Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Daystar

The "Outraged Muslim World"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

There is outrage in the Muslim world over the Pope's statement about Muhammad being "inhuman and evil." I have read where he killed Jews and Christians living in the Arabian peninsula who rejected him as Allah's prophet, and for not believing his message. I suppose the same outrage would come from the Christian community if muslims said the same thing about Jesus. But Jesus never called Christians to use violence or any form of Jihad in spreading his message.

Why should the outraged muslim world be surprised over such statements? After all, muslims are commanded not to take Jews and Christians as friends. Why can't muslims have Christian or Jewish friends? On the other hand, Jesus said not to resist evil with evil, but to pray for enemies, and bless them and curse them not.

Why aren't more "moderate, peace-loving" muslims standing up and condemning the violence of the terrorists, and show where they are incorrectly using the Quran to justify their violence and terrorism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have read Medieval slander, and you have received sufficient education here to recognize it as slander. Muslims have every right to be upset when the Pope lies about Islamic values. However, I still urge Christians and Muslims to read the speech anyway, despite its flaws, for its message on the importance of more positive relations between science and religion as fields of inquiry united by reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first when i read your first line,i wanted to simply ask the mods to kick your a$$ out of this forum.but when i continued reading i saw that your ignorance is no different from that of one of you leaders.!

There is outrage in the Muslim world over the Pope's statement about Muhammad being "inhuman and evil." I have read where he killed Jews and Christians living in the Arabian peninsula who rejected him as Allah's prophet, and for not believing his message. I suppose the same outrage would come from the Christian community if muslims said the same thing about Jesus. But Jesus never called Christians to use violence or any form of Jihad in spreading his message.

its obvious that you only read where "he killed jews and christians" but you didnt read about what you angelic brothers did!he never killed them for rejecting him as a prophet.the jews moved to medina expecting him,but when he came they wanted their desires to shape religion.they thought another jesus (as) who they were going to "crucify" has come.

they didnt know this:

061.009

YUSUFALI: It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

they were never forced to convert because the quran says "there is no compulsion to believe".but when they betray their promises and their agreement and ally themselves with the arab idol worshippers to fight muslims and slaughter them because they saw them as a bunch of men with hungry stomach lacking the energy to fight,Allah showed them that agression and betrayal wont affect the success of the one He sent.so the prophet (pbuh) never used force to convert them.they were free to practice their beliefs until they offended the muslims intentionally.

Why should the outraged muslim world be surprised over such statements? After all, muslims are commanded not to take Jews and Christians as friends. Why can't muslims have Christian or Jewish friends? On the other hand, Jesus said not to resist evil with evil, but to pray for enemies, and bless them and curse them not.

do you know that the quran says:

"but we sent you not but as mercy to the worlds"?

and do you know that one of the companions told the prophet (pbuh) that they should swear the infidels and the prophet used that verse and replied that he is sent as a mercy to the worlds to bring light to people?that is he is giving them chance to believe like others did and will not force them?

well i do have christian friends.and i would have had jewish friends if i know where they are.thats nothing as far as there is respect.

Why aren't more "moderate, peace-loving" muslims standing up and condemning the violence of the terrorists, and show where they are incorrectly using the Quran to justify their violence and terrorism?

do you know that i am against al qaeeda and what they are doing?do you know that al qaeeda killed many shias in afghanistan and in iraq?do you know that there is no shia terrorists?and that we only fight in self defence like hizbullah are doing in lebanon to free lebanese lands and lebanese prisoners?thats not to say there are no sunnis who are not against al qaeeda.ofcourse there are both sunnis and shias.but what do you want a tired people that have always been offended to do?tell america that we love bush while he has killed more innocent muslims than bin laden killed altogether?tyrants like bush deserve punishment.and i hope he should be sued.but in which court?i know majority of americans are a great and loving people,but no one is saying anything.and the good muslims who are suffering cant do anything either.so when the bad boys like bin laden stand up,they should sort it out between themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why aren't more "moderate, peace-loving" muslims standing up and condemning the violence of the terrorists, and show where they are incorrectly using the Quran to justify their violence and terrorism?

Oh please. We have had so many organizations of moderate, peace-loving muslims condemn the violence of terrorists. It's just more sensational for the media to say, "Where are the Muslims condemning terrorists?" than for them to say "Muslims condemn terrorists".

As one of the many examples, go to CAIR's website: http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have read Medieval slander, and you have received sufficient education here to recognize it as slander. Muslims have every right to be upset when the Pope lies about Islamic values.

Personally, I believe the Pope wanted the world to know about Muhammad by quoting the Byzantine Emperor. Such a statement coming from a position as high as the Pope carries enourmous weight and, it look's like, consequences. But did he lie about Muhammad? How do you know that he didn't have more accurate information than you do? Was Abdul Houssain Zarin Koub lying when he said Muhammad "practiced violence from the beginning?" Do you think he had an agenda? From his stats, he appears to be very credible. Can you prove him wrong?

However, I still urge Christians and Muslims to read the speech anyway, despite its flaws, for its message on the importance of more positive relations between science and religion as fields of inquiry united by reason.

What does science and religion have to do with this? I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but there is very strong evidence that Muhammad was not the man muslims think he was. You know as well as I do that there are many other historians who share these views. Just saying it's medieval slander doesn't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh please. We have had so many organizations of moderate, peace-loving muslims condemn the violence of terrorists. It's just more sensational for the media to say, "Where are the Muslims condemning terrorists?" than for them to say "Muslims condemn terrorists".

