Islam and tolerance for other religions
Wilson Heydt
## Received: Fri, 8 May 1992 00:16:17 GMT
## Reviewed: 13-MAY-1992 17:24:13.53
## Approved: 13-MAY-1992 17:28
## Posted : 18 May 1992 13:00 PDT
######################################################################
[Sorry--I don't have the high-level attribution for this. I had to
pick the text I'm commenting on off a machine I can't post from. Such
is modern technology . . . I'm also stripping off much of the
original remarks to keep it from being excessively long. --whh]
>>I am interested in knowing why Islam considers Christianity to be
>>a religion founded by Paul.
>
>Because Islam is interested in the truth, no doubt....
An interesting comment, but not entirely relevant to the question.
One can be interested in truth without achieving it. Your explanation
of why you beleive this to be truth may well be correct--but it is
still *your* belief and not that of those that calim to adhere to the
set of religions in question.
>[On dealing with those who reject Islam]
>>This is probably one of the most confusing. On the one hand, you
>>said, "Those who don't, we cannot change their hearts." On the
>>other you said, "Those who reject al-'Islam then Muslims address
>>them with Jihad." What exactly do you mean by upper hand over all
>>religions? If you insist on Jihad (including the use of force for
>>conversion), I don't quite know how you square that with
>>non-compulsion in religion.
>
>It is a Muslim's duty to say to you 'This is Islam. You want to
>embrace it.' If you decide not to, that is your choice. The
>Muslim's role is not to convince you, but to offer you the
>choice.
This is an enlightened attitude.
>If you choose to reject Islam, then you are 'Kaffir,' and will be
>treated as such. The end result of Jihad is to establish Islamic
>Rule over the peoples of the world. There hasn't been an Islamic
>State in a long time, but Afghanistan is looking hopeful. May
>Allah (SWT) establish a just Khilafa there....
This is not.
Since the orginal question was about how other religions are viewed
from Islam, this tells me more than all of the scholarly citations
that were given. You are claiming religious dominion over the world.
I understand that you are convinced that you way is right, but I think
you will understand that those who disagree aren't likely to easily
put you in charge just on your own strongly held beliefs.
>Within an Islamic State, those who are Kaffirs are required to
>abide by Islamic Law and pay a small tax. Within their
>community, they are allowed considerable freedom, however.
>(Basically, anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of
>others is okay. For example, they can practice their own
>religion, but not if it includes human sacrifice; they can preach
>their religion to each other, but not to Muslims; etc.)
Reiteration and expansion on the same theme. If you live in a
non-Muslim country, do you expect to be taxed for failing to accept
the prevailing faith and to only be able to use your own law where it
does not conflict with local usage? If you can't see the symmetry in
this situation, [ ]. I don't ask you to
agree that it *should* be so, but I'd be interested to see and
understanding of why it could be.
>In return for their tax, the Muslims defend them from any dangers,
>make certain that they are provided for, and make certain that
>justice is upheld in their community. In most cases, the Laws of
>the Kaffir community apply. (ie. If they're Jewish, Jewish law
>applies.)
Do I read this correctly to mean that a Muslim country would enforce
non-Muslim laws in a community within it's borders?
>If the Islamic State asks a Kaffir State to embrace Islam, and
>they refuse, the Islamic State then asks them to become part of
>the Islamic State and pay the tax. If they do so, then they are
>given full rights under the Islamic State and are defended, etc.
>If they refuse to become part of the Islamic State, the Muslims
>tell them that they will fight them until they accept Islamic
>Rule. Once they do so, they pay the tax and are accorded full
>rights as citizens of the Islamic State.
Hmm . . . Perhaps here we come to the crux of the matter. If I read
this correctly (and you are welcome to correct me if I am misreading
it), the world is to put itself under Muslim domination or face a
permanent war if it does not? Without discussing the merits of
various religions, why shouldn't the rest of the world unite to
exterminate all Muslims--since that is the only path to peace other
that Muslim domination?
Why should any non-Muslim country consider this to be anything other
than a threat?
