"Message for Everyone" in regards to Islamic Lineages

Thank you so much. I was going to post this question about images with respect to the Emirs and Caliphs of al-Andalus. For instance:

Abderramán I (Abd al-Rahman) al-Dajil ibn Muawiya ibn Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik, emir de Córdoba and those who followed him.

I assume that this prohibition holds for them as well. Is that true? If so, I know that two profiles have images that I can delete.

On your point about not merging Muslim created trees and non-Islamic trees, I note that there were alliances between Spanish nobility and at least one of the rulers in Abd ar-Rahman's lineage. How can this be handled without the trees touching?

Would you be willing to answer questions in the future to ensure that the Emirs and Caliphs of Cordoba are appropriately handled and have the full and proper names? Thank you.

Thank you for your inquiry.

The prohibition “only” applies when creating "images" of God and/or his Prophets, particularly to the Prophet of Islam and his immediate family.

Images of "historical figures" such as emirs, key noble people, sultans, military leaders, rulers or even regular people throughout history have been "acceptable." (*Throughout the Muslim world for decades*) You should "NOT" delete the photos of key historical figures as long as they do not include images pertaining to God (Showing any sort of physical/divine relationship) and to any of his prophets / messengers.

The prohibition only applies when creating images of God and his prophets or showing a physical and/or biological relationship through images is unacceptable to Islamic beliefs. i.e merging any Islamic family trees that end up linking to non-Islamic beliefs (such as the one i have mentioned above) should be dealt separately and not inclusive to people of other faiths. OR to simple resolve this situation, the image or biological relationship of God to his prophets should be removed. The physical/divine link between Adam and God should be eliminated as it contradicts the very foundations of the Islamic beliefs.

There have been various occasions in history where specifically during the Muslim-Spanish nobility era, marriages to various other faiths (non-Muslim) occurred which is accepted in Islam. The situation was dealt similarly to how it is done up until today, the tree has always sprung from the "paternal" side only. This is the same concept that has existed even if the marriage was within the same faith of Islam.

Sure! I would be more than happy & willing to help you with any future concerns or inquiries you would have pertaining to any historical issues or any genealogy related-associated topics. Let me know if you have any other concerns that not been clarified.

Thank You.

Thank you. So I will keep the images that people have associated with the rulers of al-Andalus.

My intention was to get the names and the well documented facts correct about the Emirs and Caliphs of Cordoba, and to create a project to share with others -- Muslim and other faiths -- the very interesting and historically important advances that happened during that era.

I have not read Arabic seriously in many years so if you have Arabic sources for this era and want to add to the profiles or to the project, your contributions would be very welcome.

I am sure that I will have more questions and thank you for your willingness to help us ensure that we have the most correct and appropriate information. Please don't hesitate to point out any errors and where I can, I will try to make sure that they are corrected. Or help you correct them, if that is what you wish.

Are there any issues that you know of currently that we need to address with specific trees or profiles?

Salaam Alekum Private User,

I am the manager of many of the profiles in the central lines of the "main tree" that are shared between the Quran and the Bible, such as Adam of Eden, Idris, Noah ., Patriarch Abraham / אברהם אבינו and many others, probably at least 18 of the 25 Prophets of Islam. I have been adding links and references to the Quran for these people. I also have their names in Arabic when known to me, as well as links to Wikipedia articles referring to the "Islamic interpretation of Person-X". I would gladly accept help improving the Islamic references for these.

I, myself, find many of these profiles, or the specific paintings associated with them to be offensive, but as they involved the efforts of hundreds of people I respect other people's choices. This does not "reflect" on me and my choices.

So could you please clarify what you mean with regard to what you would want done with these profiles?

To: Hatte Blejer

Thank you for your response. Will be in touch and will do my best to assist you in what i can. I don't have any issues at the moment, but if in the future if i encounter any problems, i will be sure to let you know.

Thank You.

To: Shmuel-Aharon Kam (Kahn) / (שמואל אהרן קם

Walaikum Assalam,

Thanks for devoting your time to this cause. Please be advised that your effort and work is highly appreciated by me.

As it is understood and known widely to Jewish, Christian and Muslim educationists that we all are incorporating our inherited data that is to be merged together to form a single tree and linage to our ancestors routing to Adam. It is a known fact that our trees have to be linked at certain points, as we are all the biological children of Adam (Alaihs Salam) and Hawa (mother of human creation).

