Imams banned from charity event

[Haley]

Well, there was widespread slavery under the Caliphates for centuries upon centuries. So I don't see how they took these lands to liberate slaves. The Caliphs were hereditary foreign emperors, much as much of these areas had had before, although they heavily sponsored Islam on top of that, reducing non-Muslims to dhimmi status.

I don't feel the conquest of North Africa, Southwest Asia and parts of South Asia and Europe can be said to be an improvement upon the previous situations anymore than any other conquest.

Only the first four successors after the Prophet (PBUH) were caliphs. The rest were all kings who inherited the kingdom. Remember kingdom is prohibited in Islam and so is slavery. Islam came on an international scene where slavery was widespread. The early Muslims had to fight for the rights of slaves. Many of the Prophet's disciples were previous slaves who were freed by the early Muslims.

Let me explain to you what a dhimmi status is. It is not a lower status. Infact, people with this status enjoy advantages over the Muslims. Islam stresses that all humans are equal and that no one is superior based on their gender, race, color etc. A dhimmi status guarantees the protection of non Muslims living in a Muslim land. If the land is attacked, the dhimmis are NOT required to defend it but the Muslims are. However, if the dhimmis are attached, the Muslims ARE required to defend them. The dhimmis have the freedom of practicing their own religion, laws, traditions etc. They are required to pay to the government a fixed amount of money each year. This sounds like oppression, doesn't it. Well this amount is equal or can even be less than the amount the Muslims have to pay for their zakat each year. The collected money is paid to the poor and those in need regardless of whether they are Muslims or non Muslims. The goal is to help the poor and those in need.

Well, there was widespread slavery under the Caliphates for centuries upon centuries. So I don't see how they took these lands to liberate slaves. The Caliphs were hereditary foreign emperors, much as much of these areas had had before, although they heavily sponsored Islam on top of that, reducing non-Muslims to dhimmi status.

I don't feel the conquest of North Africa, Southwest Asia and parts of South Asia and Europe can be said to be an improvement upon the previous situations anymore than any other conquest.

Only the first four successors after the Prophet (PBUH) were caliphs. The rest were all kings who inherited the kingdom. Remember kingdom is prohibited in Islam and so is slavery. So you are right. Those kings did commit some horrific acts towards both Muslims and non Muslims. When their very governments were not established on Islamic teachings, how could their other actions be expected to be Islamic? Islam came on an international scene where slavery was widespread. The mission of Islam was and is to end slavery. Many of the Prophet's disciples were previous slaves who were freed by the early Muslims. The Prophet had his utmost respect and love for them.

Let me explain to you what a dhimmi status is. It is not a lower status as some people want us to believe. Dhimmi is an Arabic word which means “protected”. People with this status enjoy certain advantages over the Muslims. Islam stresses that all humans are equal regardless of their gender, race, color etc. A dhimmi status guarantees the protection of non-Muslims living in a Muslim land. If the land is attacked, the dhimmis are NOT required to defend it but the Muslims are. However, if the dhimmis are attached, the Muslims ARE required to defend them. The dhimmis have the freedom of practicing their own religion, laws, traditions etc. They are required to pay to the government a fixed amount of money each year. This sounds like oppression, doesn't it? Well this amount is equal to or can even be less than the amount the Muslims have to pay in zakat each year. So basically they both pay the amount but the names are different. You can think of it as paying taxes. But the difference is that the collected money is paid to the poor and those in need regardless of whether they are Muslims, non-Muslims, citizens or non-citizens. No discrimination made. In essence a dhimmi status is a contract. Remember that the non-Muslims had a choice to either sign or reject this contract and choose to live somewhere else without any fear. Remember also that the non-Muslims who were offered this option were those who fought against the Muslims and killed them. This was 1400 years ago when there was no human rights watch organizations and no Geneva Convention.

Now compare the above with what happens when a highly civilized super power of our time conquers a country. For example, let’s look at what happened to people in Afghanistan and Iraq when the US invaded those countries just a decade ago. Those who fought against the US defending their lands or those who were only suspected of fighting are all on the “wanted list”. Many of them were arrested in night raids. Their women were raped and their children killed. They are being tortured to death in the notorious Guantanamo Bay detention for more than 14 years without any trials. The worst thing, no one cares about them because after all they are "terrorists" according to the US. Is this what is meant by civilization and progress?

 

[Augustus]

FYI Persia and Afghanistan were not Christians. They were Zoroastrians. The Mideast was mostly pagan.

The (non-Persian) Middle East was not mostly pagan, it was mostly Christian and Jewish

Afghanistan would have been Zoroastrian, Buddhist, or Hindu depending on the region.

The Muslims did not occupy these lands. They liberated the weak and the slaves from the oppression of tyrants. Those early Muslims did not fight for land or wealth. They gave up their lives only to help other human beings. Instead of accusing others based on your assumptions why don't you read the history?

While most people have a romanticised view of their history, this is quite remarkable in its revisionism and sugar coating. You might want to try reading actual history rather than religious apologetics when discussing what actually happened rather than what you would like to think happened. Your story is supported by zero actual evidence, all the actual evidence shows your view to be totally fictitious.

The Arabs (and there are many questions regarding how 'Muslim' they actually were), were conquerers and empire builders just as everyone else was at the time. They conquered territory and demanded tribute from the conquered and then pretty much left them alone to run their own affairs as long as they paid enough gold. Many non-Muslims joined them in their raids.

