The true face of Islam

[sum]

Hello Garudaman

Quote -
from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Can you explain the Koranic meaning of "righteous" and "justly" as it would appear to me to be another way of saying that muslims are to act according to Sharia towards the non-muslims?

sum

[Nosuperstition]

Christianity dying , only Islam growing

SAMmy o-Sammy. Where have you been? - chasing 14 year old girls ha? We missed your "intelligent & thoughtful" comments to lighten our life.

Hey dude. Jerusalem is Israel's capital city. How about that?.

128 countries officially declare that Jerusalem is haram for Israel as the Capital City because they knew that Israel has no land to declare it.

India was one of the 128 countries which declared Jerusalem as not a lawfully wedded wife of Israel.

However both the main national parties in India,the Congress and the B.J.P declared that Telangana is the only lawful husband of the city of Hyderabad.Jai Ram Ramesh,the Brahmin Congress leader from Karnataka as well as Tamil Nadu put forward the analogy that if Hyd were made the joint capital of both Telangana and Hyderabad,it is akin to supporting polyandry whereby the wife Hyd has two husbands in the form both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

Of course the fact that both the states of Haryana and Punjab in India have a polyandrous wife in the form of the city of Chandigarh is overlooked by him.Even the fact that Draupadi of the Hindu epic Mahabharatha has 5 husbands has been bypassed by his eyes.So people will always be selective about what they say and what they do just as Brahmin Jai Ram Ramesh had been selective in saying that before Congress,people of Telangana lived under tyrannical ruler of land lords overlooking the fact that they allowed such a rule to flourish even under their successive govts right until 1984 when another local party mostly abolished it.

So you should not bother about what those with vested interests say and look after your own just like North Indians looked after their own interests in Hyd and in the bifurcation of the united state of Andhra Pradesh.The Americans did the same in case of Israel and one cannot find fault with them for that.There simply does not seem to exist anything called decision based on justice in this world.

[manfred]

King David lived between 1040 and 970, give and take a few years. He made Jerusalem the capital of of his kingdom, and there has been a continuous Jewish presence in that city since that time. That is 3000 years or so, and we have a very detailed history of that city since those days, something extremely rare for other places. So suggest that Jerusalem is anything other than the main city of the Jews is rather silly. Since the days of David that City was the centre for Jewish religion, and for much of the time also of government. However the city was also attacked several times and destroyed, but this has not severed the connection.

Rome was once sacked by a people originating from a Swedish island. So where are the claims that Rome is a Swedish city? These would be about as credible or sensible as suggesting that the city of Jerusalem is the the ancestral home of a people invented by Yasser Arafat in the 1970s.

And there is not merely a historical argument. If other countries can choose their own capital cities, why not Israel? No countries could object if the UK decided to make Old Sodbury, Gloucestershire or Twatt, Orkney the new capital.

Israel determines its own affairs as an independent nation, and Jerusalem is not only part of Israel, it has been the beating heart of the Jewish people for 3000 years.

[Nosuperstition]

King David lived between 1040 and 970, give and take a few years. He made Jerusalem the capital of of his kingdom, and there has been a continuous Jewish presence in that city since that time. That is 3000 years or so, and we have a very detailed history of that city since those days, something extremely rare for other places. So suggest that Jerusalem is anything other than the main city of the Jews is rather silly. Since the days of David that City was the centre for Jewish religion, and for much of the time also of government. However the city was also attacked several times and destroyed, but this has not severed the connection.

Rome was once sacked by a people originating from a Swedish island. So where are the claims that Rome is a Swedish city? These would be about as credible or sensible as suggesting that the city of Jerusalem is the the ancestral home of a people invented by Yasser Arafat in the 1970s.

And there is not merely a historical argument. If other countries can choose their own capital cities, why not Israel? No countries could object if the UK decided to make Old Sodbury, Gloucestershire or Twatt, Orkney the new capital.

