Turkey shoots down Russian Jet

[FearGod]

I know it doesn't, I'm just questioning the legal status of trying to usurp the Caliph. It is a crime is it not?



So you are saying that rebellion against the lawful Caliph does not mandate the death penalty in Islam? It is not apostasy? Is that your opinion?

So can an apostate can be a "wonderful leader"? Or is rejecting the lawful Caliph and crowning yourself not a crime under Islamic Law?

Mehmet II is a great Muslim leader, he isn't an apostate and he died as a Muslim.
Did he convert to another religion or belief ?

 

[Augustus]

Mehmet II is a great Muslim leader, he isn't an apostate and he died as a Muslim.

So is this incorrect?

Hudud (Arabic: حدودḤudūd, also transliterated hadud, hudood; singular hadd, حد, literal meaning "limit", or "restriction") is an Islamic concept: punishments which under Islamic law (Shariah) are mandated and fixed by God, based on the Quran and Sunnah.[1][2][3] They are punishments for "crimes against God", namely adultery, fornication, homosexuality, accusing someone of illicit sex but failing to present four male Muslim eyewitnesses,[4][5]apostasy, consuming intoxicants, outrage (e.g rebellion against the lawful Caliph, other forms of mischief against the Muslim state, criticism of an Imam, or highway robbery), robbery and theft.[1][6][7] The crimes against hudud cannot be pardoned by the victim or by the state, and the punishments must be carried out in public.[8]


How can someone who has committed one of the worst kinds of crime be considered a "great leader"?

He also forcibly converted people to Islam:

Devşirme[a] (literally "collecting" in Turkish), also known as the blood tax or tribute in blood, was chiefly the annual practice by which the Ottoman Empire sent military to abduct boys, sons of their Christian subjects in the villages of the Balkans and Anatolia.[1] They were then converted to Islam[2] with the primary objective of selecting and training the ablest children for the military or civil service of the Empire, notably into the Janissaries.[3]

So are you claiming the Prophet Muhammed would consider someone who ignored some of his most important commandments a "great leader"?

 

[FearGod]

So is this incorrect?

Hudud (Arabic: حدودḤudūd, also transliterated hadud, hudood; singular hadd, حد, literal meaning "limit", or "restriction") is an Islamic concept: punishments which under Islamic law (Shariah) are mandated and fixed by God, based on the Quran and Sunnah.[1][2][3] They are punishments for "crimes against God", namely adultery, fornication, homosexuality, accusing someone of illicit sex but failing to present four male Muslim eyewitnesses,[4][5]apostasy, consuming intoxicants, outrage (e.g rebellion against the lawful Caliph, other forms of mischief against the Muslim state, criticism of an Imam, or highway robbery), robbery and theft.[1][6][7] The crimes against hudud cannot be pardoned by the victim or by the state, and the punishments must be carried out in public.[8]


How can someone who has committed one of the worst kinds of crime be considered a "great leader"?

He also forcibly converted people to Islam:

Devşirme[a] (literally "collecting" in Turkish), also known as the blood tax or tribute in blood, was chiefly the annual practice by which the Ottoman Empire sent military to abduct boys, sons of their Christian subjects in the villages of the Balkans and Anatolia.[1] They were then converted to Islam[2] with the primary objective of selecting and training the ablest children for the military or civil service of the Empire, notably into the Janissaries.[3]

So are you claiming the Prophet Muhammed would consider someone who ignored some of his most important commandments a "great leader"?

The hadith isn't about the Ottoman Empire and what it'll do whether bad or good but about a great Muslim
leader who will conquer Constantinople with a great army, nothing else.

 

[Augustus]

The hadith isn't about the Ottoman Empire and what it'll do whether bad or good but about a great Muslim
leader who will conquer Constantinople with a great army, nothing else.

So you don't want to answer my questions?

That's not surprising seeing as the 'hero' who 'fulfilled' your beloved prophecy was an usurper and a false Caliph who should have been killed according to Islamic Law and also carried out forced conversions in violation of Islamic Law.

This is what HE did. Not the Ottoman Empire.

He claimed he was the Caliph, even though there was an existing Abbasid caliph at the time. He forcibly converted thousands of Christians to serve in his army and civil service.

