Some Respectfull Questions for Muslims

[Muslim_Woman]

Salaam/ Peace

…slavery is not abolished.

Slavery

once 'Ali and his male servant Qambar went to a shop where 'Ali selected two garments, one a cheap coarse dress, the other expensive. He gave the expensive garment to Qambar.

Qambar was shocked. “Oh Master!”, he said, “This is the better one and you are the ruler of the Muslims. You should take this one.” 'Ali replied, “No, Qambar, you are young and young man should wear better clothes.” Could such a treatment produce any sense of inferiority in slaves? Masters were forbidden to exact more work than was just and proper.

They were ordered never to address their male or female slaves by the degrading appellation, but by the more affectionate name of "my young man’, or “my young maid”; it was also enjoined that all slaves should be dressed, clothed and fed exactly as their masters and mistresses did.

It was also ordered that in no case should the mother be separated from her child, nor brother from brother, nor father from son, nor husband from wife, nor one relative from another.

Let us now refer to the Qur’an:

Worship Allah (alone) and associate nothing with Him, and do good to parents, to kinsfolk, to orphans, to the needy, to the neighbour who is a relative, to the neighbour who is a stranger, to a companion by your side, to the wayfarer and to (the slave) which your right hands possess; verily Allah loves not the proud, the boastful. (4:36)

The Holy Prophet gifted a slave to Abu Dharr al-Ghifari and told him to maintain him in the best way, to feed him whatever he himself ate, to clothe him with whatever clothes he liked for himself. Abu Dharr had a robe which he immediately tore into two, and gave one piece to the slave.

The Prophet said, “Excellent!” Abu Dharr took the slave home and liberated him. The Prophet was highly pleased with Abu Dharr and said, “God will reward you for it.”

How Imam Zaynul 'Abidin, the fourth Imam, treated his slave-girl is well-known in Islamic history. Once while serving food to the Imam, she accidentally dropped a bowl of hot soup on him. She was deeply conscious of the injury and pain she had caused to the Imam. She knew very well the disposition of the holy Imam and began reciting the Qur’anic verse, “Those who restrain their anger.”

“I have restrained my anger,” the Imam replied.
“And those who forgive the people,” she went on.
“I have forgiven you,” he said.

Lastly, she said, “And God loves those who do good to others.”
The Imam replied, “I set you free to seek the pleasure of God.”
The slave-girl had quoted those words from verse 133 of chapter 3 of the Qur’an. We reproduce the full verse here:

Those who spend (in alms) alike in prosperity and straitness, and who restrain (their) anger, and those who forgive the people, and Allah loves those who do good (to others).

al-islam.org/slavery/index.htm

useful link :

Slavery in Islam and the Bible

islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503547546

 

[Reuben_J]

What the Muslims could fight for was actually freedom of religion. If some state were not allowing people freedom of religion, if they weren’t allowing people to be Muslim or to learn Islam, then they were in a way oppressing them. So the Muslims were to fight them until the people were free of that oppression. And that is the only reason. As the Qur’an says, oppression is worse than slaughter.

Muslims defines oppression from their own lens and that can be very inclusive and/of about anything they consider unIslamic. They consider America oppresses the Muslims. And the West and Israel too and any countries that’s they consider hostile to Islam… So there are a lot of figthings that need to be done by you all.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Salaam/ Peace

…I must point out that I asked not about Sura 9:5, which I have no problem with, but Sura 9:29.
.

oopss , ok I found this one

… Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day… until they pay the Jizyah (9:29)

Some people have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money…These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions?

… Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them.

…In light of the historical context of this verse, it becomes very clear that the verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As Dr. Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29 and similar verses:

All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians.

Therefore, the command to fight in verse** 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression and not those who are committed to live in peace.** The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:

What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, ‘Jihad’.

full ans here

theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_929_commentary/

 

[Reuben_J]

What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, ‘Jihad’.

Muslims defines 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion, from their own lens and that can be very inclusive and/of about anything they consider unIslamic. They consider America oppresses the Muslims. And the West and Israel too and any countries that’s they consider hostile to Islam… So there are a lot of figthings that need to be done by you all.

(anwer given in last post)

 

[Muslim_Woman]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Salaam/ Peace

So there are a lot of figthings that need to be done by you all.

So , u want to continue the oppression ?

 

[Reuben_J]

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Salaam/ Peace

So , u want to continue the oppression ?

No, oppression is just your excuse. Whether there is real opprssion or not, your objective is to humiliate and subjugate. That’s why nearly all actions of non-Mulims under the earthly sky are considered oppression by you so that you can initiate war and continue the process of their humiliation and subjugation.

Otherwise how do you think Islam was spread?

 

[paarsurrey]

Reuben J; 4496234:

Otherwise how do you think Islam was spread?

Hi

It is a good question. Kindly access the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_spread_of_Islam_in_Indonesia_(1200_to_1600

The answer is just before your eyes; not from any Muslim sources as you won’t like that as that do not match with the picture you have in your mind; well sorry for that.