Israel determines its own affairs as an independent nation, and Jerusalem is not only part of Israel, it has been the beating heart of the Jewish people for 3000 years.

There is no doubt that Jews have a very strong emotional and historical bond with Jerusalem.However to kick our Muslims who most probably were Jews converted under duress is akin to white Muslims being kicked out of Europe after all of Europe becomes Islamic majority and to kick out all Muslims from India as India is a Hindu majority country.

Of course there are still contentious arguments as to whether Muslims of India are of indigenous origin or solely those of Arabian and Persian origin.

[manfred]

No Muslims were "kicked out" from Jerusalem. Jews, on the other hand, were. Several times, whole sale.

[Nosuperstition]

No Muslims were "kicked out" from Jerusalem. Jews, on the other hand, were. Several times, whole sale.

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/9-6.htm

Jews supposedly were a mostly stubborn nation,hence got kicked out several times from several nations.

[Fernando]

Jews supposedly were a mostly stubborn nation,hence got kicked out several times from several nations.

And Muslims are not stubborn, then? They just ask infidels to convert, once, and then they go quietly on their way forever more?

[manfred]

I am very stubborn. NS, how should I be punished?

[Nosuperstition]

I am very stubborn. NS, how should I be punished?

God in the O.T punished Jews many times.Atleast sometimes stubborness would have been the cited reason.So is that info not available in the O.T.With regards to my personal opinion,they have already faced enough.It is time to leave them in peace.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-stubbornness.html

[manfred]

Oh dear... even after all these years you do not understand basics about the bible. Some writers, in your example, the Deuteronomist, INTERPRET events at the TIME or their recent history by making this suggestion. The purpose of saying this is to encourage a return to a more heart-felt, genuine religious observance which the writer feels is lacking AT HIS TIME of writing.

Jews supposedly were a mostly stubborn nation,hence got kicked out several times from several nations.

That is what you said. It is one thing for Jews to interpret their own history in whichever way they wish, and it is quite another , as an outsider, to blame the Jews for the misfortunes they have suffered.

Umar did not attack and laid siege to Jerusalem to punish any "stubborn" Jews. He went there because Mohammed had claimed that he and his successors were promised the riches of Persia and of Rome (meaning Constantinople). Allah, or rather Mohammed, has written the Muslims a blank cheque to attack all and everybody in the then known world. And that is what the Muslims did, and still do wherever they have the upper hand.

It is quite obscene to then use an ancient Jewish text writing about something entirely unrelated to Islam, at a time when there were no Muslims in the world, to retroactively justify aggression against Jews by Muslims. The real reason for the 1400 old violence against Jews by Muslims is simply that long ago they laughed at Mohammed. Mohammed TAUGHT Muslims to hate the Jews, and he insisted that his homeland should be made "judenrein".

[Garudaman]

Garudaman, if you say that Allah "does not forbid" fighting peaceful non-Muslims, does this mean this is an optional choice, or, perhaps, it depends on the circumstances when to fight them?

wrong, its said Allah doesnt forbid you to make friend peaceful kafir & Allah only forbid you to make friend kafir who fight & expel you.

And what about later texts, such as surah 9, which is very clear that Muslims are commanded to fight non-Muslims not because they attack Muslims, but purely because of their beliefs?

look at QS. 4:88-92 its said dont fight kafir unless they fight you, plus QS. 9:13 fight kafir who fight muslim, so surah 9 basically said fight kafir who fight muslim.

BTW, a happy new year to you!!!

happy new year to you too!

[Garudaman]

Hello Garudaman

Quote -
from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Can you explain the Koranic meaning of "righteous" and "justly" as it would appear to me to be another way of saying that muslims are to act according to Sharia towards the non-muslims?

sum

you right, as God's Command & Sharia Law are the same thing, & here is the mentioned God's Command/Sharia Law :

QS. 4:36. Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.

