Islam and excommunication

[GeneralNoob]

The best-known example is probably the Mongol invasion of the Levant around the 1300s. There was this (in)famous Sunni cleric named Ibn Taymiyya who gave a fatwa (religious declaration) saying the “Tatars” (aka the Mongols, or Ilkhanate in-game) weren’t real Muslims. Even though they had converted to Islam, he argued they didn’t fully follow Shariah (Islamic law) and were still ruling by their old traditional laws, so in his view, that made them not proper Muslims. This gave the Mamluks a strong religious reason to go to war, and Ibn Taymiyya was very involved — he preached to the soldiers, called for jihad, and even traveled with them to rally morale.

Fatwas were basically ignored by rulers, whenever it didnt fit into their policy. Ottoman scholars gave a fatwa against the second siege of Vienna, because Vienna was willing to negotiate for peace. The Mamluks were also notorious for not following any islamic principles (e.g. drinkers). Some of them were pious, most of them seemingly were not. At least not from what we know. It could be that the locals were biased and overemphasized the bad ones, but that doesnt give much reason to believe that most cared for religious principles. By islamic law you are also forbidden to enslave people. Especially the people of the book, which was inherently ignored by the maghreb countries. This time period is not traditionalists. It is pragmatic.

That doesnt mean that religion was not cared for, but random imams dont hold any authority. Unlike christianity, islamic scholars and imams are just people knowledgeable about religion. Not figureheads you have to follow. People still did, especially in shia islam, but it is much less prevelant in general. Scholars/Sufis/Imams usually influenced the opinion of a ruler and with it law. Not campaigns.

In-game, I think moving closer to this traditionalist school of thought (you could call it "Athari" although that would be an oversimplification) could give rulers powerful tools: solid casus bellis, high morale troops, and religious legitimacy(?). But it should come with downsides — like unrest from minorities, tension with other scholars resulting in public discontent (since Atharis are usually non-compromising), and maybe slowing down things like science and therefore research progress since this school was against a lot of Greek-style reasoning. It wasn’t anti-knowledge but it did reject stuff that didn’t come straight from scripture

This was present in EU4 (minus the disadvantages) with mysticism and legalism. That is what it represents. Mysticism is the direct word-for-word interpretation of Islam. Societies tend to see imams as figure-heads of authority. Legalism is the interpretation of the Quran. Imams are not figure-heads of authority. Funny enough Legalism is the traditional view, since it is the initial way people understood Islam. Mysticism is basically a post-mongol interpretation. How prevelant each understanding was would require an entire research of its own, which I dont think exists at this point in time.

That being said, we do have societal values as in "tradition vs innovation". Dont know if we need that to be represented again in Islam (as in mechanics). I however do agree that potential benefits should come with disadvantages, unlike in EU4.

I personally would love to play a Mamluk game where I would go full Takfiri and use it to create a hyper-religious army and conquer neighbouring Muslim countries, demolishing shrines/icons etc. and just be a complete asshole overall

Not that I am against it, but the Mamluks are the last people going to be influenced by imams. Maybe their Levis, but most definetly not their elite force.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Well if you want to use the CB to attack your fellow muslims, you should endorse these radical beliefs as a whole (don't know which mechanic can represent this, I thought of it like a societal value), causing:

This migh have been relevant a couple of centuries prior. Not by the 14th century. Wars among muslims were too common.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

. By islamic law you are also forbidden to enslave people. Especially the people of the book, which was inherently ignored by the maghreb countries. This time period is not traditionalists. It is pragmatic.

? Islamic law allows you to enslave people, you're just meant to convert them to islam and then free them, when muhammad owned slaves, its a pretty good endorsement of slavery. The ulema estate isnt going to lose loyalty in game because you own slaves

What he mentioned about rules of Islamic warfare preventing the killing of women, children, elders, monks, and so on is a quote from Umar, the second caliph. You can't get much earlier than that.

Either way, politics has taken over this conversation for multiple people and this has drifted far from being a discussion about EU5, so imo this specific line should not continue on the forums

Yes but think of how in game, you are going to be killing said pops, and how islamic societies did kill said pops, its ridiculous to think no trees were cut down for sieges.

 

[GeneralNoob]

? Islamic law allows you to enslave people, you're just meant to convert them to islam and then free them, when muhammad owned slaves, its a pretty good endorsement of slavery. The ulema estate isnt going to lose loyalty in game because you own slaves

You can buy slaves and free them. You can not enslave someone. That is a big difference.

Prohibition of Unjust Forms of Slavery

And before this derails into a discussion about Islam: My sole point is that rulers didnt give a crap about imam's opinion. Religion played an important role but it was usually adjusted to the wishes of the rulers and not the other way around. The reason for why sufis formed is because of that as well. Sufis initially formed out of the disagreement on how islamic rulers and islamic society is praciticing Islam. There would be no sufis without the violation of islamic principles.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

You can buy slaves and free them. You can not enslave someone. That is a big difference.

