cell division. Evolutionary biology can be modeled over a relatively short time (30 years), while observing DNA mutations over 10²⁰ generations. This is analogous to observing mutations in man or any mammal over 200 million years. A recent review of numerous papers related to viral and bacterial evolution over the past years revealed that the vast majority of mutations led to a loss or slight modification of function that conferred resistance or survival benefit. These specific mutations included simple deletions, substitutions, frame shift mutations, inversion, and insertion. No gain-in-function mutations were observed in any of the long-term bacterial evolution studies. There were only two gain-of-function mutations in the long-term viral evolution studies. [b]The absence of mutations leading to a single new protein suggests the difficulty of using mutation to explain the development of numerous new proteins coded specifically by thousands of nucleotides in a precise order, interacting with numerous other enzymes in a simultaneous fashion to accomplish a single cellular action such as the cellular manufacture of a single nucleotide. The complexity of creating two sequential or simultaneous mutations that would confer improved survival has been studied in the malaria parasite when exposed to chloroquine. The actual incidence of two base-pair mutations leading to two changed amino acids leading to resistance has been shown to be 1 in 10²⁰ cases. To better understand this incidence, the likelihood that Homo sapiens would achieve any single mutation of the kind required for malaria to become resistant to chloroquine (a simple shift of two amino acids) would be 100 million times 10 million years (many times the age of the universe). This example has been used to further explain the difficulty in managing more than one mutation to achieve benefit."[/b]

For references and further reading, visit: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/

In other words, the idea that it would take gazillion number of years for evolution (the jump from ape to man) to occur, hence the lack of observable process of evolution is highly improbable, it is a fairy-tale...

Going further, her remarks about the Qur’an is not appropriate, when she herself acknowledges the fact that their knowledge about evolution may change with new discoveries (as it has always been changing), and she wants the Qur’an to also follow suit, changing the interpretations after new findings?! I don’t even understand how that is possible. I have asked AlBaqir, to explain some Qur’anic verses, perhaps in the light of new discoveries, but he has been “speaking in tongues” ever since…

It is just funny how believers in evolution or pro-evolutionist, assume your rejecting evolution, equals rejecting science, they resort to ad-hominem and all sort of irrational outburst, this is basically the kind of thinking and actions that comes from religious fanatics…One individual remarked that evolution is the 21st century version of fairy-tale for adults to hold on to a belief that is inexplicable…

And yeah, I know, research is still ongoing....