>>>4. One may treat non-Muslims nicely but he knows that they are not to
>>>be loved for their kufr. . . .
>>
>>Quite unlike Christians who are taught, "Love your enemies."
>
>If there is one thing Christians do not do is 'love their
>enemies.' This is also in direct contradiction with 'fight
>injustice,' 'defend your faith,' and 'bow to no man, but to GOD.'
I agree with you--in part. Please note that the gentleman said
"taught to . . ." *not* "do . . ." I note that (trusting the first
quote) Muslims aren't expected to even try to do so. In this at
least, the Christians (for all their faults) are at least *trying* for
a more peaceful vicinity.
>But then Christianity is full of contradictions....
You know a religion that isn't? (I grant that Christianity seems to
have more than most, but many of the ones it has are rooted in
documents that predate Christianity itself and are part of Muslim
heritage, too.)
>Suffice it to say that, if a Kaffir does not raise a hand against
>anyone, a Muslim cannot touch him without facing the wrath of
>Allah (SWT). Fighting is strictly defined as to when it is done
>and how it is done. Even in war, it is forbidden to harm those
>who surrender, women, children, elderly, animals, trees, etc.
>(Basically, you only fight those who fight you....)
So . . . If no one starts a war against a Muslim country, then peace
must prevail? Must be frustrating.
>What's interesting is that the Jews have retained many of the
>traditions of Islam, but have lost much of the faith. In
>contrast, the Christians have retained much of their faith in
>the doctrine of Islam, but they have abandoned the practice of
>it. Today's Muslims are struggling to avoid both errors....
Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Last time I checked,
Judaism predates Christianity which predates Islam. Interestingly
enough, since all three have their own calendar systems, one could
simply ask "what year is this?" and compare answers . . .
Rather, if I agreed with your premise, I would have to say that Islam
has retained many tradiations of Judaism, and Islam has retained much
of the faith of Christianity--purely on historical grounds.
--Hal
--
=======================================================================
Hal Heydt | Vegetarians eat vegetables.
Analyst, Pacific*Bell |
510-823-5447 | I'm a Humanitarian.
Michael T. Palmer
## Received: 6 May 92 14:59:10 GMT
## Reviewed: 13-MAY-1992 17:19:23.76
## Approved: 13-MAY-1992 17:21
## Posted : 18 May 1992 12:52 PDT
######################################################################
>In article <24...@life.ai.mit.edu> LEEKK%NUSDISC...@nusvm.nus.sg writes:
>If the Islamic State asks a Kaffir State to embrace Islam, and
>they refuse, the Islamic State then asks them to become part of
>the Islamic State and pay the tax. If they do so, then they are
>given full rights under the Islamic State and are defended, etc.
>If they refuse to become part of the Islamic State, the Muslims
>tell them that they will fight them until they accept Islamic
>Rule. Once they do so, they pay the tax and are accorded full
>rights as citizens of the Islamic State.
I have a question concerning this. If the Kaffir State is not
interfering in the business of the Islamic State, and the Kaffir
State has a different culture that they fear would be lost under
the (even benevolent) rule of another State, then why should
they accept the invitation of an Islamic State to become a part
of it? And why should the Islamic State choose to fight them
for refusing?
I just don't understand why peace should be discarded to expand
the *political* borders of an Islamic State. What am I missing
here? It is already understood that "There is no compulsion in
religion." Why should there then be compulsion in political
control between neighboring countries when a prosperous peace is
already in place? How does God benefit from the political
subjugation of a peaceful people by an Islamic State? How does
this benefit outweigh the costs in terms of human suffering?
Please include references to appropriate Surah of the Qu'ran.
I do not yet have access to any of the Sunnah or Hadith. And
if all this is clearly explained in the Qu'ran, then please
forgive my ignorance... I have only read up to Juz' 6.
--
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23665
Temporarily a Techie: Center for Human-Machine System Research, Georgia Tech
Voice: 404-894-4318, FAX: 404-894-2301, Email: pal...@chmsr.gatech.edu
le...@iscs.nus.sg
correctly attributed, and trim the quoted article down as much as
possible. The original poster here request that he was misquoted in
parts of this article.]