You know these are against Islamic Law, but you choose to ignore them as it punctures your fantasy. At least be honest that they are flagrant violations of the Prophet's teachings.

Or do you think forced conversions are acceptable? And usurping the Caliph is acceptable?

 

[FearGod]

So you don't want to answer my questions?

That's not surprising seeing as the 'hero' who 'fulfilled' your beloved prophecy was an usurper and a false Caliph who should have been killed according to Islamic Law and also carried out forced conversions in violation of Islamic Law.

This is what HE did. Not the Ottoman Empire.

He claimed he was the Caliph, even though there was an existing Abbasid caliph at the time. He forcibly converted thousands of Christians to serve in his army and civil service.

You know these are against Islamic Law, but you choose to ignore them as it punctures your fantasy. At least be honest that they are flagrant violations of the Prophet's teachings.

Or do you think forced conversions are acceptable? And usurping the Caliph is acceptable?

In reality i only know one thing and which is that the Constantinople was conquered by Muslims and the evidence is
that Turkey in majority are Muslims, the rest i don't care about as much as i care that the prophecy has been fulfilled.

 

[Augustus]

In reality i only know one thing and which is that the Constantinople was conquered by Muslims and the evidence is
that Turkey in majority are Muslims, the rest i don't care about as much as i care that the prophecy has been fulfilled.

Does declaring against the Caliph not make you an apostate though? Even if not an apostate, someone who is sentenced to death under your laws.

Anyway, good that you admit your prejudice against other religions is more important than following the doctrines of your own faith. It's just a game to be won, rather than an attempt to honestly value the guidelines of your Prophet.

Instead of taking the easy option of saying the hadith was forged (which says nothing about Muhammed's prophethood, it is not his fault that someone forged it), you would prefer to accept that someone who clearly violated his teachings was a 'great leader' as it strokes your ego and sense of supremacism.

Seems a strange way to think to me.

 

[Wirey]

Anyone else notice the title of this thread sounds like Thanksgiving revenge?

 

[FearGod]

Does declaring against the Caliph not make you an apostate though? Even if not an apostate, someone who is sentenced to death under your laws.

Anyway, good that you admit your prejudice against other religions is more important than following the doctrines of your own faith. It's just a game to be won, rather than an attempt to honestly value the guidelines of your Prophet.

Instead of taking the easy option of saying the hadith was forged (which says nothing about Muhammed's prophethood, it is not his fault that someone forged it), you would prefer to accept that someone who clearly violated his teachings was a 'great leader' as it strokes your ego and sense of supremacism.

Seems a strange way to think to me.

No, i don't think the hadith is forged, but if you want to speak about forcing people into
Islam then the prophet is accused by the Atheists that he forced people into Islam.

 

[esmith]

seems to me that the thread has been hijacked and the current discussion moved to the religious section of the forum.

 

[Augustus]

No, i don't think the hadith is forged, but if you want to speak about forcing people into
Islam then the prophet is accused by the Atheists that he forced people into Islam.

1) Are you arguing that forced conversions are Islamic?
2) Yes/No - Rebellion against the Caliph is a terrible crime under Islamic Law

 

[FearGod]

1) Are you arguing that forced conversions are Islamic?
2) Yes/No - Rebellion against the Caliph is a terrible crime under Islamic Law

Mehmet didn't convert the Byzantines but he killed them, IOW he was in a war with them also all his wars
was against the Byzantines and not against the Muslims.

 

[Augustus]

Mehmet didn't convert the Byzantines but he killed them, IOW he was in a war with them also all his wars
was against the Byzantines and not against the Muslims.

Read about the devsirme and Janissaries. He didn't convert the people defeated in battle, but kidnapped thousands of civilian children to serve in his armies, etc.

Simple yes/no:

1) kidnapping the children of civilians and forcibly converting them to Islam is an honourable Islamic practice.
2) rebelling against the Caliph is not punishable under Islamic Law

Care to answer?

 

[FearGod]

Read about the devsirme and Janissaries. He didn't convert the people defeated in battle, but kidnapped thousands of civilian children to serve in his armies, etc.

Simple yes/no:

1) kidnapping the children of civilians and forcibly converting them to Islam is an honourable Islamic practice.
2) rebelling against the Caliph is not punishable under Islamic Law

Care to answer?

