Jihad is a central component of Islam

[Montalban]

Where exactly does it do that? Habib Ali clearly states the following:

How on earth can that letter go directly to the issue of Islam spreading by war? By the fact that it allows standing up against oppression and injustice?

Because it skips the oppression that actually took place, which I mentioned happened, gave examples of and you claimed was a red-herring.

What I’m saying is this, and that is if you want to know why Islam spread as far and wide as it did through Christian communities then you need to examine the conditions prevailing among the people of the time, where there still existed tribal communities often at war with one another, and Islam seemed a unifying force to them.

No, it happened because Muhammad showed what happened to people who were allies of his, and then later surrendered - the Banu Quaresh.

People seem to think that just because there exists an atomism between some Christians and Muslims these days, this was always the case, however it is far from true. For example, after the battle of Qadisiyya (14 AH) after the victory of the Muslims over the Persian army (under Rustam), many Christians belonging to the Beduin tribes on both sides of the Euphrates came to the Muslim general and said, “The tribes that at the first embraced Islam were wiser than we. Now that Rustam hath been slain, we will accept the new belief” (see Muir’s Caliphate, pp 121-2). Similarly in northern Syria, most of the Christian Beduin tribes joined themselves to the followers of the Prophet (Caetani, vol iii p 814). Yes, Muslims were involved in battles at the time involving the “sword”, however conversion to Islam was not the motive as is often made out.

Indeed these Beduin were not strong in their faith. They were raiders when proclaiming themselves Christian, and continued to be so under Islam - in which they could actually throw away any pretence -for Islam allowed them to be what was already in practice.

The tolerance extended by the victorious Muslims of the first century after Hijrah infers that those that did convert did so out of their own choice and free will. The fact that there are still Christian Arabs living today amongst the Muslim is testament that the “convert or die” attitude is merely a myth. If it was the case, Greece could never have remained a Christian country after being ruled by the Ottomans for over 500 years.

That’s the same argument one would make in denying the holocaust because there’s still Jews in Europe! Just because they hadn’t got around to killing them all or persecuting them into converting, you see the fact that they managed to survive as evidence that they couldn’t have possibly have been persecuted.

I’m sure that if someone attempted to kill you, and you survived, you’d thank the attacker for not having completed the job - proof that they never intended to kill you!

Please… the jiziyah was imposed only on men as an exemption for having to fight to protect the nation, and which cannot be extracted by force. In some cases, non-Muslims forewent the payment and fought amongst the Muslims. Compare this to the zakat payable by every Muslim, man, woman and child, on their wealth, their livestock, their crops (up to 10%), etc.

That’s misleading again! A woman who owns no property isn’t expected to pay the zakat! And you claim it’s up to 10% based on what?

Or take, for example, the writings of Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch or Antioch, writing in the latter half of the twelfth century after five centuries of Muslim rule, where after recounting the persecutions of Heraclius, writes:

Another misleading attempt. There is indeed a body of Christians who were not Orthodox who welcomed Islam because the Orthodox faith had not treated them well - and the war between Rome under Heraclius and Persia which had gone on for 30 years had been very taxing. Even the Jews welcomed Moslems into Jerusalem. But hey, the Vietnamese welcomed Japanese into South East Asia, only to learn that they were just as oppressive as the French had been.

When the Muslim army reached the valley of the Jordan and Abu Ubaydah pitched his camp at Fihl, the Christian inhabitants of the country wrote to the Arabs and said, “O Muslims, we prefer you to the Byzantines, though they are of our own faith, because you keep better faith with us and are more merciful to us and refrain from doing us injustice and your rule over us is better than theirs, for they have robbed us of our goods and our homes” (Azdi, p 97).

This is simply more of the same. Islam was able to take advantage of internal divisions and the exhaustion of the two powers from their protracted war.

I could continue on with many, many more examples, and I apologise for the length of the post so far, however I think it’s important to realise that the picture being portrayed of the spread of Islam by many people today, out of ignorance as I claim, is far, far from the truth. Nothing personal, but there are many of these accounts to be found in history and whilst I fully admit things were not always so rosy, they amount to a minority of cases compared to the norm, which was tolerance.

All your examples don’t show how Islam acted towards the inhabitants. They show that the inhabitants expected to be better treated under the invaders than they had been.

I can name countless examples of peoples who welcomed invaders; the Ukrainians welcomed the Germans in 1941. Did this mean Germany didn’t oppress them? No, of course not. The Philippines welcomed America as liberators, only to find them new masters, and then launched an ‘insurrection’ to oust them (which happened to fail). You’re simply attempting to argue one thing by showing another.

