How is this my creation? Lookey here:Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:No. That is your own creation.winston wrote:Is it not simply the case that when a non-Muslim refuses to accept the invitation of Islam, or the position of a Dhimmi under Islamic law, then they are viewed as people who are 'fighting' Muslims on the basis of Islam?Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote: Muslims must be just and kind to Kufar who do not fight against them on the basis of Islam.
This is the general teaching of Islam.
The condition as to when a non-Muslim should be seen as fighting Muslims is stated in the Qur'an in the same verse. Those non-Muslims who fight Muslims for their religion and drive Muslims from their homes - both are forms of physical aggression.
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.
The conditions for establishing ones enemy are laid out in this verse and they are 'those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger i.e Shariah, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth i.e Islam.
I did check it out again and no you didn't refute anything. Skynightblaze quoted your scripture which said that Muslims must not seek peace when they have the upper hand in a conflict. Here's a refresher:Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:I have refuted skynightblaze's argument. Go check it out again. And no, you made them up.winston wrote:
Islam is about political dominance and anyone who opposes the Shariah is a legitimate target of warfare, especially (as skynightblaze has already noted) when Muslims have the upper hand (through numbers or resources).
"If Muslims are weak, a truce (note that this is only a truce and never a peace treaty, the fighting will resume when the Muslims have gathered their strength) may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.16).
And let us not forget the value of a truce in Islamic thinking:
Qur’an 8:58-59 “If you apprehend treachery from any group on the part of a people (with whom you have a treaty), retaliate by breaking off (relations) with them. The infidels should not think they can bypass (Islamic law or the punishment of Allah). Surely they cannot escape. The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”
"So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (47:35)
I didn't make that up.
Rubbish, the 'pact' of Dhima has every bit of relevance to this topic and you're right it does arise due to specific circumstances which are outlined above in verse 9.29 i.e. When a non-Muslim refuses to accept Islam but they do not want to fight for whatever reason then they may escape murder by paying the jizya and 'feeling themselves subdued'.Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:The pact of Dhima arises due to a specific circumstance. It is another subject.winston wrote:When you say that Muslims must be just and kind to Kufar who do not fight Muslims, you mean that Muslims must behave according to the rules of Dhimmitude which Muslims view as kindness and justice but which the Kufar most certainly do not.Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
As for "kind" and "just" the words simply mean what they are supposed to mean. Your forcing your interpretation onto them is unacceptable.
In addtion I'm not 'forcing my interpretation' onto anything. One mans kindness is another mans cruelty, don't deny it. If I were to live under Shariah law as a Dhimmi my Muslim masters would think themselves very kind and just that they don't cut my head off even if they feel entitled to. I however would not feel that my appalling living conditions were a product of any kindness or justice but rather Islamic supremacism and barbarity alone.
You betray your own intelligence here BOT1: "time when a prophet is on earth is different to the time when there is no prophet on earth." Special circumstances? You mean when a main claims to be a prophet and sets about committing every type of crime in the book from rape to piracy this person should be excused due to special circumstances? I don't make exceptions for Mohammed or anyone else for that matter. If Mohammed claimed to be a prophet then he should be judged to against a very high standard of behaviour, not be given leeway to do whatever he felt like. This is the standard operating procedure for a cult.Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:Nonsense. First of all, the time when a prophet is on earth is different to the time when there is no prophet on earth. The former is special circumstances, while the later are ordinary. What may be allowed in special circumstances may not be allowed in ordinary circumstances.winston wrote:Mohammed himself instigated physical hostilities against all of his non-Muslim neighbours, Jews, Christians and Pagans on the very basis that they rejected Islam and Dhimmitude to boot.Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
Secondly, we know from history that it was the non-Muslims of Arabia who started hostilities against Muslims and not the other way round. If you are ignorant of facts, then ask questions rather than making false statements.
Did the non-Muslims start hostilities? Maybe it is you who be asking questions instead of making false statements:
VII:18/Ishaq:287 "The Messenger sent Abd Allah out with a detachment of eight men of the Emigrants without any Ansari, or Helpers, among them. He wrote a letter, but ordered him not to look at it until he had traveled for two days. Then he was to carry out what he was commanded to do. When Abd Allah opened the letter it said, 'March until you reach Nakhlah, between Mecca and Ta'if. Lie in wait (in order to kill them) for the Quraysh there, and find out for us what they are doing. Having read the letter, Abd Allah said, 'To hear is to obey.' He told his companions, 'The Prophet has commanded me to go to Nakhlah and lie in wait for the Quraysh.
The fighting was organised and carried out by the Muslims under Mohammeds orders. The Quraysh were going about their business.
Ishaq:287 “The Muslim raiders consulted one another concerning them, this being the last day of Rajab. One of the Muslims said, 'By Allah, if we leave these people alone tonight, they will get into the Haram (the sacred territory of Mecca) and they will be safely out of our reach. If we kill them we will have killed in the sacred month.
Tabari VII:19 "They hesitated and were afraid to advance on them, but then they plucked up courage and agreed to kill as many as they could and to seize what they had with them.
The first Muslims conducted a terrorist raid with the sole intention of looting and killing under the orders of Mohammed.
Tabari VII:29 "This incident had provoked a state of war between the Prophet and the Quraysh and was the beginning of the fighting in which they inflicted casualties upon one another."
So before this Islamic raid there was no fighting, no Muslims had been killed or hurt by the Pagans.