What evidence that you have that he kidnapped children and forcibly converted them to Islam ?
When did he fight Muslims for taking the caliphate ?

 

[Augustus]

What evidence that you have that he kidnapped children and forcibly converted them to Islam ?

Devşirme[a] (literally "collecting" in Turkish), also known as the blood tax or tribute in blood, was chiefly the annual practice by which the Ottoman Empire sent military to abduct boys, ages eight to eighteen[1], sons of their Christian subjects in the villages of the Balkans and Anatolia.[2] They were then converted to Islam[3] with the primary objective of selecting and training the ablest children for the military or civil service of the Empire, notably into the Janissaries.[4]

When did he fight Muslims for taking the caliphate ?

He claimed the title of Caliph, even though one already existed.

Is this not illegal under Islamic Law or can anyone reject the authority of the Caliph and claim the title for themselves?

 

[FearGod]

Devşirme[a] (literally "collecting" in Turkish), also known as the blood tax or tribute in blood, was chiefly the annual practice by which the Ottoman Empire sent military to abduct boys, ages eight to eighteen[1], sons of their Christian subjects in the villages of the Balkans and Anatolia.[2] They were then converted to Islam[3] with the primary objective of selecting and training the ablest children for the military or civil service of the Empire, notably into the Janissaries.[4]

I don't think he cared about converting the Christians to Islam as he was known for his hate to them, maybe it was
done by the others and not him, do you have a source that he (Mehmet II) kidnapped the children and converted
them to Islam.

He claimed the title of Caliph, even though one already existed.

Is this not illegal under Islamic Law or can anyone reject the authority of the Caliph and claim the title for themselves?

He was a sultan and not a caliph and there were no wars between him and Muslims, if he took the caliphate by force
then there should be a war between Muslims which didn't happen, so your point is false

 

[Flankerl]

So Mehmet had to personally abduct these children otherwise its not his fault.


Allahu Akbar to that logic which keeps your world view intact.

 

[Tumah]

Turkey shoots down Russian Jet

Who knew that's actually a problem in some parts of the world.

 

[Augustus]

I don't think he cared about converting the Christians to Islam as he was known for his hate to them, maybe it was
done by the others and not him, do you have a source that he (Mehmet II) kidnapped the children and converted
them to Islam.

Yet you still blame Netenyahu for oppressing Palestinians while he sits in a comfy office and any actions are done by others, not him.

He was a sultan and not a caliph and there were no wars between him and Muslims, if he took the caliphate by force
then there should be a war between Muslims which didn't happen, so your point is false

No wars, but the Ottomans claimed they were Caliphs

The Ottoman Caliphate, under the Ottoman dynasty of the Ottoman Empire, was the last Sunni Islamiccaliphate of the late medieval and the early modern era. During the period of Ottoman growth, Ottoman rulers claimed caliphal authority since Murad I's conquest of Edirne in 1362.[1] Later Selim I, through conquering and unification of Muslim lands, became the defender of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina which further strengthened the Ottoman claim to caliphate in the Muslim world.


But the Abbasids, were still Caliphs until after the Ottoman invasion of Egypt in the 16th C


The Abbasid caliphate of Cairo lasted until the time of Al-Mutawakkil III, who ruled as caliph from 1508 to 1516, then he was deposed briefly in 1516 by his predecessor Al-Mustamsik, but was restored again to the caliphate in 1517. The Ottoman sultan Selim I defeated the Mamluk Sultanate, and made Egypt part of the Ottoman Empire in 1517. Al-Mutawakkil III was captured together with his family and transported to Constantinople as a prisoner where he had a ceremonial role.


Also, can you clarify the Sharia status of mass fratricide? Is it halal or not?

One of the biggest challenges for the Ottomans was to impose secular law at the centre of the empire in order to consolidate the position of the sultan at the pinnacle of power. The most extreme example of this was the "law of fratricide" attributed to Sultan Mehmed II, known as the Conqueror after he took Constantinople in 1453.