As one of the many examples, go to CAIR's website: http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html.

As a peace loving muslim, would you have a Jew or Christian as a friend? Is it true that the objective of Islam is to bring bring the world under Sharia? Do you think most people would want that?

Most of the world has no idea who CAIR is, but they do the mainstream media. I keep informed as much as anyone and I have yet to hear a stronger voice coming from peace-loving muslims to denounce the terrorists. Could it be that they are afraid? Would they be seen as "infidels" by the radicals? Isn't this what's happening in Iraq? I did see a woman on Fox News last night who spoke out. Good for her. She almost seemed scared. But I wonder if there aren't many peace-loving muslims, even here in America, who harbor in their hearts the same hatred for Americans, Jews and Christians.

first when i read your first line,i wanted to simply ask the mods to kick your a$$ out of this forum.but when i continued reading i saw that your ignorance is no different from that of one of your leaders.! do you know that i am against al qaeeda and what they are doing?do you know that al qaeeda killed many shias in afghanistan and in iraq?do you know that there is no shia terrorists?

Sure, I know many muslims oppose the terrorists. That would only be logical. But like I asked "eighty6" would you take a Jew or Christian as a friend? Do you believe that the Quran requires all muslims to help bring the world under its teachings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does science and religion have to do with this? I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but there is very strong evidence that Muhammad was not the man muslims think he was. You know as well as I do that there are many other historians who share these views. Just saying it's medieval slander doesn't do it.

Agh.. the orientalists are at it again...

Believe me my friend, you do not understand the the Prophets(AS). Neither ours nor your own Biblical prophets. Regarding the expulsion of Jews, it was after continuous warfare and their breaking of agreements that they were expelled. Had it been any other man, they would have faced much harsher punishment.

In establishing the Order of God on earth, the enemies of God must be dealt with; but, Islam raises the sword last. The outright pacifist stance is ridiculous enough for me not to even have to refute.

Regarding this Pope, I hope his education and knowledge is better than learning from a Roman emperor. If not, we must correct his ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have read Medieval slander, and you have received sufficient education here to recognize it as slander. Muslims have every right to be upset when the Pope lies about Islamic values.

Personally, I believe the Pope wanted the world to know about Muhammad by quoting the Byzantine Emperor. Such a statement coming from a position as high as the Pope carries enourmous weight and, it look's like, consequences. But did he lie about Muhammad? How do you know that he didn't have more accurate information than you do? Was Abdul Houssain Zarin Koub lying when he said Muhammad "practiced violence from the beginning?" Do you think he had an agenda? From his stats, he appears to be very credible. Can you prove him wrong?

The burden of proof is not on me to "proove him wrong." The burden is on him to confront the scholarly consensus, both within the Muslim world, and in the West, that Muhammad did not teach his followers to spread Islam through violence. They similarly conclude that any battles fought during his lifetime were defensive in nature. That's the conclusion that follows from balanced research by people who don't cherry pick and use only biased sources that say what they want to hear. That's the difference between actual researchers and ignorant laypeople like yourself.

However, I still urge Christians and Muslims to read the speech anyway, despite its flaws, for its message on the importance of more positive relations between science and religion as fields of inquiry united by reason.

What does science and religion have to do with this? I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but there is very strong evidence that Muhammad was not the man muslims think he was. You know as well as I do that there are many other historians who share these views. Just saying it's medieval slander doesn't do it.

The relation between science and religion was the central topic of the Pope's speech. You would know that if you had actually bothered to read his speech in its entirety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

In response to Daystar:

Not only would I have Christian and Jewish friends, but I would live with them out of choice as I have been doing for the past three years. Yes, that's right, I have roommates who are very faithful, practicing Christians. The point that Islam makes about friendship is that we must be careful about which friends we choose, not just Christian and Jewish ones, but Muslim ones as well. This is because our friends influence who we are. I had been told this by many Muslims when I was younger, but only now have I come to understand this statement fully. When I'm out with my Muslim friends, they will correct me when I commit an infraction because they are Muslim so they know by which rules I abide. But that doesn't mean I don't go out with my Christian friends, because I do. It just means that we must be aware of the influences on our personal faith.

Most of the world might not have much idea about CAIR, but it is one of the main Muslim organizations in America. When CAIR makes a statement, newspapers rarely give it front page coverage. Now whose fault is that? THe CAIR organization who fulfilled its responsibility of issuing a statement, or the media, which would rather create conflict and have a more interesting story to tell? Perhaps you do not dig to the back pages where the media puts CAIR's less-interesting peace-loving statements. Why do the media keep sensationalizing this issue? Could it be that they want to sell more issues? Could it be that they want to make more money? I have yet to meet a single Muslim who has ever claimed to harbor hatred for a Jew and Christian. It's difficult to hate someone when you live with them, work with them, laugh with them, and enjoy life with them.

Yes, a goal is for everyone to become Muslim, but there is no compulsion in that. THis is no different than the goal of Christians or Jews. I know this from experience-- my roommates are evangelical Christians and have attempted to convert me. I've gone to Christian-hosted events of both Protestants and Catholics. My roommates go on mission trips. One of them has been actively involved in a committee devoted to converting other people. In short, they want to spread their version of the truth, we would like to spread the correct version.