Prohibition of Unjust Forms of Slavery

"It was not lawful for any Prophet before you, nor is it for you, to take prisoners without engaging in a war. If there is a war — and that too, religious — prisoners can be captured in the battlefield"
Hagar was abrahams slave, so previous prophets definetly did own slaves. "Without engaging in a war" means that you can make slaves of people you fight, no matter how lopsided it is.
"In contrast to this enlightened Islamic stand, the Europeans continued to use slavery for advancing their trade and agriculture until the nineteenth century.

There is no doubt that some instances of the un-Islamic custom of slavery can be found in Islamic history; but slavery was never practised to promote domestic industry or trade."
This is just ridiculous given how the zanj rebellion, probably the most well known example of islamic slavery of africans, was precipated by black slaves being used for crop plantations and reclaiming marshland. More crops and more farmland for cultivation certainly boosts domestic trade and industry. Slavery was also ended in europe before it was ended in islamic lands, with europeans often pressuring and lobbying for slavery to be abolished.

And before this derails into a discussion about Islam: My sole point is that rulers didnt give a crap about imam's opinion. Religion played an important role but it was usually adjusted to the wishes of the rulers and not the other way around. The reason for why sufis formed is because of that as well. Sufis initially formed out of the disagreement on how islamic rulers and islamic society is praciticing Islam. There would be no sufis without the violation of islamic pprinciples.

Its not a discussion about islam, its about how honeyed words like "no tree can be cut down under shariah" shouldnt be implemented into the game, instead the reality of slavery and sieges should be in. As well as how slavery existing in islamic countries isnt people ignoring imams or fatwas, as it clearly was sanctioned by the ulemma

 

[GeneralNoob]

Hagar was abrahams slave, so previous prophets definetly did own slaves.

We are talking about islam. Wether Abraham had slaves or not is irrelevant.

"Without engaging in a war" means that you can make slaves of people you fight, no matter how lopsided it is.

And how do you follow the code of conduct in war? According to your own gut feeling or how war prisoners were treated by the prophet? If it is the latter, you have to free them for a ransom or in exchange for work you deem equal to the ransom. Either way it wont end in permanent or long-lasting slaves, something, the islamic world ignored, which is my entire point. I dont understand why you want to turn this into a debate.

This is just ridiculous given how the zanj rebellion, probably the most well known example of islamic slavery of africans, was precipated by black slaves being used for crop plantations and reclaiming marshland.

And is entirely besides my point.

Its not a discussion about islam, its about how honeyed words like "no tree can be cut down under shariah" shouldnt be implemented into the game, instead the reality of slavery and sieges should be in.

You do realize that I never advocated for the ban of slavery right? My entire point is solely that islamic rulers did conduct in slavery despite what their religion said. Not because of it.

As well as how slavery existing in islamic countries isnt people ignoring imams or fatwas, as it clearly was sanctioned by the ulemma

The ulemma of what country by what standards? The Quran is the bases of islamic understanding, which can only be understood in its historic context and under the light of the prophet's life. Mohammed is known to free slaves, so are the righteous caliphs, especially under Umar. The amount of slaves did not increase, but massively decrease under them. What happened prior or after is entirely outside the scope of "islamic arguments", since they do not form the bases of islamic understanding. So you have the life, as well as the righteous caliphs to follow and understand islamic principles and you not doing so, does not form an argument for the promotion of slavery in Islam.

Mind you there is no central authority in Islam as you are implying with the ulemma. Everyone is their own master. You will find people speaking for and against it, which however doesnt change what is rightful within the religion and what isnt. This also goes towards legalist vs mysticst views and with it an entire discussion of its own. However in both cases the line of argumentation is the Quran itself and the life of the prophet. So you dont get around that.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Just to point out the ridiculousness of this discussion:

The Quran explicitly allows slaves to "buy their freedom":

Surah An-Nur - 1-64 - Quran.com

Read and listen to Surah An-Nur. The Surah was revealed in Medina, ordered 24 in the Quran. The Surah title means "The Light" in English and consists ...

quran.com

There are also several hadith underlining that "slaves" were not to be treated unfairly, but equal. E.g.:

Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (rta) narrated directly from the prophet: "They are your brothers. The Almighty has made them subservient to you. So whatever you ear, feed them with it, whatever you wear, cloth them with it and never aks them to do something, which is beyond them and if there is such a task, then help them out with it."

They are also to be forgiven for mistakes. E.g.:

Ibn Umar (rta) asked the prophet (sws): How many times should we forgive our servant? To which the prophet replied (after it was asked a third time): Seventy times in a day.

And mind you, you were enocuraged to atone for your sins by liberating slaves or marrying them into your family. The entire religion is layed upon integrating and emancipating slaves into society. The idea is to reduce the amount of slaves within islamic society. The absence of class and the amount of equality was also the reason why so many people from the cast system in India (usually from the lowest) turned to Islam as well.

So did islamic society do any of that past the righteous caliphs? Clearly not. Islamic nations enslaved civilians on mass. They captured traders, travellers and other non-war related people. All of this done not because of the religion, but in spite of it. Pretty much every non-islamic land was declared dar al-harb, with which rulers justified their entire nonsense. This still doesnt translate to the religion promoting it. However this does underline my point: Rulers bent their religious understanding and promoted imams/scholars that were in favour of their rule/islamic understanding. This obviously didnt always work, but you have enough cases of it. As I have mentioned previously the Ottoman dynasty ignored a fatwa for a new campaign against Austria, which led to the second siege of Vienna. Clearly this is much more nuanced than just "they all followed Islam". They objectively didnt.

