Islam: What the West needs to know

[Bismillah]

And about all your verses that you mentioned, there were Mekkaian verses, but the language changed after they had traveled to Medina, and these verses were canceled by the sword verse. (Don't ask: Where).

That's a blatant lie and furthermore depends on the indefensible theory that verses in the Qur'an abrogate each other. The verses I picked are from both Mecca and Medina time periods.

Narrated Abu-Hurairah: the prophet said: "don't start Jews and Christians with salutation, and if you find one of them on your road, you should force him to step aside towards its narrowest part".
References: Muslim - al termethy- Ahmed.

Addressing the Sahahaba during the time when the Jewish people of Medina would say Death be unto you and whose cohorts had previously violated treaties as they would do so in the future. Given that the conditions are

Said by Imam Nawawi hundreds of years ago

The Dhimmi is not left to walk in the middle of the pathway, he should be forced to walk on its sides if the Muslims are walking through, if the pathway is not crowded then it is okay (for them to walk in the middle of the pathway), and the forcing them to the sides should not be done as to let him be in a congested and uncomfortable position, and that he should not hit a wall, and God knows best.

I don't see a problem here as today's sidewalk etiquette falls in line with the one outlined here. Considering that the people in question would respond to Salam with a threat, it is a very moderate stance.

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abe: the prophet said: you should know that paradise is under the shadows of swards.

What exactly is your point? Lawful Jihad is one of the greatest things a Muslim can partake in, as it is in defense of a man's brothers and sisters and indeed his Din. Likewise dying for the sake of Allah is a meritous deed and is amply rewarded. This does nothing to contradict or even raise the matter that the role of a suicide bomber is outside of Islam. Warfare is legal, but there is a careful set of codes and rules one must follow if they are to engage in hostilities.

Narrated Ibn Omer: the prophet said:" I was commanded to fight people till they testify that, no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah".

And? There are four types of Jihad do you know the other three? All the Prophets of God fought for the sake of Allah to save their fellow man from the crooked path and to live their lives accordingly. Given that those pagans who were shown the truth of the Prophet they were presented their Itmam I Hujjat and had no justification for refusing it, except for pride, wealth, and arrogance.

Meaning: All Muslims were ordered to kill people until they say no God but Allah.

What a moronic interpretation of quite a straightforward hadith defining and emphasizing the job of a Prophet sent by Allah.

We are not all Prophets nor do we present all the answers nor are we the physical manifestation of true faith. Muslims are encouraged to spread dawah and that is it. They are not permitted to fight without due reason and are forced to respect the sacred right of humanity. '

It is odd that a fellow cannot grasp such a clear cut concept.

By the way, Islam didn't abolish the slavery.

Given that it protected the humane rights of those in bondage, gave them rights unheard of prior to, and allowed them easy access means to give up their debt to society and find freedom and that the State charity regularly paid for their freedom it did.

It was an elegant and much more practical forerunner to today's penitentiary system and a method to incorporate the most die-hard and antagonistic men into society to contribute to humanity's betterment.

Islam not only abolished slavery but instituted the first and most practical method of becoming an inclusive society to those that took up arms against it.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I don't see a problem here as today's sidewalk etiquette falls in line with the one outlined here.

Where?

 

[Bismillah]

Where?

Sorry? I am talking about how when one travels in groups normally people tend to shift to one side and the larger group hugs the wall.

 

[waitasec]

That caught your eye, but didn't your eye catch the explanation of this verse in the thread itself?

Ok don't worry, i'll re-post it here.

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression" (2:190-193).

It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back -- but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants.

but what i am trying to understand is, what is involved in the reasons for being defensive? is it the act of an outright refusal to accept the islamic religion and it's practices from outsiders...not that the outsiders deny your freedom to believe but that they chose not to?

 

[TashaN]

but what i am trying to understand is, what is involved in the reasons for being defensive? is it the act of an outright refusal to accept the islamic religion and it's practices from outsiders...not that the outsiders deny your freedom to believe but that they chose not to?

Read my post again.

 

[waitasec]

Read my post again.

obviously, you are going to have to spell it out for me?

what is the fight in the cause of god?


are these the wars you are speaking of?

"After Muhammad's death in 632, the Medinan Ansar debated which of them should succeed the Prophet in running the affairs of the Muslims while the household of the Prophet was busy in his burial. 'Umar (who is from the Quraysh) and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah pledged their loyalty to Abu Bakr, with the Ansar and the Quraish soon following suit. Abu Bakr thus became the first Khalifa Rasul Allah (Successor of the Messenger of God), and embarked on campaigns to propagate the Muslim Religion and Deliver the Message of God. First, though, he would have to subdue the Arabian tribes which had gone back on their oaths of allegiance to Islam and the Islamic community. As a Khalifa or Caliph he was not a monarch and never claimed such a title nor did his three successors do so."