In article <18MAY199...@romeo.caltech.edu>, pal...@isye.gatech.edu (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
->######################################################################
->## Received: 6 May 92 14:59:10 GMT
->## Reviewed: 13-MAY-1992 17:19:23.76
->## Approved: 13-MAY-1992 17:21
->## Posted : 18 May 1992 12:52 PDT
->######################################################################
->
->
->>In article <24...@life.ai.mit.edu> LEEKK%NUSDISC...@nusvm.nus.sg writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
->
->>If the Islamic State asks a Kaffir State to embrace Islam, and
->>they refuse, the Islamic State then asks them to become part of
->>the Islamic State and pay the tax. If they do so, then they are
->>given full rights under the Islamic State and are defended, etc.
->
->>If they refuse to become part of the Islamic State, the Muslims
->>tell them that they will fight them until they accept Islamic
->>Rule. Once they do so, they pay the tax and are accorded full
->>rights as citizens of the Islamic State.
->
->I have a question concerning this. If the Kaffir State is not
->interfering in the business of the Islamic State, and the Kaffir
->State has a different culture that they fear would be lost under
->the (even benevolent) rule of another State, then why should
->they accept the invitation of an Islamic State to become a part
->of it? And why should the Islamic State choose to fight them
->for refusing?
->
->I just don't understand why peace should be discarded to expand
->the *political* borders of an Islamic State. What am I missing
->here? It is already understood that "There is no compulsion in
->religion." Why should there then be compulsion in political
->control between neighboring countries when a prosperous peace is
->already in place? How does God benefit from the political
->subjugation of a peaceful people by an Islamic State? How does
->this benefit outweigh the costs in terms of human suffering?
->
->Please include references to appropriate Surah of the Qu'ran.
->I do not yet have access to any of the Sunnah or Hadith. And
->if all this is clearly explained in the Qu'ran, then please
->forgive my ignorance... I have only read up to Juz' 6.
->--
->Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23665
->Temporarily a Techie: Center for Human-Machine System Research, Georgia Tech
->Voice: 404-894-4318, FAX: 404-894-2301, Email: pal...@chmsr.gatech.edu
Err Sorry, I didn't write your above quoted parts. It was written
by some netters, and I quoted it to ask a few questions. I can't
remember who wrote them.
Regards,
James KK Lee
Ekrem Saban
In article <18MAY199...@romeo.caltech.edu> whh...@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
######################################################################
## Received: Fri, 8 May 1992 00:16:17 GMT
## Reviewed: 13-MAY-1992 17:24:13.53
## Approved: 13-MAY-1992 17:28
## Posted : 18 May 1992 13:00 PDT
######################################################################
[...]
>Within an Islamic State, those who are Kaffirs are required to
>abide by Islamic Law and pay a small tax. Within their
>community, they are allowed considerable freedom, however.
>(Basically, anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of
>others is okay. For example, they can practice their own
>religion, but not if it includes human sacrifice; they can preach
>their religion to each other, but not to Muslims; etc.)
Reiteration and expansion on the same theme. If you live in a
non-Muslim country, do you expect to be taxed for failing to accept
the prevailing faith and to only be able to use your own law where it
does not conflict with local usage? If you can't see the symmetry in
this situation, [ ]. I don't ask you to
agree that it *should* be so, but I'd be interested to see and
understanding of why it could be.
The reason why unbelievers in an Islamic State are taxed is that they
can't defend an Islamic State (as Jihad is for the sake of Islam). So,
they have to pay, as soldiers are needed to defend these citizens.
>In return for their tax, the Muslims defend them from any dangers,
>make certain that they are provided for, and make certain that
>justice is upheld in their community. In most cases, the Laws of
>the Kaffir community apply. (ie. If they're Jewish, Jewish law
>applies.)
Do I read this correctly to mean that a Muslim country would enforce
non-Muslim laws in a community within it's borders?
