D
dolphinlove
Guest
casual link? call that pretty strong!
- Status
A
angelusm
Guest
You must be joking. They want to conquer THIS world for their Allah and they want to do it by force. Fighting against the unfaithful and forced conversions are immanent part of islam. I don’t know where you are from but in Europe the situation is quite serious and it will be worse. Islam = wars, hatred and intolerance.
M
Montalban
Guest
[SIGN]Oops[/SIGN]
I meant causal. Not casual. I’m probably thinking it’s a casual thing because it’s a public holiday
[SIGN]Happy APEC![/SIGN]
D
dolphinlove
Guest
oops, misread it…
Another blonde moment by dolphinlove!!
Ill be glad when apec is over, can finally get to drive in the city again!
M
Montalban
Guest
It’s worth it just for the public holiday
P
Peregrino
Guest
Jesus:
Practiced peace;
Advocated peace;
Some of his followers practiced it:
Those that didn’t were rebuked.
Why is it that so many have been murdered and so much blood spilled in the name of Christ? We need a causal connection in Christianity between Jesus’ teachings and Christian behavior.
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
To know about the true concept of Islamic Jihad, a peaceful concept, kindly visit the following link:
alislam.org/jihad/sword.html
Thanks
To know about the true concept of Islamic Jihad, a peaceful concept, kindly visit the following link:
alislam.org/jihad/sword.html
Thanks
P
Peregrino
Guest
I have been told by Muslim friends that “jihad” can mean a struggle at any level, personal, spiritual, national, religiously. As with any concept or religion, extremists will distort things. This has been true with Christian extremists as well as Muslim extremists.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
M
Montalban
Guest
It *can *mean these things.
Truism
Truism
The problem with your argument is that it doesn’t address whether or not those ‘Moslem extremists’ have distorted Islam, or not.
The evidence I and others present here suggest that they haven’t.
M
Montalban
Guest
You’ve hit the nail on the head of the very difference between bad Moslems and bad Christians.
Bad Christians are not following Christ.
Bad Moslems are following Muhammed.
M
Montalban
Guest
The main goal of jihad is to make the people worship Allaah alone and to bring them forth from servitude to people to servitude to the Lord of people.
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=34647&ln=eng
(emphasis added)
The Muslims believe that other people who are following other religions are not following any true religion, so the Muslims do not allow others to send missionaries to build churches in Muslim countries.
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=26721&ln=eng
Moslems believe that they should be at peace with people who are at peace with Islam. That’s fine and dandy but those who seek to spread their own faiths are to be prevented. For Christianity is seen as false. One can ‘jihad’ or struggle to prevent Christians practicing their missionary work.
If you want to be a peaceful Christian, you’ll be left alone,* however if you’re a peaceful Christian missionary, then you’re against Islam… and a target.
*-perhaps, because one can also be compelled into converting too
Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, but was subsequently abrogated by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=34770&ln=eng
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=34647&ln=eng
(emphasis added)
The Muslims believe that other people who are following other religions are not following any true religion, so the Muslims do not allow others to send missionaries to build churches in Muslim countries.
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=26721&ln=eng
Moslems believe that they should be at peace with people who are at peace with Islam. That’s fine and dandy but those who seek to spread their own faiths are to be prevented. For Christianity is seen as false. One can ‘jihad’ or struggle to prevent Christians practicing their missionary work.
If you want to be a peaceful Christian, you’ll be left alone,* however if you’re a peaceful Christian missionary, then you’re against Islam… and a target.
*-perhaps, because one can also be compelled into converting too
Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, but was subsequently abrogated by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=34770&ln=eng
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
Islam/Quran/Muhammad are not responsible for what the present day rulers of the so called Muslim countries are doing.
Is Jesus/Christianity/Catholicism/Bible responsible for what the present day rulers of the so called predominantly Christian/Western countries are doing in the world?
The rulers are neither following Quran in the Muslim countries, nor the rulers in the Western countries are following the Bible.
I think you are not doing a sensible thing for promoting peace in the world. This is very precarious, please don’t do it.
Thanks
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I think one should admit, if one is impartial, that the real context of the verses of giving permission to go to war was against the infidels of Mecca who had attacked. It is specific for them and not a general statement. There were no Catholics in Mecca or Medina so nothing has been mentioned here about them, which must be clear theologically as well as historically.
The subject becomes very clear when the real context is provided to verses as mentioned in the Holy Quran : Chapter 22: Al-Hajj:
[22:40] Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged and Allah, indeed, has power to help them.
[22:41] Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly, only because they said, 'Our Lord is Allah.’ And if Allah had not repelled some people by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered, would surely have been destroyed. And Allah will, surely, help him who helps Him. Allah is, indeed, Powerful, Mighty -
[22:42] Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zak›t and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.
The Quran clearly mentions that the permission for making a war was given so that freedom of religion is established, and that sanctity of cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques is established.