WaSalaam

Edited by mz7eighty6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is outrage in the Muslim world over the Pope's statement about Muhammad being "inhuman and evil." I have read where he killed Jews and Christians living in the Arabian peninsula who rejected him as Allah's prophet, and for not believing his message.

This is simply not true and is nothing but pure slander. The Prophet (saw) had Jewish neighbors and even married a Jewish Women.

He welcomed the Christians from Najran in Arabia and had them hold their prayer services in the mosque. He also married a Coptic Christian.

I suppose the same outrage would come from the Christian community if muslims said the same thing about Jesus. But Jesus never called Christians to use violence or any form of Jihad in spreading his message.

The Holy Prophet (saw) never called on to use violence either except to stop persecution, injustice, murder and to defend one's blood, honor and property.

I'm sick of Christian Conservatives distorting Jihad, Jihad is defensive and Pre-emptive struggle against any onslaught against Islam and the Muslim community. This is in respect to its transitive meaning subjective to the conditions and to be organized by the authority of the Quran and Sunnah. Jihad in its primary meaning as seen in Islamic documents written by Muslim scholars dating centuries and within the context of the Holy Quran implies self discipline against baser desires and attainment of a pious lifestyle through fulfilling Islamic directives.

Why should the outraged muslim world be surprised over such statements? After all, muslims are commanded not to take Jews and Christians as friends. Why can't muslims have Christian or Jewish friends? On the other hand, Jesus said not to resist evil with evil, but to pray for enemies, and bless them and curse them not.

Again distorting the Holy Quran, this is what happens when there is Ignorance of the Arabic language, I know Conservative White Christians consider any language other then English to be absurd, thats why they hassle the Hispanics to learn it and mock them for not doing so.

The Word "Awliyah" in Arabic goes to mean tutors and those to whom one gives and fosters love to in preference to Muslims. What kind of tutorship is this? It is in respect to Religious knowledge, we need nothing from you in that regard and secondly a Muslim is not suppose to sell out fellow Muslims just to fit in with Christian Society more so Christian subcultures.

Why aren't more "moderate, peace-loving" muslims standing up and condemning the violence of the terrorists, and show where they are incorrectly using the Quran to justify their violence and terrorism?

Just read my signature. Also I would like to make one thing clear. Islam doesn't mean peace per your definition. It can mean peace but only in a reflextive meaning as an aim of Islam. When we look at the lexicons of Arabic, we find the root of Islam to denote "safety" and to make a "bargain in advance". In a more technical sense it is Submission and Surrender. The root silm covers:

Aslam (submission)

tasleem (surrender)

salim (safety)

salam (peace)

istiqamah (righteousness)

So lets tie the pieces of the puzzle, for it is an Verb that is pointing to a direction.

One Must Submit and Surrender One's Will to that of Allah the Most High in order to have Safety i.e. the blood, honor and property of a Muslim is sacred, well being in this safe environment he/she works righteous actions to find Peace within themselves and their relationship with Allah.

This is what is means to be a Muslim.

A Jew and Christian are also given the rights of protection under Shariyya law but are charged a tax in lieu of military service. I advice you to read up on Turkish Tolerance during the days of the Ottoman Empire (1299-1924).

(salam)

Edited by Areef Hamdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simply not true and is nothing but pure slander. The Prophet (saw) had Jewish neighbors and even married a Jewish Women.

So lets tie the pieces of the puzzle, for it is an Verb that is pointing to a direction.

One Must Submit and Surrender One's Will to that of Allah the Most High in order to have Safety i.e. the blood, honor and property of a Muslim is sacred, well being in this safe environment he/she works righteous actions to find Peace within themselves and their relationship with Allah.

[Day] And people I refuse?

This is what is means to be a Muslim.

A Jew and Christian are also given the rights of protection under Shariyya law but are charged a tax in lieu of military service. I advice you to read up on Turkish Tolerance during the days of the Ottoman Empire (1299-1924).

[Day] Oh, thanks so much. When Islam takes over the world, we will have the privilege of paying a tax. That's not fair. Taxation without representation is tyranny. Do you think the world will really go for that?

Peace,

Day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And people I refuse?

Oh, thanks so much. When Islam takes over the world, we will have the privilege of paying a tax. That's not fair. Taxation without representation is tyranny. Do you think the world will really go for that?

Those who refuse and live under the sovereignity of the Islamic State are subject to pay a tax. This Tax is levied on an Annual Basis and it is in lieu of military service. If you don't want to pay the tax you join in military service. That's it.

Under the clause of Jizyah, this is what the tax is called under Shariyya, there are exemptions:

1. Non-Profits

2. Clergy

3. Indigent

4. Those with mental complications

Furthermore, the Non-Muslim minorities are allowed representation in the Muslim Congress. A modern example of this is that there are congressional seats for Zorostarians, Jews and Christians in "Great Evil" Iran. This was apparent also during the time of the Ottoman Empire.

So you have nothing to worry about Daystar, you can worship your Man-God, read your bible, attend your church etc with peace of mind.

(salam)

Edited by Areef Hamdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

In response to Daystar:

Not only would I have Christian and Jewish friends, but I would live with them out of choice as I have been doing for the past three years. Yes, that's right, I have roommates who are very faithful, practicing Christians.