The Christians have their own jurisprudence. A Christian has the
choice to go to his own or to Islamic courts, but he has to accept in
any case the verdict!
>If the Islamic State asks a Kaffir State to embrace Islam, and
>they refuse, the Islamic State then asks them to become part of
>the Islamic State and pay the tax. If they do so, then they are
>given full rights under the Islamic State and are defended, etc.
>If they refuse to become part of the Islamic State, the Muslims
>tell them that they will fight them until they accept Islamic
>Rule. Once they do so, they pay the tax and are accorded full
>rights as citizens of the Islamic State.
Hmm . . . Perhaps here we come to the crux of the matter. If I read
this correctly (and you are welcome to correct me if I am misreading
it), the world is to put itself under Muslim domination or face a
permanent war if it does not? Without discussing the merits of
various religions, why shouldn't the rest of the world unite to
exterminate all Muslims--since that is the only path to peace other
than Muslim domination?
Why should any non-Muslim country consider this to be anything other
than a threat?
What you say will perhaps come one day. But before Muslims (to us the
true believers were called all the time like that) will loose the
dominion for ever, there will be a big Islamic State, headed first by
the Mesiah, THEN by Jesus (they are two different persons to us) for
about fifty years. After that, the state will disintegrate, and the
state of the believers will deteriorate till the Day of Ressurection.
After the Muslim community, now under presure of non-Islamic States,
have reached a minimum number, the Dooms Day which is the Day of
Judgement, will come. After that, all disbelievers will go to Hell.
The rest will go to the heavenly Paradise.
The reason for this "agressive" policy is that only a rule according to
the Shariah is worthy to man. For instance, I am living in Europe and
see that more and more people become addicts of drugs like tobacco,
alcohol, and other harder drugs. As we have here a non-Islamic state,
you can't stop it efficiently. What's more, if a majority has the
oppinion that taking drugs is right, it could even be legalized. This
and other things like prostitution, sex press, etc. will change the
society in a society far away from being pios. This may be a natural
consequence of having a non-Islamic state, but according to Muslims,
this state is worse than war, death, and destruction - a point where a
Christian will not agree... For them, even if smtg. bad happens,
he/she has to refrain from war (like Yehovas Wittnesses here). But
according to Islam, if you see smtg. wrong and you are a believer, you
have to change it. If you can't, talk against it. If you are again not
strong enough to do it, than have hatred against this thing. But the
last state is the weakest state of a believer. If you see smtg. wrong
is done and you can't influence those wrong doers, than you have to
leave this place immediately.
>>>4. One may treat non-Muslims nicely but he knows that they are not to
>>>be loved for their kufr. . . .
>>
>>Quite unlike Christians who are taught, "Love your enemies."
But "love your enenmies" does not mean to ignore that they *are*
enemies. It means to forgive them their sins and their oppressions, as
they do not know what they are doing; if they were believers, they
wouldn't act like that. This is the same in Islam.
41:
33. And who speaks better than he who calls to Allah while
he himself does good, and says: I am surely of those who
submit?
34. And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil)
with what is best, when lo! he between whom and you was
enmity would be as if he were a warm friend.
35. And none are made to receive it but those who are
patient, and none are made to receive it but those who have
a mighty good fortune.
What is completely different is that there is the law (Shariah). If
one acts against this law in defiance, he has to be punished, and it
is unimportant whether this person is reach or poor, has a reputation
or not, or other ranks he has. If one has done wrong and smtg. against
the Shariah, but repented after that, he will not be punished (in this
world). God may forgive his sin also in the Hereafter. So, it is not
"quite unlike...", but we have a law and a state. The question can be
asked why not forgiveness for all sinners. Allah says in the Holy
Qur'an:
42:
37. And those who shun the great sins and indecencies, and
whenever they are angry they forgive.
38. And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer,
and their rule is to take counsel among themselves, and who
spend out of what We have given them.
39. And those who, when great wrong afflicts them, defend
themselves.
40. And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but
whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from
Allah; surely He does not love the unjust.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
41. And whoever defends himself after his being oppressed,
these it is against whom there is no way (to blame).