I have ought-most respect to the contributions, choices and religious believes of other people and their corresponding profiles as long as it does not "change" or "contradict" key ethical Muslim Lineages and parallel pertaining beliefs; (In-particular to the linage of any of our Prophets, most importantly to our Prophet Muhammed (SAWS), his ancestors and to his descendants (Family-Blood-Relations).

The current concern I am having in relation to the topic at hand is that according to the public trees that are displayed throughout Geni, "Adam" is described to have a biological and/or divine link to "God" which is directly against the foundations of the Muslim faith and to it's revelations from God. Genealogical trees in Islam stem from Adam, the first man (human being) to exist on this planet. My request was simply to have someone remove this "biological/divine connection" between Adam & God (Which is in the form of images all over Geni, particularly linked to many historical "Islamic" trees) or create another "clone" parallel tree distinct to and/or "only for Muslims" which does not contain this very contradiction that can directly create a contradiction to the faith. Simplistically, according to Islam, God (The Creator) is "one," he has "NO" biological or material or divine relationship to anything he has created. Hence creating images of him or illustrating his paternal fatherhood to Adam is "irrelevant," "inaccurate" and "unacceptable" for Muslims. lineages present to that of the Prophet Ismail, Prophet Ibrahim, and further on to his linage to the Prophet Nuh, to Prophet Idris, to Prophet Sheth ultimately should end up stemming from Adam and Eve in the beginning.

I am aware and acknowledge your educational experiences, intellectual abilities and contemporary endeavors you consistently take to insure case sensitive information is properly credited and linked truthfully to the best of your knowledge and that mentioned quotes from your work are fully accurate from proper books (third party eligible sources and ISBN) and incorporating the authentic references of our Holy Book "Quran." Feel free to provide me with up to date bibliographies, ISBN's, quotations and referenced details from your research that you incorporate to the Genie-Records. I would be more than honored to inquire, answer or clarify anything you want to talk in regards to the topic at hand. I would like to thank you for your concern once again.

Thank You.

Permit me to express a puzzlement here that may come from a lack of understanding....

it is my understanding that the creation history of Adam in the first book of Moses does not decipt a "biological relationship" with God, nor does it (as far as we don't understand the act of creation as "physical") a physical relationship.

My understanding of all the imagery is that it is to be understood symbolically, not physically - and that this is commonly understood among people of all faiths who share this tradition. Geni should be suitably annotated to show this shared tradition.

On the subject of imagery in general, and on the personages that are held in common between traditions, I am afraid I must ask for the tolerance that we need to live together in one world - that no man claims to own the full truth of either cultural norms or proper behaviour, but that we search for dialogue to establish a stewardship of our common humanity's history that faithfully represents all information that we have found, and the beliefs and histories handed down from our ancestors, in a way that we all can live with.

There is no "puzzlement" or lack of "misunderstanding" friend. Let me clarify your lack of understanding here. I am not here referring or debating on your personal beliefs and ideologies (Whether you are a Christian or Jewish). I am speaking in regards to how "Muslims" in specific refer to key figures in Islam. Regardless of what your point of view is on this topic, when the issue arises from a Islamic point of perspective; the physical, biological and divine depiction of any of God's prophets or even God himself is a absurdity.

In simple, the creation of statues, effigy's and/or images of God (Whom no one has seen) can lead to idolatry. Read more about the foundations of Monotheism. You mention that people of all faiths share the specific tradition of believing symbolically? That is obviously a false statement as you don't really tend to define what symbolism is in Christianity and Judaism. Apparently it seems that you are trying to justify and defend the concept and presence of God and his Prophets (In the form of images and effigy's) as a lawful "shared" tradition. That is where your "incorrect." There are similarities and difference in the three faiths and one of the key differences in Islam is that as i mentioned before the depiction of God or his prophets in the form of statues and images is "inappropriate" which is why in contrast you don't tend to see any statues or images of God or his prophets in Mosques nor do you see any faithful praying to statues and/or effigy's of God. Unless of course you are living in a different dimension or have lack of knowledge on any of the principle distinctions.

Now you can go ahead on a rant to call this a "symbolic" depiction of God (from your perspective), if that is truly what you are "debating" here, but the fact to the matter remains that it is and has always been "unacceptable" in Islam and to it's foundations.