The text of this law was brief but terrifying: "Whichever of my sons inherits the sultanate, it behooves (is necessary for) him to kill his brothers in the interest of the world order; most jurists have approved this; let action be taken accordingly. Whichever of my sons inherits the sultanate, it behoves him to kill his brothers in the interest of the world order...”

This was a perfect example of secular law permitting an act that Sharia would have never condoned - the assassination by a newly enthroned sultan of all his brothers for fear of a repetition of the fratricidal conflicts that had plagued the Ottoman system of succession.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24365067


So your "great leader" was a false caliph who kidnapped children and forcibly converted them and also implemented a legal requirement that whichever of his sons took the throne must kill all of his brothers.

He actually made a law that guaranteed the death of all but 1 of his male children.

And this person is a great hero of prophecy to you, simply because he won a battle against the broken remains of an empire that used to be great but no longer was?

 

[Shad]

Mehmet didn't convert the Byzantines but he killed them, IOW he was in a war with them also all his wars
was against the Byzantines and not against the Muslims.

Go look up his campaigns against the remnants of Byzantium and the Balkan Kingdoms. In the siege of Constantinople there were between 5k to 10k Janissaries. The siege of Belgrade includes around 5k Janissaries. The Janissaries the core of all his armies and took part in ever major battle in which Mehmet was present since it was his royal guard.. Also Mehmet did war against Muslims. The war against the Karamanids, Isfendiyarids and Ağ Qoyunlu. Mehmet demanded children from Wallachia for his Janissaries. Janissaries were converted to Islam by the military not by choice.

Seems like you are cherry picking in order to fulfill your Islamic fatalism when it boosts your religious ego. You ignore factors in which Mehmet didn't hold to your view of Islam. However one can easily show that perhaps your view is not the only view, that Islam has changed over time and your modern view is used to rewrite history.

 

[FearGod]

Yet you still blame Netenyahu for oppressing Palestinians while he sits in a comfy office and any actions are done by others, not him.





No wars, but the Ottomans claimed they were Caliphs

The Ottoman Caliphate, under the Ottoman dynasty of the Ottoman Empire, was the last Sunni Islamiccaliphate of the late medieval and the early modern era. During the period of Ottoman growth, Ottoman rulers claimed caliphal authority since Murad I's conquest of Edirne in 1362.[1] Later Selim I, through conquering and unification of Muslim lands, became the defender of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina which further strengthened the Ottoman claim to caliphate in the Muslim world.


But the Abbasids, were still Caliphs until after the Ottoman invasion of Egypt in the 16th C


The Abbasid caliphate of Cairo lasted until the time of Al-Mutawakkil III, who ruled as caliph from 1508 to 1516, then he was deposed briefly in 1516 by his predecessor Al-Mustamsik, but was restored again to the caliphate in 1517. The Ottoman sultan Selim I defeated the Mamluk Sultanate, and made Egypt part of the Ottoman Empire in 1517. Al-Mutawakkil III was captured together with his family and transported to Constantinople as a prisoner where he had a ceremonial role.


Also, can you clarify the Sharia status of mass fratricide? Is it halal or not?

One of the biggest challenges for the Ottomans was to impose secular law at the centre of the empire in order to consolidate the position of the sultan at the pinnacle of power. The most extreme example of this was the "law of fratricide" attributed to Sultan Mehmed II, known as the Conqueror after he took Constantinople in 1453.

The text of this law was brief but terrifying: "Whichever of my sons inherits the sultanate, it behooves (is necessary for) him to kill his brothers in the interest of the world order; most jurists have approved this; let action be taken accordingly. Whichever of my sons inherits the sultanate, it behoves him to kill his brothers in the interest of the world order...”

This was a perfect example of secular law permitting an act that Sharia would have never condoned - the assassination by a newly enthroned sultan of all his brothers for fear of a repetition of the fratricidal conflicts that had plagued the Ottoman system of succession.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24365067


So your "great leader" was a false caliph who kidnapped children and forcibly converted them and also implemented a legal requirement that whichever of his sons took the throne must kill all of his brothers.

He actually made a law that guaranteed the death of all but 1 of his male children.

And this person is a great hero of prophecy to you, simply because he won a battle against the broken remains of an empire that used to be great but no longer was?

The Hadith is correct and Mehmet II is a hero, think the way you wish, have a nice day.