QS. 28:77. But seek, through that which Allah has given you, the home of the Hereafter; and [yet], do not forget your share of the world. And do good as Allah has done good to you. And desire not corruption in the land. Indeed, Allah does not like corrupters."

righteous, justly = good

[frankie]

Hello Garudaman

Quote -
from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Can you explain the Koranic meaning of "righteous" and "justly" as it would appear to me to be another way of saying that muslims are to act according to Sharia towards the non-muslims?

sum

you right, as God's Command & Sharia Law are the same thing, & here is the mentioned God's Command/Sharia Law :

QS. 4:36. Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.

QS. 28:77. But seek, through that which Allah has given you, the home of the Hereafter; and [yet], do not forget your share of the world. And do good as Allah has done good to you. And desire not corruption in the land. Indeed, Allah does not like corrupters."

righteous, justly = good

Garudaman:

I am still waiting for an answer from you.

Please answer this question.

Was Mohammed disobeying Allah when he made "holy war" on non combatants aka "unbelievers" to bring them to accept Islam?

Al Muslim:
Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him.

He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war,

do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action.

If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs.

If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers).

If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.

[Garudaman]

no he wasn't, as that hadith/history is fake.

[frankie]

no he wasn't, as that hadith/history is fake.

How do you know it is fake for sure, when your own scholars claim it as Sahih.

Are you saying you know more than your own scholars?

What about this hadith said to be Sahih,are you claiming this is fake too because it shows your prophet as the man he truly was,a deluded pagan Arabian,intent on world domination through war?

Are you so ashamed of your prophet, that you have to lie to excuse his behaviour?

https://sunnah.com/muslim/32

32
The Book of Jihad and Expeditions
(1)
Chapter: Permissibility of raiding the Kuffar, who have been reached with the call of Islam, without giving prior warning
(1)
باب جَوَازِ الإِغَارَةِ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ الَّذِينَ بَلَغَتْهُمْ دَعْوَةُ الإِسْلاَمِ مِنْ غَيْرِ تَقَدُّمِ الإِعْلاَمِ بِالإِغَارَةِ
Ibn 'Aun reported:
I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.
Reference : Sahih Muslim 1730 a
In-book reference : Book 32, Hadith 1
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 19, Hadith 4292

[sum]

Hello Garudaman

I read a quote that said - "Trying to reason with someone who is indoctrinated is like giving medicine to a dead man". Do you think that it might be possible that this could apply to muslims?

sum

[sum]

Hello Garudaman

You say that "justly and rightly" are, in fact, sharia. But sharia and the Koran demand that muslims are to invite non-muslims to embrace Islam and give the non-muslim three options. The non-muslim is to convert to Islam, keep their own religion but pay the protection money - jizzya - , or be fought and killed.

So the quote that is being discussed is like an iron fist inside a velvet glove. Scratch the surface of Islam and all you find is hatred, enmity and violence and yet you support this.

Why do you support all this? Do you consider that you have been programmed by your indoctrination? Are you frightened to question your belief in Islam?

sum

[Garudaman]

nope, as according to QS. 4:88-92 jizya is only imposed on those who fight muslims.

[sum]

Hello Garudaman

Your quote -
nope, as according to QS. 4:88-92 jizya is only imposed on those who fight muslims.

Nope. Dhimmies are to pay the jizzya even when they are obeying their restrictions imposed by muslims while continuing with their own religion.

If they fight the muslims then they are to be fought and killed.

sum

[frankie]

nope, as according to QS. 4:88-92 jizya is only imposed on those who fight muslims.

Seems Allah cannot make up his mind.

If Allah cannot even agree with himself, what hope is there for Muslims?

It is Kufr alone which makes someone a target for being fought against, this is offensive fighting, NOT defensive fighting, which you are wrongly implying.

Quran 9.29

Ibn Kathir
The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace

Allah said,

حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ

(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,

(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,

(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.[/u][/b] Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,

«لَا تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى بِالسَّلَامِ، وَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِه»

(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors of our houses of worshipfor the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit or betrayalagainst Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices with prayerat our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.' When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.'''