42. The way (to blame) is only against those who oppress men
and revolt in the earth unjustly; these shall have a painful
punishment.
43. And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely
are actions due to courage.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As God does not like the unjust, there is punishment for them on this
world or in the Hearafter. But forgiving his enemy is good, and if you
"Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! he between whom and you was
enmity would be as if he were a warm friend." This was the way the
holy prophet has gone. He forgave all his enemies, although they had
treated him so bad.
[...]
>But then Christianity is full of contradictions....
You know a religion that isn't? (I grant that Christianity seems to
have more than most, but many of the ones it has are rooted in
documents that predate Christianity itself and are part of Muslim
heritage, too.)
I am interested to hear from you (some) contradictions in Islam.
Perhaps, they arose to you because of misunderstanding. A religion
can't be logical *and* contradictory, and as far as I know, there is
no logical religion except Islam...
--
___________________________________________________________________ _ _______
________ A. Ekrem SABAN / Technische Universitat Wien
/| | ek...@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at / Inst. f. Technische Informatik
/_|__ |__ / Abt. HW & VLSI
/ | | /Tel : (1)58801/8144 ( 7-13 UTC)
/ |___ ___| /Adr.: Treitlstr. 3, A-1040 Wien.
"Nu ninda-a ezateni, wadar ma ekuteni"/
Hubey
In article <7084...@lear.cs.duke.edu> ek...@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Ekrem Saban) writes:
> In article <18MAY199...@romeo.caltech.edu> whh...@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>
> >If they refuse to become part of the Islamic State, the Muslims
> >tell them that they will fight them until they accept Islamic
> >Rule. Once they do so, they pay the tax and are accorded full
> >rights as citizens of the Islamic State.
>
> Hmm . . . Perhaps here we come to the crux of the matter. If I read
> this correctly (and you are welcome to correct me if I am misreading
> it), the world is to put itself under Muslim domination or face a
> permanent war if it does not? Without discussing the merits of
> various religions, why shouldn't the rest of the world unite to
> exterminate all Muslims--since that is the only path to peace other
> than Muslim domination?
>
> Why should any non-Muslim country consider this to be anything other
> than a threat?
Good point. What I would like to ask Mr. Ekrem Saban is where in the
Koran does it say exactly that war must be made on non-Muslims
until they all become Muslim.
Or is this something that was either added or 'deduced' by some
brilliant medieval 'alim' along the way and still interpreted
that way by priests.
I would like to see a quote from the Koran, preferably in
English so that I can understand it, of course.
If the Koran does indeed openly say that a perpetual state of
war must exist between Muslims and non-Muslims then it does
indeed sound a lot like Marxism-Leninism in that it too
took for granted the 'obvious logical fact of history' (I
don't know how, I never thought it so obvious) that
capitalism will come to an end and that the socio-economic
system as described by the holy prophets Marx, Lenin, (and we
can add Mao, Castro etc) will eventually triumph. Thus anyone
who resisted did it out of malice and deserved to be wiped out.
Now, would Mr. Saban provide us with the quotes that says it
is incumbent upon Muslims to force everyone to convert.
I always thought the phrase was; "There's no compulsion in
religion. To each, his own."
--
mark
hu...@pilot.njin.net hu...@apollo.montclair.edu
...!rutgers!pilot!hubey hu...@logos.montclair.edu
AL...@mscf.med.upenn.edu
>>
>> >If they refuse to become part of the Islamic State, the Muslims
>> >tell them that they will fight them until they accept Islamic
>> >Rule. Once they do so, they pay the tax and are accorded full
>> >rights as citizens of the Islamic State.
>>
>
[Deleted stuff..]
>Good point. What I would like to ask Mr. Ekrem Saban is where in the
>Koran does it say exactly that war must be made on non-Muslims
>until they all become Muslim.
>
Answer: This question has been fully discussed
before. Refer to previous articles on the
same subject.
I will not comment on this subject for the
time being, but I will return to the issue,
hopefully soon.