Troubles emerged soon after Abu Bakr's succession, threatening the unity and stability of the new community and state. Apostasy had actually begun in the lifetime of Muhammad, and the first major action of the apostasy was fought and satisfactorily concluded while Muhammad still lived. But the real and most serious danger of apostasy arose after Muhammad's death, when a wild wave of disbelief-after-belief moved across Arabia and had to be tackled by Abu Bakr.

The first major event of the apostasy occurred in Yemen and is known as the Incident of Aswad Al Ansi,[2] who was killed on May 30, 632 (the 6th of Rabi-ul-Awwal, 11 Hijri) by a Persian Muslim governor of Yemen named Firoz.[3] The news of his assassination reached Medina shortly after the death of Muhammad. The chief cause of the apostasy was lack of firm Islamic faith. Most of the tribes, that had taken to Islam, converted in the ninth and tenth years of the Hijra,



The Rashidun empire expanded gradually, with the time span of 24 years of conquest a vast territory was conquered comprising North Africa, the Middle East, Transoxiana, the Caucasus, parts of Anatolia, the whole of the Sassanid Persian empire, the Greater Khorasan, the islands of Cyprus, Rhodes and Sicily, the Iberian Peninsula was invaded, and Baluchistan was conquered, the empires eastern frontiers reaching the lower Indus river in the Indian subcontinent and western frontiers to the Atlantic Ocean.
The Islamic Invasion of Sassanid Persia resulted in the conquest of the whole Sassanid Persian empire, after the Persians declined to submit and continued to strive to re-capture their lost territory. Unlike the Sassanid Persians, the Byzantines after losing Syria, retreated back to western Anatolia and as a result, also lost Egypt, North Africa, Sicily, Cyprus and Rhodes to the invading Rashidun army, although the civil wars among the Muslims halted the war of conquest for many years and this gave time for the Byzantine Empire to recover.
[edit]Conquest of Persian empire
Further information: Islamic conquest of Persia


Map detailing the route of Khalid ibn Walid's conquest of Iraq.
The first Islamic invasion of the Persian empire launched by Caliph Abu Bakr in 633 was a swift conquest in the time span of only 4 months led by legendary general Khalid ibn Walid. Abu Bakr sent his most brilliant general Khalid to conquer Mesopotamia after the Ridda wars. After entering Iraq with his army of 18,000, Khalid won decisive victories in four consecutive battles: Battle of Chains, fought in April 633; Battle of River, fought in the 3rd week of April 633; Battle of Walaja, fought in May 633 (where he successfully used a double envelopment manoeuvre), and Battle of Ullais, fought in the mid of May 633 . In the last week of May 633 , the capital city of Iraq fell to the Muslims after initial resistance in the Battle of Hira.

Rashidun Caliphate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see here, i don't see muslims being attacked, i see them as being the attacker... or do i have it all wrong?

 

[Bismillah]

What happens if I do not pay taxes?

 

[C.E.O]

The Dhimmi is not left to walk in the middle of the pathway, he should be forced to walk on its sides if the Muslims are walking through, if the pathway is not crowded then it is okay (for them to walk in the middle of the pathway), and the forcing them to the sides should not be done as to let him be in a congested and uncomfortable position, and that he should not hit a wall, and God knows best.

Sorry? I am talking about how when one travels in groups normally people tend to shift to one side and the larger group hugs the wall.

:no:

Your attempt to link between the Hadith and what you've just explained is a blatant lie.

 

[YmirGF]

What happens if I do not pay taxes?

If you are GE, you get invited to the White House.

 

[Bismillah]

Ah yes you know more than Imam Nawawi :biglaugh:

Your attempt to link between the Hadith and what you've just explained is a blatant lie.

I didn't just explain it It is Tafsir

If you've been reduced to commentating on the secondary meaning on a hadith after so boldly proclaiming that you have many verses than it is a bit melodramatic to be honest

 

[Bismillah]

If you are GE, you get invited to the White House.

Yallah maybe the apostates and rebels should have tried lobbying first!

 

[YmirGF]

Yallah maybe the apostates and rebels should have tried lobbying first!

Diplomacy has it rewards.

 

[C.E.O]

Ah yes you know more than Imam Nawawi :biglaugh:

Though ye make mock of Us, yet We mock at you even as ye mock. Quran (11:38) :shout

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your attempt to link between the Hadith and what you've just explained is a blatant lie.

Hmm I tend to agree with C.E.O. and RitalinO.D. on this point Bismillah:

"The Dhimmi is not left to walk in the middle of the pathway, he should be forced to walk on its sides if the Muslims are walking through ..."
~ Imam Nawawi, quoted by Bismillah post # 141
​

This is not "today's sidewalk etiquette". :no: Forgive me if this is a minor point outside the primary focus of the debate, but I just started reading and this jumped out at me ...