If they were selfless liberators, why did the people they liberated not view them as such? They viewed them as violent conquerers who extorted money from them. No better or worse than the other worldly empires.

 

[oldbadger]

But they were not! That is to say, there is not a single shred of evidence to state that they are or have any intention of becoming one........................

Questions:-
Where were the Imams flying in from......... which countries?
What charities were being supported........ can you name some of these, please?
Did the fund raising event go ahead?
Have you ever heard of foreign nationals being refused visas before?
The US (for instance) will not issue visas to Brits who have certain criminal convictions, including, say, drugs, were these Imams free of criminal convictions?

Questions....... Can you answer them?

 

[Shad]

Only the first four successors after the Prophet (PBUH) were caliphs. The rest were all kings who inherited the kingdom. Remember kingdom is prohibited in Islam and so is slavery. Islam came on an international scene where slavery was widespread. The early Muslims had to fight for the rights of slaves. Many of the Prophet's disciples were previous slaves who were freed by the early Muslims.

Let me explain to you what a dhimmi status is. It is not a lower status. Infact, people with this status enjoy advantages over the Muslims. Islam stresses that all humans are equal and that no one is superior based on their gender, race, color etc. A dhimmi status guarantees the protection of non Muslims living in a Muslim land. If the land is attacked, the dhimmis are NOT required to defend it but the Muslims are. However, if the dhimmis are attached, the Muslims ARE required to defend them. The dhimmis have the freedom of practicing their own religion, laws, traditions etc. They are required to pay to the government a fixed amount of money each year. This sounds like oppression, doesn't it. Well this amount is equal or can even be less than the amount the Muslims have to pay for their zakat each year. The collected money is paid to the poor and those in need regardless of whether they are Muslims or non Muslims. The goal is to help the poor and those in need.



Only the first four successors after the Prophet (PBUH) were caliphs. The rest were all kings who inherited the kingdom. Remember kingdom is prohibited in Islam and so is slavery. So you are right. Those kings did commit some horrific acts towards both Muslims and non Muslims. When their very governments were not established on Islamic teachings, how could their other actions be expected to be Islamic? Islam came on an international scene where slavery was widespread. The mission of Islam was and is to end slavery. Many of the Prophet's disciples were previous slaves who were freed by the early Muslims. The Prophet had his utmost respect and love for them.

Let me explain to you what a dhimmi status is. It is not a lower status as some people want us to believe. Dhimmi is an Arabic word which means “protected”. People with this status enjoy certain advantages over the Muslims. Islam stresses that all humans are equal regardless of their gender, race, color etc. A dhimmi status guarantees the protection of non-Muslims living in a Muslim land. If the land is attacked, the dhimmis are NOT required to defend it but the Muslims are. However, if the dhimmis are attached, the Muslims ARE required to defend them. The dhimmis have the freedom of practicing their own religion, laws, traditions etc. They are required to pay to the government a fixed amount of money each year. This sounds like oppression, doesn't it? Well this amount is equal to or can even be less than the amount the Muslims have to pay in zakat each year. So basically they both pay the amount but the names are different. You can think of it as paying taxes. But the difference is that the collected money is paid to the poor and those in need regardless of whether they are Muslims, non-Muslims, citizens or non-citizens. No discrimination made. In essence a dhimmi status is a contract. Remember that the non-Muslims had a choice to either sign or reject this contract and choose to live somewhere else without any fear. Remember also that the non-Muslims who were offered this option were those who fought against the Muslims and killed them. This was 1400 years ago when there was no human rights watch organizations and no Geneva Convention.

Now compare the above with what happens when a highly civilized super power of our time conquers a country. For example, let’s look at what happened to people in Afghanistan and Iraq when the US invaded those countries just a decade ago. Those who fought against the US defending their lands or those who were only suspected of fighting are all on the “wanted list”. Many of them were arrested in night raids. Their women were raped and their children killed. They are being tortured to death in the notorious Guantanamo Bay detention for more than 14 years without any trials. The worst thing, no one cares about them because after all they are "terrorists" according to the US. Is this what is meant by civilization and progress?

Tasfir Ibn Kathir completely contradicts your comment. I recommend reading what your own scholars have written about Jizyah rather than getting your educations from apologist websites.

 

[Brandywine]

Persia was officially Zoroastrian, but by the time the Muslims arrived it had been majority Christian for a long time. The Afghans were never Zoroastrian to any degree. The Mideast was not mostly pagan. Some southern Arabs were, but most city dwelling Arabs and the northern tribes were Christians. There were also tens of thousands of Jews in Arabia.

FYI Persia and Afghanistan were not Christians. They were Zoroastrians. The Mideast was mostly pagan.The Muslims did not occupy these lands. They liberated the weak and the slaves from the oppression of tyrants. Those early Muslims did not fight for land or wealth. They gave up their lives only to help other human beings. Instead of accusing others based on your assumptions why don't you read the history? Think about the Quranic verse that was revealed in this regard: "And what is wrong with you that you do not engage in combat for the sake of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help." 4:75

 

[Brandywine]

[QUOTE="
Let me explain to you what a dhimmi status is. It is not a lower status. [/QUOTE]

We don't really need you to do that. We understand it very well. Can you tell me what happened to the city of Hippo? Where is Ephesis now? Where is the monastery of Erbil? How about the library of Alexandria? Where did all those hundreds of thousands of Armenian Christians go? How about the monasteries in Egypt? There were 150,000 Jews in Iraq in 1950. Where are they now?