[Day] I think that's great that you and your roommates are that friendly, even though the Quran seems to forbid it. I don't see any wiggle room in it:

O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS; THEY ARE FRIENDS OF EACH OTHER; AND WHOEVER AMONGST YOU TAKES THEM FOR A FRIEND, THEN SURELY HE IS ONE OF THEM; SURELY Allah DOES NOT GUIDE THE UNJUST PEOPLE. (Surah 5:49-51)

Yes, a goal is for everyone to become Muslim, but there is no compulsion in that. THis is no different than the goal of Christians or Jews.

[Day] Some muslims do believe in compulsion. You know that. Under a Christian world, there would be no taxes or religious requirements. But do you think the world will want to live under Shariah?

I know this from experience-- my roommates are evangelical Christians and have attempted to convert me. I've gone to Christian-hosted events of both Protestants and Catholics. My roommates go on mission trips. One of them has been actively involved in a committee devoted to converting other people. In short, they want to spread their version of the truth, we would like to spread the correct version.

[Day] You seem to have a great relationship with your evangelical friends. I think that's great. Yes, we all spread what we believe is the truth. Jesus said he was the truth that leads to eternal life (John 14:6). Do you think he knew what he was talking about?

Peace

Day

WaSalaam

Those who refuse and live under the sovereignity of the Islamic State are subject to pay a tax. This Tax is levied on an Annual Basis and it is in lieu of military service. If you don't want to pay the tax you join in military service. That's it.

[Day] Why would there be a military if the world is under Shariah? Would I be free to tell others, including muslims, that there is salvation through Jesus under Islamic law?

Under the clause of Jizyah, this is what the tax is called under Shariyya, there are exemptions:

1. Non-Profits

2. Clergy

3. Indigent

4. Those with mental complications

[Day] Well, many think we Christians are a little crazy anyway. So I guess we would be exempt:-)

Furthermore, the Non-Muslim minorities are allowed representation in the Muslim Congress. A modern example of this is that there are congressional seats for Zorostarians, Jews and Christians in "Great Evil" Iran. This was apparent also during the time of the Ottoman Empire.

[Day] Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel and America. Isn't that kinda evil? But under Shariah, there would be no democracy where the people could vote.

So you have nothing to worry about Daystar, you can worship your Man-God, read your bible, attend your church etc with peace of mind.

[Day] Don't like the tax thing or serving in an Islamic military. How could we be assured that those in power wouldn't be the like Hussain, Osama, or Ahmadinejad?

Peace,

Day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS; THEY ARE FRIENDS OF EACH OTHER; AND WHOEVER AMONGST YOU TAKES THEM FOR A FRIEND, THEN SURELY HE IS ONE OF THEM; SURELY Allah DOES NOT GUIDE THE UNJUST PEOPLE. (Surah 5:49-51)

``Friend`` is one translation of this verse, but is not understood to be the correct interpretation of this verse. Rather, the word `wali` is better understood to mean ``protector.`` That Muhammad, and the leading members of his family, had non-Muslim friends, should act as ample evidence of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will preface by saying that I respond to Daystar for the edification of others. I`m pretty sure Daystar, who has been here off and on for at least 4 years, without seemingly learning a thing or being in any way positively changed by the experience, will not be listening to anything that challenges in any way his preconceived notions.

[Day] Why would there be a military if the world is under Shariah? Would I be free to tell others, including muslims, that there is salvation through Jesus under Islamic law?

Why are there militaries today? To protect one nation against agression of another.

There is no Islamic principle that would forbid you to express your opinion on religious matters. The openness of intellectual discussion in the best periods of Islamic civilization demonstrate this. Darker, less tolerant periods, such as the one we are living in today existed, and exist, just as they have in Christian civilization. It is time we all ceased looking for the worst in each otehr to purposefully find differences, but instead look for what is best, to forge positive bonds of brotherhood and friendship.

[Day] Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel and America. Isn't that kinda evil? But under Shariah, there would be no democracy where the people could vote.

The notion of what is the ideal form of government, in accordance with the principles of Islam is a point of vigorous discussion. For you to say there is one monolithic view across all Islamic civilization shows your gross level of ignorance. A number of leading voices, in fact, for example, Ayatullah al-Uzma Ali Seestani of Iraq, one of the leading voices of Islam today, finds no inconsistency between a democratic republic as a form of government, and Islamic principles. Others argue that a democratic republic is the natural solution in line with Islamic principles, just as the founding fathers of the US thought it was the best solution in line with Christian principles.

[Day] Don't like the tax thing or serving in an Islamic military.

So you want to receive the same services from the government as Muslims, with less obligations, but without paying any taxes. Try that line of argument with the IRS; see where that gets you. :lol:

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The burden of proof is not on me to "proove him wrong." The burden is on him to confront the scholarly consensus, both within the Muslim world, and in the West, that Muhammad did not teach his followers to spread Islam through violence. They similarly conclude that any battles fought during his lifetime were defensive in nature. That's the conclusion that follows from balanced research by people who don't cherry pick and use only biased sources that say what they want to hear.

[Day] No doubt, the debate over Muhammed will not die. I rely more on the Bible about such things. But I think the big issue is, will the world accept Shariah? If the goal of Islam is for the world to come under Islamic law, do you think the world will just roll over and accept it? Do you think people of other cultures and traditions will just give them all up for Islam?