We could start the discussion with the easiest example:


Were all wars in which islamic nations were involved (against non-muslims) defensive wars? No. However by islamic law, no offensive war can be declared legally. It was still done. In many many many cases. Even against other muslims. There is no religious justification for any of that.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

We are talking about islam. Wether Abraham had slaves or not is irrelevant.

Abraham is one of the people meant by "under previous prophets"

And how do you follow the code of conduct in war? According to your own gut feeling or how war prisoners were treated by the prophet? If it is the latter, you have to free them for a ransom or in exchange for work you deem equal to the ransom. Either way it wont end in permanent or long-lasting slaves, something, the islamic world ignored, which is my entire point. I dont understand why you want to turn this into a debate.

Freeing them at the end of their working life seems like a very high ransom compared to, you know, not taking them as slaves.

And is entirely besides my point.

You do realize that I never advocated for the ban of slavery right? My entire point is solely that islamic rulers did conduct in slavery despite what their religion said. Not because of it.

When it has quotes that say you can make slaves of people, that's very much not "despite what their religion said" but "because what their religion said"

The ulemma of what country by what standards?

The ulemma of the various states trading in slaves?

The Quran is the bases of islamic understanding, which can only be understood in its historic context and under the light of the prophet's life. Mohammed is known to free slaves, so are the righteous caliphs, especially under Umar.

Meaning they also owned slaves for a decent portion of time. Muhammad did free Bilal ibn Rabah after buying him

The amount of slaves did not increase, but massively decrease under them.

You think the number of slaves would massively decrease when theyre massively expanding and waging war on a great level than ever before?

What happened prior or after is entirely outside the scope of "islamic arguments", since they do not form the bases of islamic understanding. So you have the life, as well as the righteous caliphs to follow and understand islamic principles and you not doing so, does not form an argument for the promotion of slavery in Islam.

My point is that it happened under the rashidun, so its clearly part of islam

Mind you there is no central authority in Islam as you are implying with the ulemma. Everyone is their own master. You will find people speaking for and against it, which however doesnt change what is rightful within the religion and what isnt. This also goes towards legalist vs mysticst views and with it an entire discussion of its own. However in both cases the line of argumentation is the Quran itself and the life of the prophet. So you dont get around tthat.b

You cant complain about no one following imams or fatwas if everyone is their own master, the ulemma are the central authority for such theologicial and legal matters in each country theyre in.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Abraham is one of the people meant by "under previous prophets"

I am still not talking about him. The entire point of me sharing the link, was to point out the narrative regarding slavery in Islam (as in what is legal about it). Everything else in it is irrelevant to my point. You pulling this up is a strawman and besides the point. I am not going to have a religious debate with you over the subject of slaves and wether rulers followed their religion by enslaving people.

Freeing them at the end of their working life seems like a very high ransom compared to, you know, not taking them as slaves.

You either make them work or your ransom them. Not both.

When it has quotes that say you can make slaves of people, that's very much not "despite what their religion said" but "because what their religion said"

You are disregarding my points, the quran, the life of the prophet, the righteous caliphs and hadith in order to push your narrative. There is nothing in the Quran that says/encourages you to go an enslave people. There is enough in the Quran that says you should emancipate and free them. The only legal source for "slaves" (if you can even call that) is through POW, which should be no where near enough to create a society with any significant number of slaves. Especially not, when you are meant to free/emancipate them and when you are not allowed to start offensive wars. You are not arguing in good faith and I dont think I will continue this discussion with you after this post.

Mind you this entire debate rose from me saying "islamic rulers did as they pleased, they didnt strictly follow islam", which you disagree with. In your mind all their actions are determined by Islam, which is an unreasonable take.

The ulemma of the various states trading in slaves?

The ulema is no authority. For the third time: Religious scholars are people with an opinion. You go to them, because in theory they research the quran and are knowledgable. They dont constitute any authority. You bringing this up is essentially equal to saying "yeah but my friend says otherwise!". That being said: You making a generalization is in no form or shape any argument to anything.

Meaning they also owned slaves for a decent portion of time. Muhammad did free Bilal ibn Rabah after buying him

Sounds like exactly my point. It is as if what I said was applied here.

You think the number of slaves would massively decrease when theyre massively expanding and waging war on a great level than ever before?

Yes. For the second time: Your only source of "slaves" can only be through POW, which does not include elderly, women, children and the ill. They are also allowed to buy their freedom and if that is not available, they work their freedom off.

My point is that it happened under the rashidun, so its clearly part of islam

I dont think you want to have a discussion. I think you just want to enforce your opinion on other people.

You cant complain about no one following imams or fatwas if everyone is their own master,

I am not complaining about anything. I am stating the fact that they arent. Full stop. Wether it was done through a misunderstanding or not, doesnt change anything here.

the ulemma are the central authority for such theologicial and legal matters in each country theyre in.

You are not the authority to determine that.