When a delegation of Catholics came in Medina to have a dialogue with the truthful Prophet Muhammad Khatamun Nabiyyeen, the dialogue took place peacefully and Muhammad allowed them to stay in his mosque and to pray according to their faith in his mosque.
Muhammad believed in freedom of faiths/denominations/religions as he was a peaceful and loving man.He served humanity well.
May GodAllahYHWH bless his soul. Peace be upon him.
Thanks
I think one should admit, if one is impartial, that the real context of the verses of giving permission to go to war was against the infidels of Mecca who had attacked. It is specific for them and not a general statement. There were no Catholics in Mecca or Medina so nothing has been mentioned here about them, which must be clear theologically as well as historically.
The subject becomes very clear when the real context is provided to verses as mentioned in the Holy Quran : Chapter 22: Al-Hajj:
[22:40] Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged and Allah, indeed, has power to help them.
[22:41] Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly, only because they said, 'Our Lord is Allah.’ And if Allah had not repelled some people by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered, would surely have been destroyed. And Allah will, surely, help him who helps Him. Allah is, indeed, Powerful, Mighty -
[22:42] Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zak›t and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.
The Quran clearly mentions that the permission for making a war was given so that freedom of religion is established, and that sanctity of cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques is established.
When a delegation of Catholics came in Medina to have a dialogue with the truthful Prophet Muhammad Khatamun Nabiyyeen, the dialogue took place peacefully and Muhammad allowed them to stay in his mosque and to pray according to their faith in his mosque.
Muhammad believed in freedom of faiths/denominations/religions as he was a peaceful and loving man.He served humanity well.
May GodAllahYHWH bless his soul. Peace be upon him.
Thanks
M
Montalban
Guest
Thus you’re allowed to be ‘at peace’ with Islam if you bascially hide your faith away.
Islam will then just assume you’ll die away and your faith with you, so what’s the point in killing you.
This is why there’s opinion that forbids a Moslem woman to marry a non-Moslem man. A Moslem man may marry a non-Moslem woman but the kids must be Moslem and even the wife - well she’s ‘free’ to practice her faith - very privately, not even allowed to openly practice it within her own home - for Islam deems it to be ‘evil’.
Islam will then just assume you’ll die away and your faith with you, so what’s the point in killing you.
This is why there’s opinion that forbids a Moslem woman to marry a non-Moslem man. A Moslem man may marry a non-Moslem woman but the kids must be Moslem and even the wife - well she’s ‘free’ to practice her faith - very privately, not even allowed to openly practice it within her own home - for Islam deems it to be ‘evil’.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
HiBad Christians are not following Christ.
Bad Moslems are following Muhammed.
Then this is not a principled Montalban; a partial one maybe.
Thanks
M
Montalban
Guest
One of the problems for those who wish to ignore my argument about Jihad lies in the life of Muhammed himself.
The Hadith give us plenty of opporunities to see him over-seeing the slaughter of his opponents.
see
answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html
and
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/cruelty.htm
The Hadith give us plenty of opporunities to see him over-seeing the slaughter of his opponents.
see
answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html
and
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/cruelty.htm
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
This is what the Muslims are telling us about Jihad - but will we listen?
Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’
One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.
Mr Usmani, 64, sat for 20 years as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court. He is an adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken, he revealed to The Times a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the most part, were balanced and considered.
He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.
Mr Usmani’s justification for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek to convert the entire Koran into “a poetic and metaphorical book” because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and ideology.
The final chapter delivers a rebuke to those who believe that only defensive jihad (fighting to defend a Muslim land that is under attack or occupation) is permissible in Islam. He refutes the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a nonMuslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam.
For Mr Usmani, “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”
He answers his own question thus: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.”
These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.
Mr Usmani told The Times that Islam and Modernism was an English translation of his original Urdu book, “which at times gives a connotation different from the original”.
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece
This guy served as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court for 20 years - surely he knows Islam better than most.
Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’
One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.
Mr Usmani, 64, sat for 20 years as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court. He is an adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken, he revealed to The Times a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the most part, were balanced and considered.
He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.
Mr Usmani’s justification for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek to convert the entire Koran into “a poetic and metaphorical book” because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and ideology.
The final chapter delivers a rebuke to those who believe that only defensive jihad (fighting to defend a Muslim land that is under attack or occupation) is permissible in Islam. He refutes the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a nonMuslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam.
For Mr Usmani, “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”
He answers his own question thus: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.”
These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.
Mr Usmani told The Times that Islam and Modernism was an English translation of his original Urdu book, “which at times gives a connotation different from the original”.
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece
This guy served as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court for 20 years - surely he knows Islam better than most.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I would say that neither the Deobandi School of thought nor Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani are spokemen of Islam/Quran/Muhammad. Islam/Quran/Muhammad themselves reject them.
Islam/Quran/Muhammad are peaceful and have never allowed any agressive war.
Thanks
P
Peregrino
Guest
I wasn’t making an argument, only pointing out facts. In your eyes, you like to disparage facts as “truisims” when they don’t support your position.
- Status