Your whole argument is full of diversions and half-truths.

Once Islam got itself into a position of power they imposed dhimmitude upon their subjects. This included paying a higher tax, wearing special clothing, inequality before the law, restrictions on practice of faith, etc.

The fact many peoples welcomed them did not mean that they knew that Islam would be just as bad, or worse. Worse because at least the hetrodox Christians remained Christian. Under Islam they were, due to oppression, etc. even to lose their faith in Jesus.

 

[Abu_Ismail]

Thank you for your response montalban, I will respond in due course.

As for the 10%, it is the amount of zakat payable on crops that are naturally irrigated, or 5% if they need watering.

I believe in some schools of thought the zakat can be as high as 20% for minerals mined from the ground.

Also, Islamically a womens possessions remains her own, even after marriage. The Prophet’s own wife was a successful business woman.

There are no half-truths involved as you accuse me of.

 

[paarsurrey]

Nobody is a spokesperson for Islam, but they can follow the jihad doctrine in the Quran just the same.
This jihadi doctrine was not made up by the deobandis but my Muhammad bin Abdallah.
paarsurrey - keep deluding yourself that Islam does not permit aggressive war. Muhammad bin Abdallah himself conducted aggressive war and his followers did the same .

Hi

The truthful Prophet Muhammad was peaceful, yet some people continue accusing that he was not peaceful. He killed not a soul in Mecca, up to the age of 53 that is history.

When due to the atrocities of Meccans he immigrated to Medina, even then won’t leave him alone. He had no military training or warfare techniques worth the name; yet when GodAllahYHWH allowed/commanded him to repulse the aggressors, he did that valiantly.

I think you are not fair in accusing him. I don’t mind that, you may do whatever you like heart and soul.

You say he (Muhammad) himself killed many a person; that is just an accusation and misconception. Was there any person among them who was Catholic, and he killed that person? Just name with solid and creditable references/proofs? I think you don’t have any names of Catholics whom he killed.

Just misconceptions you people have. No compulsion

Thanks

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

When you deny Muhammad’s crimes you are insulting the victims, paarsurrey.

 

[Montalban]

Also, Islamically a womens possessions remains her own, even after marriage. The Prophet’s own wife was a successful business woman.

There are no half-truths involved as you accuse me of.

I apologise for the ‘half-truth’ only insofar as the payment of Zakat. What you offered, was a slight of hand…

I never said women can’t own property. What you said is it’s payable by every Moslem on their property - including women.

Not all women had property so not all women paid. What child had to pay on their property? I’ve never heard of that one. How many had property?

It’s like saying all people who earn over $10,000,000,000 would have to pay a special tax when in reality next to none earn that

 

[paarsurrey]

When you deny Muhammad’s crimes you are insulting the victims, paarsurrey.

Hi

When one sides with the agressors, one kills justice. Please don’t do that. However, no compulsion, you are a free soul.

Thanks

 

[Abu_Ismail]

I apologise for the ‘half-truth’ only insofar as the payment of Zakat. What you offered, was a slight of hand…

I never said women can’t own property. What you said is it’s payable by every Moslem on their property - including women.

Not all women had property so not all women paid. What child had to pay on their property? I’ve never heard of that one. How many had property?

It’s like saying all people who earn over $10,000,000,000 would have to pay a special tax when in reality next to none earn that

A slight of hand? I guess that’s better than a half truth.

I don’t see where I said anything wrong or misleading. Of course, no women are expected to pay zakat if they don’t have anything to pay zakat on. And the same goes for non-Muslim men, if they have nothing then jiziyah cannot be extracted from them either.

But also, in case you missed it, no non-Muslim woman is expected to pay the jiziya either. It was a tax on men only, to excuse them from the army, which is compulsory for Muslim males. And if they didn’t want to pay it and fight as well, then they could do that as well. So I don’t know what relevance there is in pointing out that muslim women with no assets pay no zakat, when no non-muslim woman regardless of her assets pays any jiziya at all.

As for $10b dollars, that’s rediculous, the nisab (threshold amount) on currency is the equivalent value of 85g of gold, or 5 camels, or 6 sa’ of staples or fruit (1 sa’ is about 4 handfuls).

Now people can make up their own mind if I’m performing any slight of hand, but all I’ve done is told you exactly what Islam has to say on the matter.

 

[Montalban]

A slight of hand? I guess that’s better than a half truth.