The article is long; I only give here some initial passages. One may read the whole article if one likes, no compulsion.

The spread of Islam in Indonesia (1200 to 1600)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam is thought to have first been adopted by peoples of the Indonesian archipelago sometime during the eleventh century, although Muslims had visited the archipelago early in the Muslim era. By the end of the 16th century, Islam, through assimilation, had supplanted Hinduism and Buddhism as the dominant religion of Java and Sumatra. At this time, only Bali retained a Hindu majority and the eastern islands remained largely animist but would adopt Islam and Christianity in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The spread of Islam was driven by increasing trade links outside of the archipelago; in general, traders and the royalty of major kingdoms were the first to adopt the new religion. Dominant kingdoms included Mataram in Central Java, and the sultanates of Ternate and Tidore in the Maluku Islands to the east. By the end of the thirteenth century, Islam had been established in North Sumatra; by the fourteenth in northeast Malaya, Brunei, the southern Philippines and among some courtiers of East Java; and the fifteenth in Malacca and other areas of the Malay Peninsula. Although it is known that the spread of Islam began in the west of the archipelago, the fragmentary evidence does not suggest a rolling wave of conversion through adjacent areas; rather, it suggests the process was complicated and slow.

Unquote

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi

It is a good question. Kindly access the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_spread_of_Islam_in_Indonesia_(1200_to_1600

The answer is just before your eyes; not from any Muslim sources as you won’t like that as that do not match with the picture you have in your mind; well sorry for that.

The article is long; I only give here some initial passages. One may read the whole article if one likes, no compulsion.

The spread of Islam in Indonesia (1200 to 1600)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam is thought to have first been adopted by peoples of the Indonesian archipelago sometime during the eleventh century, although Muslims had visited the archipelago early in the Muslim era. By the end of the 16th century, Islam, through assimilation, had supplanted Hinduism and Buddhism as the dominant religion of Java and Sumatra. At this time, only Bali retained a Hindu majority and the eastern islands remained largely animist but would adopt Islam and Christianity in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The spread of Islam was driven by increasing trade links outside of the archipelago; in general, traders and the royalty of major kingdoms were the first to adopt the new religion. Dominant kingdoms included Mataram in Central Java, and the sultanates of Ternate and Tidore in the Maluku Islands to the east. By the end of the thirteenth century, Islam had been established in North Sumatra; by the fourteenth in northeast Malaya, Brunei, the southern Philippines and among some courtiers of East Java; and the fifteenth in Malacca and other areas of the Malay Peninsula. Although it is known that the spread of Islam began in the west of the archipelago, the fragmentary evidence does not suggest a rolling wave of conversion through adjacent areas; rather, it suggests the process was complicated and slow.

Unquote

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

Yes, after that they spread Islam by terror. Eventually some people convert to Islam because they are tired of being discriminated, harrassed and even killed.

Ask non-Muslim Indonesians themselves, what the Muslims do to them when they are a powerful majority. I don’t have to tell you. Just ask them.

 

[Reuben_J]

No, oppression is just your excuse. …

You fight them in Indonesia, in Pakistan, in Sudan, in Iraq, in the Philippines, in Thailand in Egypt and in India.

Did the three Christian school girls whom you beheaded in Indonesia, the tourists whom you decapitated in the Philippines, Buddhist rubber tappers and monks whom you bombed, mutilated and burnt alive in Thailand, the half starved Christians whom you routed in Southern Sudan, the Catholics who recited their rosary peacefully in Sumatra whose churches you burnt and recently the bystanders in India and Egypt who you bombed and shot dead, did they all oppress you that you mercilessly and cruelly killed them?

That’s right. For you, oppression is just an excuse to fight inorder to subjugate and to convert. And why did Mulims do this? Surely it is not for fun but because the commands are there in your so-called word of Allah which had been exemplified by your own beloved prophet.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Muslims defines oppression from their own lens and that can be very inclusive and/of about anything they consider unIslamic. They consider America oppresses the Muslims. And the West and Israel too and any countries that’s they consider hostile to Islam… So there are a lot of figthings that need to be done by you all.

America oppresses Muslims? In what way?

In the way that an innocent man who happened to be visiting Afghanistan might get picked up by a local for cash, handed over to the American military and tortured, called a war criminal and detained indefinitely… for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

In a way that a charity attempting to provide food for the hungry, schoolbooks for children, medical services for the sick, in a country with the highest unemployment rate in the world, a country where people are denied many basic human rights–in a way that charity is tied to terrorism in American courts?

Muslims are oppressed–all over the world. Oppressed by dictators, oppressed by invading militias, oppressed religiously, oppressed physically, oppressed financially.

And there is no Muslim state–Muslims are not authorized to take up arms to protect them, not right now.

It’s really sad if I spend a lot of time thinking about it.