BTW, do you agree with "eighty6" that muslims are free to make friends with Jews and Christians?

That's the difference between actual researchers and ignorant laypeople like yourself.

[Day] Oh, I agree. I am ignorant. All I can do is read with others say. So Koub and that Byzantine Emperor, along with many historians today, have no idea what they're talking about. They must have been terribly misinformed or had an agenda. Be that as it may, you won't convince me and I won't convince you:-) I pretty much watch what people do, not what they say, and what I see happening portends terrible times ahead from some muslims who only want to kill and destroy. And it doesn't even matter to them if it's other muslims.

What does science and religion have to do with this? I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but there is very strong evidence that Muhammad was not the man muslims think he was. You know as well as I do that there are many other historians who share these views. Just saying it's medieval slander doesn't do it.

The relation between science and religion was the central topic of the Pope's speech. You would know that if you had actually bothered to read his speech in its entirety.

[Day] I was not interested in the central topic. But those two words about Muhammad caught my attention. Can you imagine a world under the rule of these Islamic terrorists? How do you know they won't grow in number and power?

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Day] Oh, I agree. I am ignorant. All I can do is read with others say. So Koub and that Byzantine Emperor, along with many historians today, have no idea what they're talking about.

You`ve quoted this enigmatic Dr. Koub before. The problem is, I can only seem to find information about him on Christian websites, and then only with limited information. You have invited me to read his works. I accept your invitation. However, I was wondering if you could help me out by giving me the names of some of his major works, their ISBN numbers, that sort of thing, so I could track them down at a library.

Because I`m having no luck with Amazon

http://www.amazon.ca/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/701-53...=15&Go.y=11

It would be much appreciated. Also, some of the websites you get when you google his name say he taught at Tehran university. If you could locate when he taught there exactly, to help me find out more information, that would be much appreciated.

I`m working here with the assumption that if you quote a passage from a book by somebody, you must have some idea from what book you`re quoting, and where the book can be found. If these assumptions are incorrect, and you just blindly pass along what you find from militant websites that agree with your distorted worldview, my apologies.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would there be a military if the world is under Shariah? Would I be free to tell others, including muslims, that there is salvation through Jesus under Islamic law?

Since we do not live in an ideal world and human beings arn't prefect. The Military is used to secure borders and perserve Islamic sovereignity from any treason or insurrection.

Now in the hypothetical if the whole world were under Shariyya, as the Islamic prophecies say a day like this will come the nominal problems wouldn't exist. But this "whole world under Shariyya" is started by Imam Mahdi and the second coming of Christ. This is more in line with eschetological understanding though. No need to divert the topic to that.

About sharing your faith, you can do so as long as you do not libel or slander the faith they currently share.

Well, many think we Christians are a little crazy anyway. So I guess we would be exempt:-)

LOL

Ahmadinejad wants to destroy Israel and America. Isn't that kinda evil? But under Shariah, there would be no democracy where the people could vote.

I wasn't referring to Ahmadinejad, I was just saying that even in Iran, those minorities are allowed representation.

I'll like you to read this:

http://www.ijtihad.org/isladem.htm

Don't like the tax thing or serving in an Islamic military. How could we be assured that those in power wouldn't be the like Hussain, Osama, or Ahmadinejad?

Then how come I had to pay taxes i.e. sales tax, gas tax etc when visiting America?

Those in power are to live up to a high moral standard in line with Islamic ethics.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Daystar,

Sometimes it's frustrating for those who have been here awhile to keep having this same discussion day in and day out. Sometimes it seems like "one step forward, two steps back".

Your premise seems to be that Muslims, based on the teachings of Islam, are "duty bound" to fight against those who do not accept Islam until they either become Muslim or accept a position of humiliation. If that is true, then I guess the vast majority of us here (including myself) are "not very good Muslims". You also seem to believe that Muslims and Christians cannot be friends or establish friendly and cordial relationships with eachother.

Here is a practical question:

Do you know that the moderators on this site (including myself) have much more control over the content of this site then any Muslim government could possibly have over it's citizens? Did you know that we can modify all members posts, delete any post and ban members with a few keystrokes? So if we have this total control, why don't we use our power to prevent non-Muslims viewpoints (especially Evangelical Christian ones) from being expressed on the site (which we have complete power to do)? Why do we voluntarily hand content creation on the site to those whom we know have opinions and ideas which are very different then our own?

The Quran tells us that "There is no compulsion in religion" and that "Truth stands our clearly from falsehood". Muslim value open dialogue on religious topics, and if you study (even corrupt) Muslim socieites you will see that this is a recurring theme. The only way that a person can believe the things you do is by a purposeful and deliberate distortion of the teachings of Islam. We explained the meaning of the verses you quoted before, as well as the general and specific meanings of the term "jihad".

So if you claim that Islam teaches violence, intolerance or offensive war against "unbelivers" then present your evidence. I am not concerned with how individual Muslim interpret these teachings, but with the teachings themselves and their exegis by qualfied and enlightened teachers/scholars.

B.T.W., Prophet Jesus (as) is also reported to have said " "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

Matthew 10:34-36

"(Jesus(as) said) Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no.."