>> In article <18MAY199...@romeo.caltech.edu> whh...@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>Or is this something that was either added or 'deduced' by some
>brilliant medieval 'alim' along the way and still interpreted
>that way by priests.
>
>I would like to see a quote from the Koran, preferably in
>English so that I can understand it, of course.
>
Answer: You are challenging the person who wrote
the above comment.
In your answer, though, you disrespected
the process of Islamic knowledge-trnasfer.
This only proves that you are ignorant
of it.
Since you asked for it. Take it:
I challenge you to prove that there
is *any nation on earth* that has *lineage*
to the knowledge of its prophet and the
previous generations other than the Muslim
nation.
You also spoke about *medieval* ^alim. It
sounds that you do not know that when the
civilization in the east and al-Andalus
(Spain) was flourishing and the Muslims were
contributing to the branches of knowledge,
Europe was in complete darkness.
Some of these branches of knowledge are:
Mathematics, Geometry, Algebra, Mechanics
Chemistry, Optics, Astronomy, Medicine, Agriculture
Sociology, Art, Anatomy, Zoology, Biology, Construction,
Navigation, Geography, History, Islamic Law and its
lineage, and other branches. The scientists in Europe
were then persecuted and tortured. Science was
misunderstood for witchcraft and the people
went to the east and al-Andalus to learn from
what the Muslims contributed. They translated their
books into English, German, Italian and other languages.
However, it is hard, very hard, for most westerns
to admit that Muslims were their teachers. This shows how
appreciative they are.
Moreover, there is no rank of clergy and priesthood
in al-'Islam. Everyone can be become a Muslim
scholar if he/she wants to learn about Islam following
the method of Islamic scholarship.
>> In article <18MAY199...@romeo.caltech.edu> whh...@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>If the Koran does indeed openly say that a perpetual state of
>war must exist between Muslims and non-Muslims then it does
>indeed sound a lot like Marxism-Leninism in that it too
>took for granted the 'obvious logical fact of history' (I
>don't know how, I never thought it so obvious) that
>capitalism will come to an end and that the socio-economic
>system as described by the holy prophets Marx, Lenin, (and we
>can add Mao, Castro etc) will eventually triumph. Thus anyone
>who resisted did it out of malice and deserved to be wiped out.
>
Answer: You are off again.
You are equating the laws that the Creator revealed
to man-made laws!! You are making a system like
communism that is based on atheism and disbelieve
in God similar to the religion that God revealed to
all the Prophets, al-'Islam.
The Creator knows about what is beneficial to the
creation more than anyone else. You have to seek
answers from the religion to know for what reason you are
here on earth and why you are created. Only the religion can
give you this answer. No matter how intelligent you
think yourself are, mind by itself cannot know everything.
This is why God sent the Prophets (if you believe in them).
By accepting the prophets, you accept the laws which God
revealed. Before reaching this stage, everything
will be a mystery to you and it is a waste of time
to explain the rule if the basic principle is not
understood.
Answer: This question has been fully discussed
before. Refer to previous articles on the
same subject.
I will not comment on this subject for the
time being, but I will return to the issue,
hopefully soon.
G Housieni
Ekrem Saban
Path: email!news.univie.ac.at!nestroy!alijku05!alijku11!auvm!paladin.american.edu!gatech!mcnc!duke!pilot.njin.net
From: hu...@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Date: 21 Jun 92 17:04:44 GMT
References: <18MAY199...@romeo.caltech.edu> <7084...@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Sender: az...@duke.cs.duke.edu
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 56
Approved: az...@duke.cs.duke.edu
In article <7084...@lear.cs.duke.edu> ek...@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Ekrem Saban) writes:
> In article <18MAY199...@romeo.caltech.edu> whh...@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>
> >If they refuse to become part of the Islamic State, the Muslims
> >tell them that they will fight them until they accept Islamic
> >Rule. Once they do so, they pay the tax and are accorded full
> >rights as citizens of the Islamic State.