 

[Sister_Amy]

No, oppression is just your excuse. Whether there is real opprssion or not, your objective is to humiliate and subjugate. That’s why nearly all actions of non-Mulims under the earthly sky are considered oppression by you so that you can initiate war and continue the process of their humiliation and subjugation.

Otherwise how do you think Islam was spread?

2:256. Islam cannot be forced. And basic psychology would teach you that nobody (or hardly anybody, at least with sincerity) would adopt a religion which humiliated or subjugated them.

 

[cathopologist]

2:256. Islam cannot be forced. And basic psychology would teach you that nobody (or hardly anybody, at least with sincerity) would adopt a religion which humiliated or subjugated them.

So that means the Rashiduns were never sincere in the first place. Because basic psychology also teaches that only the insecure would terrorize, pillage, humiliate and subjugate people.

 

[ChristIsLord]

Why are people jumping on Muslims for slavery? Have any of you actually read the Bible? Not to mention our own countries recent history with slavery which was brutal. It just seems hypocritical, even Jesus didn’t denounce slavery so I don’t know what that means. I take it to me it was so common and normal that even Jesus didn’t think it would ever go away.

 

[inJESUS]

Why are people jumping on Muslims for slavery? Have any of you actually read the Bible? Not to mention our own countries recent history with slavery which was brutal. It just seems hypocritical, even Jesus didn’t denounce slavery so I don’t know what that means. I take it to me it was so common and normal that even Jesus didn’t think it would ever go away.

you are actually repeating the Muslims’ claim that since there was polygamy/slavery/war/capital punishmen in the Bible, why do you criticise Islam? first because the Bible to us isn’t the Bible without the NT which fulfills/explains the OT. Second , just because we read about the above mentioned things in the Bible, it does not mean they are meant to be eternal teachings, which Jews themselves know. Slavery/wars/polygamy/divorce were based on the realities of life back then and God dealt with them in specific situations to specific people in specific lands, and they are descriptive, not prescriptive, that is, they explain that part of history of the Hebrew people and are finished. It is history, not eternal laws, and revelations are progressive and Jews and Christians understand this and Jesus explained the difference for a reason.

There is nothing in the Bible called make wars to convert others in the name of God. There is nothing called Judaic war conquests. There were wars and lthere were aws to regulate them back then as a part of that history of people back then and they are finished and when Jesus came, He did not give these laws because they aren’t eternal laws to begin with, nor are they what God wants.

So when Muslims tell us Islam does not permit offensive wars (Muslim Women) , it is a myth. And when Sister Amy admits it (correctly) but says “only if oppressed”, then we just need to go back in history to see what Muhammad’s immediate followers did to lands and people who did not oppress them.

And regarding the question whether one can convert to a religion that oppressed him first, well he surely can and history proves it. Someone who doesn’t want to pay taxes in humiliation and be a second class citizen , a Judas in other words, will surely betray His Master.

So when Muhammad decides to include Jesus in his list of prophets, we do not expect him to teach what Jesus did not teach or to hide them, nor to twist the Hebrew scriptures . Ignorance, arrogance and hiding truth is a fatal weapon.

 

[Sister_Amy]

What is a better way to determine the teachings of Islam?

Study Islam according to the scholars of Islam?
Or look at how Muslims throughout history have acted?

Try replacing with Christianity/Christians.

 

[Valke2]

What is a better way to determine the teachings of Islam?

Study Islam according to the scholars of Islam?
Or look at how Muslims throughout history have acted?

Try replacing with Christianity/Christians.

What about looking at how Muslims have acted today?

 

[Sister_Amy]

What about looking at how Muslims have acted today?

Just as ridiculous.

Can I discern the teachings of Catholicism by observing Catholics? Let me just take a movie like… oh… I dunno… The Departed.

 

[Valke2]

Just as ridiculous.

Can I discern the teachings of Catholicism by observing Catholics? Let me just take a movie like… oh… I dunno… The Departed.

What does the entertainment industry have to do with the rapid spread of islamic fundamentalism? Are you denying that there is a network of mosques and schools which preach and teach violence against the United States and other countries? This is a form of Islam. ANd it is the type of Islam that has lots of money and lots of guns.

 

[Sister_Amy]

What does the entertainment industry have to do with the rapid spread of islamic fundamentalism? Are you denying that there is a network of mosques and schools which preach and teach violence against the United States and other countries? This is a form of Islam. ANd it is the type of Islam that has lots of money and lots of guns.

Maybe becaue the “rapid spread of islamic fundamentalism” is a figment in the imagination of the entertainment industry.

I am saying that you can’t understand the teachings of a religion merely by observing its adherents.

 

[Booklover]

Maybe becaue the “rapid spread of islamic fundamentalism” is a figment in the imagination of the entertainment industry.

I am saying that you can’t understand the teachings of a religion merely by observing its adherents.

Do you honestly expect us to believe that your scriptures do not advocate violence against others?

Vickie