Luke 12:49

So clearly the message of Prophet Jesus (as) was not a pacifist message, however, it did not advocate offensive violence either. In fact, he told his disciples to sell their garments to purchase a sword (for defensive purposes), although he did not allow them to attack the Romans because they CAME ONLY FOR HIM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Daystar,

Your premise seems to be that Muslims, based on the teachings of Islam, are "duty bound" to fight against those who do not accept Islam until they either become Muslim or accept a position of humiliation. If that is true, then I guess the vast majority of us here (including myself) are "not very good Muslims". You also seem to believe that Muslims and Christians cannot be friends or establish friendly and cordial relationships with each other.

[Day] I'm sorry, but what am I supposed to think when I read Surah 5:29-31 which commands muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends. Are there other verses that expand on these?

Here is a practical question:

Do you know that the moderators on this site (including myself) have much more control over the content of this site then any Muslim government could possibly have over it's citizens? Did you know that we can modify all members posts, delete any post and ban members with a few keystrokes? So if we have this total control, why don't we use our power to prevent non-Muslims viewpoints (especially Evangelical Christian ones) from being expressed on the site (which we have complete power to do)? Why do we voluntarily hand content creation on the site to those whom we know have opinions and ideas which are very different then our own?

[Day] I think there is a big difference between providing space for Jewish and Christian points of view and taking them as friends.

The Quran tells us that "There is no compulsion in religion" and that "Truth stands our clearly from falsehood". Muslim value open dialogue on religious topics, and if you study (even corrupt) Muslim socieites you will see that this is a recurring theme. The only way that a person can believe the things you do is by a purposeful and deliberate distortion of the teachings of Islam. We explained the meaning of the verses you quoted before, as well as the general and specific meanings of the term "jihad".

[JB] I don't see where the Quran allows wiggle room for 5:29-31. If it does, all well and good. But a command is a command, is it not?

So if you claim that Islam teaches violence, intolerance or offensive war against "unbelivers" then present your evidence. I am not concerned with how individual Muslim interpret these teachings, but with the teachings themselves and their exegis by qualfied and enlightened teachers/scholars.

[Day] Abdul Houssain Zarin Koub's grandfather was a co-founder of Tehran University. Koub himself was head of the department of history, religion and philosophy at the University. In his book, The History of Religion, Koub writes, "From the beginning, its [islam] spread was accomplished through physical violence, bloodshed and war. Violence not only against non-Muslim infidels, but also against fellow Muslims….Mohammad both taught and practiced violence from the beginning.”

Koub would seem to have the credentials to be a very credible source of Islamic affairs.

B.T.W., Prophet Jesus (as) is also reported to have said " "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

Matthew 10:34-36

"(Jesus(as) said) Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no.."

Luke 12:49

So clearly the message of Prophet Jesus (as) was not a pacifist message,

[JB] I disagree with you. The context shows that his presence in the world would take peace away between members of families. Jesus was not anti-peace. He knew that His presence would, like a sword, divide people just like the verses say. Christians do not seek to separate themselves from their families, or "war" with them, but many families reject Christ so they don't want any of his disciples influencing their lives. I can tell you there is "division" between me and some members of my family because I am a Christian. They want no part of Jesus, so it follows they don't want me talking about conversion to him. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world; neither are his disciples. This doesn't mean they are any better than anyone else, but have found eternal life in Christ, and their values become much different than what they were before they became Christians. This rubs against the general values of the world. Isn't this what happens with Muslims? If one rejects Islam, is he not separated from family and the brotherhood. Isn't this what happened with Rushdie and others?

however, it did not advocate offensive violence either. In fact, he told his disciples to sell their garments to purchase a sword (for defensive purposes), although he did not allow them to attack the Romans because they CAME ONLY FOR HIM.

[Day] Right. If his disciples fought with their swords, apart from self-defense, it would have been proof that they were not really true disciples.

Peace:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we do not live in an ideal world and human beings arn't prefect. The Military is used to secure borders and perserve Islamic sovereignity from any treason or insurrection.

[JB] So in a sense, Islam would be a global police state. If Sharia was strictly governmental, that would be one thing because the world does need that. But Sharia encompasses religious law also. That's where the sparks would fly, don't you think?

Now in the hypothetical if the whole world were under Shariyya, as the Islamic prophecies say a day like this will come the nominal problems wouldn't exist. But this "whole world under Shariyya" is started by Imam Mahdi and the second coming of Christ. This is more in line with eschetological understanding though. No need to divert the topic to that.

[Day] Right. Here we have theolgoical views that are far apart. We believe that when Jesus comes, He and his disciples will reign on earth just as he said. If Mahdi initiates global Sharia, then Jesus didn't know what he was talking about. Right?

About sharing your faith, you can do so as long as you do not libel or slander the faith they currently share.

[Day] At least that would be fair. But I wonder what would happen if it got out of hand and muslims started converting to Christ:-)

I wasn't referring to Ahmadinejad, I was just saying that even in Iran, those minorities are allowed representation.

[Day] Right, as long as they don't threaten to become a majority:-)

I'll like you to read this:

http://www.ijtihad.org/isladem.htm

Then how come I had to pay taxes i.e. sales tax, gas tax etc when visiting America?

[Day] That has nothing to do with Christianity.

Those in power are to live up to a high moral standard in line with Islamic ethics.