>
> Hmm . . . Perhaps here we come to the crux of the matter. If I read
> this correctly (and you are welcome to correct me if I am misreading
> it), the world is to put itself under Muslim domination or face a
> permanent war if it does not? Without discussing the merits of
> various religions, why shouldn't the rest of the world unite to
> exterminate all Muslims--since that is the only path to peace other
> than Muslim domination?
>
> Why should any non-Muslim country consider this to be anything other
> than a threat?
Good point. What I would like to ask Mr. Ekrem Saban is where in the
Koran does it say exactly that war must be made on non-Muslims
until they all become Muslim.
I can give you reference from the Qur'an that show that war has to be
on non-Muslims until they obey, but I can't give you ANY reference
(neither from the Noble Qur'aan, nor from any other (deduced or not)
source) that says that non-Muslims are to be forced until they become
all Muslims.
Or is this something that was either added or 'deduced' by some
brilliant medieval 'alim' along the way and still interpreted
that way by priests.
That would be an evil aalim... Perhaps a brilliant evil one, if you
like to.
I would like to see a quote from the Koran, preferably in
English so that I can understand it, of course.
It's comming, but not exactly what you asked for.
If the Koran does indeed openly say that a perpetual state of
war must exist between Muslims and non-Muslims then it does
There is also no reference for a perpetual war, or at least I can't
remember such a passage.
[...]
Now, would Mr. Saban provide us with the quotes that says it
is incumbent upon Muslims to force everyone to convert.
9:
3. And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the
people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His
Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you
repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know
that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment
to those who disbelieve.
4. Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an
agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have
not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to
the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of
their duty).
5. So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the
idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and
besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if
they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their
way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
6. And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant
him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him
attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do
not know.
7. How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah
and with His Apostle; except those with whom you made an
agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to
you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of
their duty).
This verses are about SOME idolators (of Mekka) who wared the Muslims
for years and persecuted them.
11. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate,
they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications
clear for a people who know.
12. And if they break their oaths after their agreement and
(openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief--
surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.
28. O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean,
so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year;
and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His
grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
29. Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter
day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have
prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who
have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment
of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
In verse 9:29, we have one of the key verses on this subject. Of
course, scholars had also their interpretations, whether you like them
or not. For instance, Imaam Abu Haneefa (if I'm not wrong) found out
from verses and hadith that a jihad has to be declared (not "should",
but "has to") by an Islamic State, if
.) The (minimal) rights of the Monotheists (given by Islam to them) are
not granted, and the sovereign has not accepted to give this rights to
them.
There were two more points which I can not recognize now, but I knew
them for a long time and may remember them again (hopefully). Perhaps,
smb. else on the net can give a more complete answer. In this case,
first, Islam is offered them. If they do not accept, they have to pay
some taxes to the Islamic State. And if they will not do that also,
than war is due UNTIL either the first or the second point is
fullfilled. If they go into war, the state fights them "until they pay
the tax in acknowledgment of superiority", as it is ordered by the
absolute and unchangable law of the only God (see verse 9:29).
I always thought the phrase was; "There's no compulsion in
religion. To each, his own."
But nobody can be forced to be a Muslim! What's more, smb. doing so
will have a place in hell for SURE, as the Prophet (pbuh) announced.
So, not religious Muslims will not force unbelievers, and religious
Muslims can NEVER EVER do it, as they knew that they will go to hell.
Perhaps, some of you will wonder why it is so, as Christians forced
others in medieval ages to convert not only to Christianity but to
their sects as well. The reason is that smb. forced to a believe is
not convinced and can be only a hypocrite. So, his/her position will
be worse than being an honest unbeliever, as there is a much more
terrible punishment for hypocrites. So, forcing smb. to Islam not good
for anybody involved. That's why it's forbidden.