I don’t see where I said anything wrong or misleading. Of course, no women are expected to pay zakat if they don’t have anything to pay zakat on. And the same goes for non-Muslim men, if they have nothing then jiziyah cannot be extracted from them either.

Sure, but then you also had them paying the same as non-Moslems too!

But also, in case you missed it, no non-Muslim woman is expected to pay the jiziya either. It was a tax on men only, to excuse them from the army, which is compulsory for Muslim males. And if they didn’t want to pay it and fight as well, then they could do that as well. So I don’t know what relevance there is in pointing out that muslim women with no assets pay no zakat, when no non-muslim woman regardless of her assets pays any jiziya at all.

That would be a better point to make - most women wouldn’t pay it.

You wanted to suggest Moslem women had to pay it.

As for $10b dollars, that’s rediculous, the nisab (threshold amount) on currency is the equivalent value of 85g of gold, or 5 camels, or 6 sa’ of staples or fruit (1 sa’ is about 4 handfuls).

That’s not the point of my objection. The point is related to how many women would pay it, per se

You also mentioned Moslem children had to pay it. How many of them would have had property in their own right?

Now people can make up their own mind if I’m performing any slight of hand, but all I’ve done is told you exactly what Islam has to say on the matter.

Not quite.

Non-Moslems had to pay 10%. Moslems 2.5%.

You countered that women and children Moslems had to pay -but there’d be so few of them with property in their own right - children especially that saying that there’s a catergory that exists that has to pay it is a slight of hand when that category’s so small - or nil, as to not be worth mentioning.

And all of this misses the point that non-Moslems had to pay simply for being non-Moselm

EVEN IF Moslems had to pay 50% that’s there luck/fault for being Moslem! Moslems taxing others for being non-Moslem is discrimination.

 

[Abu_Ismail]

I’m sorry but your arguments are now becoming absurd.

Sure, but then you also had them paying the same as non-Moslems too!

That would be a better point to make - most women wouldn’t pay it.

You wanted to suggest Moslem women had to pay it.

Muslim woman who own the threshold amount ARE required to pay it, full stop. The threshold amount is not a huge amount as you made out, and many women would have to pay it, if not directly then indirectly through their husbands on the property and wealth they both share.

That’s not the point of my objection. The point is related to how many women would pay it, per se

The objection is irrelevant since no non-Muslim woman pays jiziya, ever. Even if I excluded women from my statement about paying zakat, it would still not change that fact.

You also mentioned Moslem children had to pay it. How many of them would have had property in their own right?

Many, if their fathers were killed then they would become the heirs to their property, which zakat would still be payable on. The same goes for women who inherit from their husbands or fathers.

Non-Moslems had to pay 10%. Moslems 2.5%.

You countered that women and children Moslems had to pay -but there’d be so few of them with property in their own right - children especially that saying that there’s a catergory that exists that has to pay it is a slight of hand when that category’s so small - or nil, as to not be worth mentioning.

Even if I were to ignore woman and children, I have already shown that zakat is payable on a number of different items and in differing amounts. Furthermore, zakat is able to be taken by force or without consent, whereas taking jizyah by force is not permissible. In fact, non-Muslim males pay no zakat yet still get the option of paying jiziya to excuse themselves from service.

And all of this misses the point that non-Moslems had to pay simply for being non-Moselm

EVEN IF Moslems had to pay 50% that’s there luck/fault for being Moslem! Moslems taxing others for being non-Moslem is discrimination.

No, once again, the non-Muslim men payed for being exempt from fighting, which they could forgo and fight, an option not available to Muslim men. If anything, it was Muslim men who were disadvantaged by the law, not non-Muslim men.

 

[De_Maria]

Hi

Quran prohibits any aggressive battles for religious conversion,

No it doesn’t.

Let me count the ways in which the Quran preaches aggressive takeover of other lands and peoples:

Sura 9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Yusuf Ali

Sura 2:216 Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth and ye know not.

Sura 2:244 Then fight in the cause of Allah and know that Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Sura 4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.

Sura 4:84 Then fight in Allah’s cause thou art held responsible only for thyself and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the unbelievers: for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment.

Sura 47:4 Therefore when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight) smite at their necks; at length when ye have thoroughly subdued them bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah He will never let their deeds be lost.

4:71 O ye who believe! take your precautions and either go forth in parties or go forth all together.
Sura 4:84 Then fight in Allah’s cause thou art held responsible only for thyself and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the unbelievers: for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment.

this is mentioned in many a verse of the Quran, and I think you know of them.

I think I just quoted them above.

Please take context of the Hadith from the principled narratives of Quran, and I think you should do that now to clear your miscoceptions.