[Day] What about all the other religious laws of Islam. If non-muslims wanted to sell pornography, would they be permitted? What about [Edited Out] houses? What about bars and saloons? Would Shariah permit these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You`ve quoted this enigmatic Dr. Koub before. The problem is, I can only seem to find information about him on Christian websites, and then only with limited information.

[DAy] As I'm sure you know, there isn't much on the web about Koub or his book. That is a mystery if the book has been translated into 60 different languages. OTOH, I don't believe that any Christian has invented Koub, or the History of Religion, as something to attack Islam.

It is scripture that speaks more to me about the nature of what's happening between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in a sense, Islam would be a global police state. If Sharia was strictly governmental, that would be one thing because the world does need that. But Sharia encompasses religious law also. That's where the sparks would fly, don't you think?

Shariyya is law of Islam as found latent in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.

Being on this site for sometime you should know what Sunnah is by now.

Shariyya is the constitution of the land in a Muslim state. It is applicable to Muslims and reflextively to Non-Muslims in respect to matters of State not private life.

Furthermore under an Ideal World in which Islam is the faith of all there would be no military and no war. The eschetological prophecies mention this. This stage of human existence is triggered by Imam Mahdi and climaxed through Christ (as).

At least that would be fair. But I wonder what would happen if it got out of hand and muslims started converting to Christ:-)

As long as these "Muslims" are not manipulated and subjected to forms of abuse through Christianity then they can live freely.

http://www.christianaggression.com

highlights what I'm talking about.

Remember they are not to resort to libel or slander either against their previous faith.

That has nothing to do with Christianity.

The Islamic state has every right to levy taxes on its citizens.

What about all the other religious laws of Islam. If non-muslims wanted to sell pornography, would they be permitted? What about [Edited Out] houses? What about bars and saloons? Would Shariah permit these?

Why you interested in those things?

Those are prohibited in the social order of the Islamic state because they profane and are to be avoided and done away with.

But if you like your porn and the hooker, go into your house and do as you please while sipping on your alcohol, just make sure you don't bring it to public attention.

(salam)

Edited by Areef Hamdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we do not live in an ideal world and human beings arn't prefect. The Military is used to secure borders and perserve Islamic sovereignity from any treason or insurrection.

[JB] So in a sense, Islam would be a global police state. If Sharia was strictly governmental, that would be one thing because the world does need that. But Sharia encompasses religious law also. That's where the sparks would fly, don't you think?

This is why it is impossible to talk to you. There is no basis for you to draw that conclusion from his response. If a country has a military to defend the country it is a police state?! So every country in the world right now is a police state? I swear, you hear only what you want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAY] So in a sense, Islam would be a global police state. If Sharia was strictly governmental, that would be one thing because the world does need that. But Sharia encompasses religious law also. That's where the sparks would fly, don't you think?

This is why it is impossible to talk to you. There is no basis for you to draw that conclusion from his response. If a country has a military to defend the country it is a police state?! So every country in the world right now is a police state? I swear, you hear only what you want to.

[Day] Although muslims say they believe the prophets, they really don't. The prediction is for evil governments to reign in the end times, not righteous ones. So we know that "peace-loving" Islam doesn't have a snow ball's chance for global rule since, according to muslims, it is the only righteous form of rule. So when Antichrist takes power over the world (Rev. 13), it's going to be pure evil. I think it's very likely that some of the extremist Islamic nations will be included in the "ten nations" that will form the final government of the world (Dan. 7:23-25, Rev. 17:12). I know you will say these ten nation have already existed, but that is not possible since these ten nations will give their authority and power to the antichrist (Rev. 17:13). Or, you will just claim that the scriptures have been perverted and that the Quran supercedes everything.

What would you do if the Islamic extremists gain global power? You think they wouldn't implement a police state, or worse? You know they are just as serious about global power as "peace-loving" Islam.

THE TRUTH IS,

"Unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given; and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of HIS government and peace there will be no end." (Isa. 9:6,7)

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." (Matt. 24:31,32)

It's going to happen exactly as Jesus said.

Peace in his name

I will also add to Daystar, asking, since he seems so fond of this Pope's "strong words," whether he approves of the similarly strong critique of Protestantism in the same speech.

[DAy] What strong words are you talking about? BTW, it's not a question of being " so fond" of the Pope's words. I just believe they are true.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael or Esau?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Day] Although muslims say they believe the prophets, they really don't. The prediction is for evil governments to reign in the end times, not righteous ones. So we know that "peace-loving" Islam doesn't have a snow ball's chance for global rule since, according to muslims, it is the only righteous form of rule. So when Antichrist takes power over the world (Rev. 13), it's going to be pure evil. I think it's very likely that some of the extremist Islamic nations will be included in the "ten nations" that will form the final government of the world (Dan. 7:23-25, Rev. 17:12). I know you will say these ten nation have already existed, but that is not possible since these ten nations will give their authority and power to the antichrist (Rev. 17:13). Or, you will just claim that the scriptures have been perverted and that the Quran supercedes everything.

Your thoughts are very disordered, and don;t make much reasoned sense. Christians claim there will be a period of instability followed by stability, a time of "heaven on earth."

Muslims believe the same. What is your point.

And The Apocalypse of John refers to events that happened a LONG time ago. Depending on how you read the text, the thousand years of relative tranquility on earth before the devil is "loosed for a time" refers either to the period from the fall of Jerusalem (ca. 70 CE) to the first crusade (ca. 1070 CE) OR from the fall of Rome (431 CE) to the fall of Constantinople (1453 CE) when attempts to make tensions between Muslims and Christians seriously took off in Modern Europe.