 

[Bismillah]

Though ye make mock of Us, yet We mock at you even as ye mock. Quran (11:38)

Jazakallah for the verse, it is always good to read the Qur'an. Now I take it you have run out of steam.

This is not "today's sidewalk etiquette". :no: Forgive me if this is a minor point outside the primary focus of the debate, but I just started reading and this jumped out at me ...

Do you know which Dhimmis are being referred to in the Hadith? As in think for a moment what happens when a man walks in the middle of the sidewalk between a group of Muslims.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Do you know which Dhimmis are being referred to in the Hadith?

The hadith says "The Dhimmis". It does not say which Dhimmis. Is there another hadith, symmetrical to this one, which says the Muslim should be forced to walk on the sides if the Dhimmis are walking through?

 

[Bismillah]

What you have to understand is that the Hadith are merely what repetitions of what the Prophet said by the Sahaba. This means that when he says "the Dhimmis" one can logically assume he is referring to the dhimmis in his state.

Secondly while the Hadith are an important inviolable part of Islam, the Qur'an is the primary source.

Allah forbids you not, With regard to those who Fight you not for (your) Faith Nor drive you out Of your homes, From dealing kindly and justly With them: For Allah loveth Those who are just. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)


Noble Verse 17:37Nor walk on the earth with insolence: for thou can not rend the earth asunder, nor reach the mountains in height.
Furthermore



Allah's Apostle said, 'Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to mankind.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, ONENESS, UNIQUENESS OF ALLAH (TAWHEED), Volume 9, Book 93, Number 473)


Noble Verse 13:22 "Those who patiently persevere, seeking the countenance of their Lord; establish regular prayers; spend out of (the gifts) We have bestowed for their sustenance, secretly and openly; and turn off evil with good: for such there is the final attainment of the (Eternal) Home.


Repel evil with that which is best: We are Well-acquainted with the things they say."

Meaning if you have one hadith in this reference and you have an abundance of Islamic sources that prohibit insolence and superiority then one can assume that the hadith was in reference to those specific Dhimmis that I discussed previously.

Obviously Imam Nawawi has a much deeper knowledge in the matter, but he too affirms that one must not do so to cast another in an inferior light or humiliate him.

 

[C.E.O]

Jazakallah

Keep your prayers for yourself.

I take it you have run out of steam

Don't take it, just dream of it.

What you are trying to do here is derailing any verse or hadith by asking: What is context? Which indicates that you never hear of (Usool ul-Fiqh) or the rules of legislation in Islam, because if you study it, you could easily read this (the consideration is in the generality of the wording, not in its specific cause of legislation). Sheikh al islam ibn taymyya said:

Some say: this verse or Hadith is only about this accident or (asbab Alnozol) ... And this is which No Muslim or insane could say

Ah yes you know more than ibn taymyya :biglaugh:

When Muhammad orders Muslims not to start Jews or Christians by SALAm, he meant all Jews and all Christians. Don't twist the truth or try to decorate it.

Do you want more? :cheese:

 

[TashaN]

obviously, you are going to have to spell it out for me?

what is the fight in the cause of god?


are these the wars you are speaking of?

"After Muhammad's death in 632 ...see here, i don't see muslims being attacked, i see them as being the attacker... or do i have it all wrong?

You are obviously not reading. Have you read the first line? After Mohammed death?!!!!

What does this wiki article has to do with the verse you are asking me about? Mohamed was alive back then. You appear to either have a reading or comprehension problem, i'm afraid. Are you?

 

[TashaN]

Regarding the order to not start Jews with Salam is because Jews back then were responding by saying AlSaam Alikum instead of Alsalam Alikum. The word Saam means death, and Prophet Mohammed alerted the Muslims of what Jews were responding to them. It was a specific period of tension after the arrival of Mohammed to Medinah.

Regarding forcing them to the sidewalk. It was necessary back then to show they weren't afraid of them, because back then there were so many Jewish tribes in Medinah and they were so powerful, had so many money and weapons. Heck, the only supply of weapons in Madinah was coming from Jews. They were having a very high statues in the society and their leaders were well respected and famous. So, they had some tension with Mohammed and the Muslims because Mohammed threatened the financial gains Jewish tribes had back then. Mohamed stopped the fight of the biggest two Arab tribes in Madinah whom Jewish were benefiting from arming them to go into battles. Add to do that threatening their religious statues because the Arabs of Madinah were respecting the religious statues of Jews back then and were regarded as scholars.

Many scholars and orientalists have researched that period and wrote about it. It was a very complex period and not as simple as some might think. The problem is that people don't read, they just snip out passages out of context.

I feel it's more due to the underestimation of Islam and regarding it as primitive and backward which deserve nothing but ridicule and harsh criticism.