The hadith like this one:

If anyone changes his religion, kill him. Bukhari

Quran is the basic and foremost source of Islam,

That’s the problem.

then actions of the Prophet as mentioned in Quran, and then Hadith.

That aggravates the problem.

Thanks

No problem.

NTBible of the Catholics/Orthodoxt is not even more authenticated than Hadith of the Muslim, third source of guidance. NTBible would be fourth or or fifth or sixth - - - -.
Please don’t mind.

Very funny. Let me see how well authenticated the revelation contained in the Quran is vis a vis revelation in the Bible. Firsta question. Besides Mohammed, who else saw the angel? Answer: No one else. Mohammed’s revelation is the testimony of one man. Mohammed.

Did Mohammed finish writing his Quran? No. He left bits and pieces of wood, leaves, shells, horns and paper. Someone burned those and put together what they claimed was the Quran.

On the other hand, the contents of the Gospels are written by three eyewitnesses to Jesus life and miracles:

Matthew, the Apostle
Mark, Peter’s assistant and disciple
John, the Apostle

The fourth Gospel was written by a convert who interviewed many eyewitnesses and compiled his Gospel during the lifetime of the Apostles. His name is Luke, the physician.

Mohammed, no witnesses to verify his testimony.

Jesus, many witnesses to verify his testimony and many miracles to confirm His Divinity.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Abu_Ismail]

No it doesn’t.

Let me count the ways in which the Quran preaches aggressive takeover of other lands and peoples:

To be honest Muslims aren’t interested in non-scholarly derivations of rulings by people with no qualifications to do so, including yourself. It has never been and never will be an acceptable method of forming ahkam (rulings) in Islam.

Anyone can pick up a book, read a few quotes here and there and form an opinion on the matter. But that’s all it will ever be, if I wanted to be operated on I would go to a surgeon who studied medicine and was qualified, not some backyard operator that read a few med text books found in the tip.

Of course, I can’t stop you or anyone else from doing so, but the honesty of the approach leaves much to be desired. The same could be performed on Christian texts with the same outcome (and I admit some Muslims have done so), but I disagree with all that take this approach.

 

[De_Maria]

To be honest Muslims aren’t interested in non-scholarly derivations of rulings by people with no qualifications to do so, including yourself. It has never been and never will be an acceptable method of forming ahkam (rulings) in Islam.

To be honest, neither are nonMuslims interested in your justification of Muslim injustices.

Anyone can pick up a book, read a few quotes here and there and form an opinion on the matter. But that’s all it will ever be, if I wanted to be operated on I would go to a surgeon who studied medicine and was qualified, not some backyard operator that read a few med text books found in the tip.

If I wanted honesty and truth, I would not be a Muslim.

Of course, I can’t stop you or anyone else from doing so, but the honesty of the approach leaves much to be desired. The same could be performed on Christian texts with the same outcome (and I admit some Muslims have done so), but I disagree with all that take this approach.

You disagree with everyone but yourself. It is obvious from what Muslim terrorists do that they interpret Quranic texts the way we have shown you.

However, as we have demonstrated in this thread and the other, Muslims continue to act in contradiction to your spin on Quranic texts. Regardless of what you say, Islamic countries are against freedom of religion and Islamic countries continue to oppress nonMuslims. So, if you are correct then all your Muslim brothers are wrong and your time would be better spent teaching them Islam then us.

One last thought which I hoped one of you would entertain. Paarsurrey ended his message with a comment about the superiority of even the third order hadith over the Christian Scriptures. Yet, Mohammed had no proof that he ever saw an angel and therefore there is no proof that any of what he revealed in the Quran is anything but his own warped imagination. That is the foundation upon which Islam stands. A foundation which is cracked.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Abu Ismail:

Anyone can pick up a book, read a few quotes here and there and form an opinion on the matter. But that’s all it will ever be, if I wanted to be operated on I would go to a surgeon who studied medicine and was qualified, not some backyard operator that read a few med text books found in the tip.

This is a frequently used analogy that is not only false but highly misleading.

Only medical practitioners can practise medicine, but every Muslim is a practitioner of Islam.

If you think we have quoted the quran out of context - please show and then we can discuss. Invariably you will be shown that that your ‘out of context’ excuse is false.

 

[Montalban]

I’m sorry but your arguments are now becoming absurd.
Muslim woman who own the threshold amount ARE required to pay it, full stop. The threshold amount is not a huge amount as you made out, and many women would have to pay it, if not directly then indirectly through their husbands on the property and wealth they both share.