What would you do if the Islamic extremists gain global power? You think they wouldn't implement a police state, or worse? You know they are just as serious about global power as "peace-loving" Islam.

I would object to fundamentalists of any persuasion, be they Wahhabi/Salafi, militant Zionist, or militant Christian evangelical. They are all equally repugnant.

[DAy] What strong words are you talking about? BTW, it's not a question of being " so fond" of the Pope's words. I just believe they are true.

The reference to the efforts of early Protestantism to rid Christianity of supposed alien Hellenic influences, and the irrationality that crept into protestantism as a result.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael or Esau?

Muhammad was descended of Ishmael.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shariyya is law of Islam as found latent in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.

Being on this site for sometime you should know what Sunnah is by now.

Shariyya is the constitution of the land in a Muslim state. It is applicable to Muslims and reflextively to Non-Muslims in respect to matters of State not private life.

[Day] Under "peace-loving" Islam, theoretically, things might go very well. But what happens if the Islamic extremists gain power?

Furthermore under an Ideal World in which Islam is the faith of all there would be no military and no war.

[Day] The same would apply to Christianity. No military, no war. As a matter of fact, that's the way it's going to be. Does the Quran say anywhere that Islam will eventually reign?

The eschatological prophecies mention this. This stage of human existence is triggered by Imam Mahdi and climaxed through Christ (as).

[Day] "Stage of human existance is triggered by Mahdi and climaxed through Christ?" What does that mean?

As long as these "Muslims" are not manipulated and subjected to forms of abuse through Christianity then they can live freely.

[Day] Oh, thank you so much:-) Do you believe the bible prophets?

http://www.christianaggression.com

highlights what I'm talking about.

Remember they are not to resort to libel or slander either against their previous faith.

[Day] Previous faith? You mean Christians will renounce their faith in favor of Islam?

The Islamic state has every right to levy taxes on its citizens. Why you interested in those things? Those are prohibited in the social order of the Islamic state because they profane and are to be avoided and done away with.

[Day] Would tax dollars be used to further Islamic religious education?

But if you like your porn and the hooker, go into your house and do as you please while sipping on your alcohol, just make sure you don't bring it to public attention.

[Day] What would happen in the event of that?

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Islamic state has every right to levy taxes on its citizens. Why you interested in those things? Those are prohibited in the social order of the Islamic state because they profane and are to be avoided and done away with.

[Day] Would tax dollars be used to further Islamic religious education?

It is difficult to give precise answers to such specific questions. And let's be honest; you're not asking them out of sincerity anyway. It is hard to say authoritatively how the precedents of earlier Islamic civilizations update to the modern sphere. The idea is to derive general principles, and apply those to the current circumstances. One of the principles is education available for all qualified students, provided by the state. This much is probably safe to say. Students in a public school would cover, in the modern day, typical schools subjects like math, languages, Literature and art, history, geography, sciences, and the like. For Muslim schools, there would be some element likely of Arabic language studies and some basic studies in religion in order to serve the function of moral and ethical instruction. The precedents I have heard of indicate that the religious minorities have every right to their own schools. There is no real precendent for non-Muslim children being forced to attend Muslim schools to be indoctrinated in Islam. The schools, over history, have tended to be divided on confessional lines. But the precise details of what the "Islamic solution" in terms of an education system, curriculum and the like would be a subject for the country to determine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your thoughts are very disordered, and don;t make much reasoned sense. Christians claim there will be a period of instability followed by stability, a time of "heaven on earth."

Muslims believe the same. What is your point.

[Day] The same it has always been. You can trust things to happen according to Bible prophecy. Daniel's 70th week (seven years of tribulation) will be hell on earth; Then there will be peace on earth for 1,000 years when Jesus comes to reign, after Armageddon - "Of the increase of his government and peace, there will be no end." (Isa. 9:7)

And The Apocalypse of John refers to events that happened a LONG time ago.

[Day] Does that include the return of Jesus to earth (Rev. 19:16)? How do you reconcile Rev. 17:12,13 with past events? When did ten nations of the world give their power and authority to the beast (antichrist)? When did someone since Christ occupy the Jerusalem temple, claim to be God and then turn on the Jews? (Rev. 13:5-7, Matt. 24:15, 2 Thes. 2:3,4).

Depending on how you read the text, the thousand years of relative tranquility on earth before the devil is "loosed for a time" refers either to the period from the fall of Jerusalem (ca. 70 CE) to the first crusade (ca. 1070 CE) OR from the fall of Rome (431 CE) to the fall of Constantinople (1453 CE) when attempts to make tensions between Muslims and Christians seriously took off in Modern Europe.

[Day] I could point out more things that haven't happened yet, (100 pound hailstones (Rev. 16:21), the Euphrates drying up (Rev. 16:12), reign of antichrist (Rev. 13), but suffice it to say that Jesus has not returned yet as "King of kings and Lord of lords." (Rev. 19:16). Revelation, Chapters 6-19, are Daniel's 70th week, the last seven years of history as we understand it. It will be hell on earth. This period begins with a covenant between the antichrist and Israel (Dan. 9:27).

Muhammad was descended of Ishmael.

[Day] Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...