--
mark
hu...@pilot.njin.net hu...@apollo.montclair.edu
...!rutgers!pilot!hubey hu...@logos.montclair.edu
--
___ _______ ________________________________________________ _ ___________
/| | A. Ekrem SABAN / Technische Universitat Wien
/_|_ |_ ek...@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at/Inst.f. Techn. Informatik, HW & VLSI
/ | | "Nu ninda-a ezateni, /Adresse: 1040, Karlsplatz 13
/ |__ __| vadar ma ekuteni" /Tel:(1) 58 801/8147, Fax:(1) 569 697
Wilson Heydt
they are attributed to me--and I didn't make the remarks. --whh]
In article <7094...@lear.cs.duke.edu>, AL...@mscf.med.upenn.edu writes:
> >Or is this something that was either added or 'deduced' by some
> >brilliant medieval 'alim' along the way and still interpreted
> >that way by priests.
> >
> >I would like to see a quote from the Koran, preferably in
> >English so that I can understand it, of course.
> >
> Answer: You are challenging the person who wrote
> the above comment.
> In your answer, though, you disrespected
> the process of Islamic knowledge-trnasfer.
> This only proves that you are ignorant
> of it.
Hold it. Time out. Pause for reflection.
It may be an article of faith to *you* that Islam holds the One and
Final Truth, but a request for clarification of sources is something
one should always be ready to supply. The oldest commentary preserved
here asked for a direct quote (in a language he reads), and you're
merely heaping abuse. What's wrong with supplying the
quote--especially since you say that you're the one that made the
assertion being questioned?
> Since you asked for it. Take it:
> I challenge you to prove that there
> is *any nation on earth* that has *lineage*
> to the knowledge of its prophet and the
> previous generations other than the Muslim
> nation.
Irrelevant. You were asked for a citation--not proof that you have a
lock on revealed truth. (The later being a subject that I seriously
doubt the moderators will honestly want to get into.) As for the
challenge--before being so smug I suggest you go talk to a Mormon or
two.
> You also spoke about *medieval* ^alim. It
> sounds that you do not know that when the
> civilization in the east and al-Andalus
> (Spain) was flourishing and the Muslims were
> contributing to the branches of knowledge,
> Europe was in complete darkness.
He may not know that, but I do. However your characterization of
Europe as being in "complete darkness" is a bit extreme. You might
want to research the industrial revolution that took place in the 13th
century, based on water and wind power. Dark, I grant you, but
complete is a bit too strong.
> Moreover, there is no rank of clergy and priesthood
> in al-'Islam. Everyone can be become a Muslim
> scholar if he/she wants to learn about Islam following
> the method of Islamic scholarship.
I understand that much the same can be said of Judaism and several
Christian sects, notably the Quakers.
> >If the Koran does indeed openly say that a perpetual state of
> >war must exist between Muslims and non-Muslims then it does
> >indeed sound a lot like Marxism-Leninism in that it too
> >
> Answer: You are off again.
Your answer suggests that the parallel upsets you.
> You are equating the laws that the Creator revealed
> to man-made laws!!
Kind of depends on who made the 'Creator' . . .
> The Creator knows about what is beneficial to the
> creation more than anyone else. You have to seek
> answers from the religion to know for what reason you are
> here on earth and why you are created.
What's her Internet address?
> Only the religion can
> give you this answer. No matter how intelligent you
> think yourself are, mind by itself cannot know everything.
> This is why God sent the Prophets (if you believe in them).
Congratulations--that is a *very* large 'if'. Please consider how
your remarks read to someone who does *not* beleive in them. Then
frame your arguments in a way that takes that into account.
> By accepting the prophets, you accept the laws which God
> revealed. Before reaching this stage, everything
> will be a mystery to you and it is a waste of time
> to explain the rule if the basic principle is not
> understood.
I see. Either beleive or be mystified. How about examining the world
as it is and theorizing and drawing conclusions from the evident data?
You were so proud (and rightly so) of the achievements of Moslems
liveing a few hundred years ago. What happened--where is the cutting
edge of science now?
> >I always thought the phrase was; "There's no compulsion in
> >religion. To each, his own."
>
> Answer: This question has been fully discussed
> before. Refer to previous articles on the
> same subject.
How about a short answer . . . Like 'yes' or 'no' (is there
compulsion in your religion?).
--Hal
--
=======================================================================
Hal Heydt | "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell | --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447 | "... kill all the lawyers."