I’ve not said that this is untrue.

The objection is irrelevant since no non-Muslim woman pays jiziya, ever. Even if I excluded women from my statement about paying zakat, it would still not change that fact.

No. The objection’s valid because you’re trying to deceive.

You’re saying no non-Moslem woman would ever pay this tax of 2.5%. That’s true, however non-Moslems had to pay a tax of 10%.

Many, if their fathers were killed then they would become the heirs to their property, which zakat would still be payable on.

By the child? You might be right but I’ve only seen your say so on this to date.

The same goes for women who inherit from their husbands or fathers.

Until they re-marry?

Even if I were to ignore woman and children, I have already shown that zakat is payable on a number of different items and in differing amounts.

Yes, you keep saying so. All I’ve read (except from you) is it’s 2.5% and it’s not payable on ‘trade’.

Furthermore, zakat is able to be taken by force or without consent, whereas taking jizyah by force is not permissible. In fact, non-Muslim males pay no zakat yet still get the option of paying jiziya to excuse themselves from service.

So you’re allowed to pay 2.5% instead of 10% othewise you’d have to pay 10%!

No, once again, the non-Muslim men payed for being exempt from fighting, which they could forgo and fight, an option not available to Muslim men. If anything, it was Muslim men who were disadvantaged by the law, not non-Muslim men.

I’ve already dealt with this; if you impose restrictions on your own community that is up to you, but you’re forcing non-Moslems to have restrictions too - including something you’ve not dealt with - paying with one’s sons.

 

[Montalban]

To be honest Muslims aren’t interested in non-scholarly derivations of rulings by people with no qualifications to do so, including yourself. It has never been and never will be an acceptable method of forming ahkam (rulings) in Islam.

Anyone can pick up a book, read a few quotes here and there and form an opinion on the matter. But that’s all it will ever be, if I wanted to be operated on I would go to a surgeon who studied medicine and was qualified, not some backyard operator that read a few med text books found in the tip.

Of course, I can’t stop you or anyone else from doing so, but the honesty of the approach leaves much to be desired. The same could be performed on Christian texts with the same outcome (and I admit some Muslims have done so), but I disagree with all that take this approach.

Then you should take a look at Andrew Bostom’s well researched book “The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims” in which he’s sourced opinion from all the Islamic schools, including Sufis that advocate violent jihad - examining the Sunni schools Maliki (with examples from Averroes & Ibn Khaldun), Hanbali (Ibn Taymiyya, & Ibn Qudama), Hanafi (Shaybani), Shafi’i (al-Mawardi),

He looks at Sura 9.29 as interpreted by al-Baydawi, al-Suyuti, al-Zamakhshari and al-Tabari.

And take a look at works by Bat Ye’or who show the consequences of that, especially The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam : From Jihad to Dhimmitude : Seventh-Twentieth Century

 

[Abu_Ismail]

If I wanted honesty and truth, I would not be a Muslim.

So it’s come down to insults now has it?

 

[Montalban]

So it’s come down to insults now has it?

Those remarks are probably based on the fact that in Islam, you’re permitted to lie, and even your god deceived people

 

[Abu_Ismail]

No. The objection’s valid because you’re trying to deceive.

Sorry I have not said anything to deceive anyone, if I have then perhaps one of the other forum members can point it out to me.

You’re saying no non-Moslem woman would ever pay this tax of 2.5%. That’s true, however non-Moslems had to pay a tax of 10%.

Seriously, are you reading my posts? Let me say it again:

Non-Muslim women or children do not pay jizyah. Never. ever.

Is there something in that you don’t understand?

Until they re-marry?

In Islam, women keep their own property when marrying, the husband has no right to it.

Yes, you keep saying so. All I’ve read (except from you) is it’s 2.5% and it’s not payable on ‘trade’.

When then read it again, because you’ve read it wrong. And zakat is payable on stock in trade.

So you’re allowed to pay 2.5% instead of 10% othewise you’d have to pay 10%!

I don’t even understand what you’re saying here.

I’ve already dealt with this; if you impose restrictions on your own community that is up to you, but you’re forcing non-Moslems to have restrictions too - including something you’ve not dealt with - paying with one’s sons.

Paying with one’s sons? Here we go… another tangent.

 

[Abu_Ismail]

Those remarks are probably based on the fact that in Islam, you’re permitted to lie, and even your god deceived people

More insults?

 

[Verisimilitude]

More insults?

Proving someone to be in error is not an insult. To deflect the proof by claiming a invalid offense without refuting the proof is dishonorable.