I am afraid you misunderstood my use of the word "symbolical". I was using it in the sense of "the depiction is not the thing" - that is, when the Book speaks of God speaking from the burning bush, I do not believe that either the writer or the reader would imagine that a picture of a burning bush would be a faithful deciption of God; God (as described in all our faiths) is far too vast to be captured in any image, whether made from words (like your faith does) or from pictures (like my faith commonly does).

With regard to tradition - what I am pointing out is not a shared acceptance of those pictures (there is none), but my understanding that in a world where neither faith has universal recognition, it is no less abhorrent for a Muslim to demand that a Christian cease deciption of the significant images of *his* faith than it is for a Christian to demand that a Muslim cease observing the daily prayers - both are an attempt to impose the dictates of one faith upon the adherents of another.

In all cases, living together requires adaptation, and not causing or taking offense where it is not needed. But the declaration of universal dictates based on the tenets of a single religion is not a way of living together in harmony.

You still have not explained what you want DONE with regard to these profiles. please be explicit about your wishes.

Shalom, Shmuel-Aharon Kam (Kahn)

I think you may have overlooked my previous post above which i included some of my requests.

Please note that this request is specially and only for "Islam."

1) Removal of Images ("created by man") pertaining to or illustrating God or any of his Prophets: Which seems not possible according to your previous statement on the topic.

2) A Creation of a "separate" or identical lineage that does "not" include imaginary illustrations or materialistic and/or biological connections to God or his prophets which on the same time can run parallel with other faiths.

3) To refrain the use of illustrations that depict key religious figures in Islam before merging Islamic lineages with other trees.

In simple, as i have mentioned in my previous posts: Images, depictions, imaginary illustrations, statues and effigy's that have been created by people on the purpose to portray should not be applied to any key figures in Islam i.e God and God's Prophets.

Thank you very much for your time and understanding.

To: Harald Alvestrand

"it is no less abhorrent for a Muslim to demand that a Christian cease deciption of the significant images of *his* faith than..."

If you managed to catch a glimpse of the title of this thread before shared your comment, you would notice that my inquiry and/or request only applies to "Islam." I am in no way speaking on behalf of any other religion other than Islam itself or making requests that would end up creating barriers and contradictions in your religion. You need to realize that i am talking in reference to "Islam."

Take a look at the name of this thread!

"Message for Everyone" in regards to "Islamic" Lineages

The message is indeed for "everyone" but it is "only" pertaining to "Islamic" beliefs.

Thank you very much for your concern.

It is against Geni Policy to create a "separate or identical lineage". Even if you did create one, sooner or later someone would come along and merge the two, and then you would have to start all over.

If everybody or anybody who wanted to, could have their own identical lineage, the tree would be a complete mess. That is the whole point of having a World Tree.

To Abu'l-Qasim Syed Abdul Hai Shahid Syed, greetings.

Unfortunately you have not yet pointed out to me a viable way forward. The figures we are talking about (Adam and his descendants) are not "only pertaining to Islamic beliefs", and thus the actions of all editors cannot legitimately constrained to only consider the beliefs of some of Geni's users.

If you wish to build up a separate tree, the answer is to build it on a separate website, and constrain that website to only users who are willing to adhere to the restrictions you wish to impose.

Geni is a shared resource for people of multiple faiths, it holds only one Big Tree, and (modulo tidying) this tree holds only one Adam.

That record is a joint resource for Geni users of all faiths, and has to be administered in that understanding.

I have recently found two of my lost branches of my New England family again. I think they are somehow related to this conversation: My Pilgrim William White family and my Salem, MA family (Elizabeth Phelps/Joseph Ballard lines). I followed one of the ancestor's lines to the end through several noble lines and hit many, many Spanish Islamic lines. I was never sure what timeline I was passing through for I forgotten much of the Quran. I finally reached Adam. I think it has a much different history than the Bible. I have seen the Bible's path before. This is my opinion since I seem to have who knows how many different kinds of religion and religious names and gods represented on my trees, I would like to keep them all, if the names are in keeping with that culture, people, and time. They do not offend me in the least. I do see the Muslims' POV, but the Muslims have to realize that the rest of the world is not Muslim and while the world will make some concessions to them, it will not erase its own and forget its own customs. That is asking too much of others. Compromise has to be on both sides, not just on one.

It seems I am related to Abdul Rahman through Edward I of England and James II of England.