posted
This fatwa is noteworthy since Islamic apologists in the West routinely deny that Islamic law forbids non-Muslims to build new houses of worship or repair old ones. Not only does Sheikh Sa'id 'Abd-al-'Athim affirm that, but he also explains why it's different when Muslims are forbidden to build mosques in Italy -- which, of course, isn't even happening.
Title of the fatwa: The ruling on building and repairing churches for Christians in the lands of Muslims
Fatwa number: 7
Fatwa date: 7 Dec 2010
Question: Peace be upon you, as well as the mercy and blessings of Allah. Our eminent shaykh, I read in one of your fatwas on this good and blessed website that it is not permissible for Christians to build or repair churches. What is the evidence for this? Is there evidence in the Qur'an or Sunnah which says that it is forbidden to build churches, or does that only come from jurisprudence?
Answer: In the name of Allah, to Allah be the praise. Peace be upon the Messenger of Allah, as well as upon his family, companions, and whoever follows him.
This is explained in detail in the book, "The Rulings for the People of the Dhimma [i.e. Jews and Christians]" by Imam Ibn Qayyim. It should also suffice you to review my book, "Calling the People of the Book to the Religion of the Lord of Mankind," for there are useful things in it. I previously answered your question, and explained to you what they do with the Muslims in some European countries like Italy, in regards to preventing them from building mosques there. The shari'ah does not treat equally things which are different, nor does it treat differently things which are equal. This is the justice by which oppression is removed. For example, when a person of the Book congratulates me on my holiday, he is congratulating the truth, but when I congratulate him on his holiday, I am congratulating falsehood, for holidays are one of the greatest signs of the religion. Wherefore the infidels, even if they have to spend a great deal of money, would like for Muslims to participate with them in their holidays. There is the saying, "Whoever resembles a people is of them," and also, "Whoever loved a people will be gathered with them." Similarity on the outside leads to similarity on the inside
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: This fatwa is noteworthy since Islamic apologists in the West routinely deny that Islamic law forbids non-Muslims to build new houses of worship or repair old ones. Not only does Sheikh Sa'id 'Abd-al-'Athim affirm that, but he also explains why it's different when Muslims are forbidden to build mosques in Italy -- which, of course, isn't even happening.
Title of the fatwa: The ruling on building and repairing churches for Christians in the lands of Muslims
Fatwa number: 7
Fatwa date: 7 Dec 2010
Question: Peace be upon you, as well as the mercy and blessings of Allah. Our eminent shaykh, I read in one of your fatwas on this good and blessed website that it is not permissible for Christians to build or repair churches. What is the evidence for this? Is there evidence in the Qur'an or Sunnah which says that it is forbidden to build churches, or does that only come from jurisprudence?
Answer: In the name of Allah, to Allah be the praise. Peace be upon the Messenger of Allah, as well as upon his family, companions, and whoever follows him.
This is explained in detail in the book, "The Rulings for the People of the Dhimma [i.e. Jews and Christians]" by Imam Ibn Qayyim. It should also suffice you to review my book, "Calling the People of the Book to the Religion of the Lord of Mankind," for there are useful things in it. I previously answered your question, and explained to you what they do with the Muslims in some European countries like Italy, in regards to preventing them from building mosques there. The shari'ah does not treat equally things which are different, nor does it treat differently things which are equal. This is the justice by which oppression is removed. For example, when a person of the Book congratulates me on my holiday, he is congratulating the truth, but when I congratulate him on his holiday, I am congratulating falsehood, for holidays are one of the greatest signs of the religion. Wherefore the infidels, even if they have to spend a great deal of money, would like for Muslims to participate with them in their holidays. There is the saying, "Whoever resembles a people is of them," and also, "Whoever loved a people will be gathered with them." Similarity on the outside leads to similarity on the inside
posted
Fatwa : a non-binding judgment on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized religious authority .
Posts: 277 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tareq: Fatwa : a non-binding judgment on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized religious authority .
So it's an opinion
Yes they are just mere opinions. Here's my Fatwa:
I Sheik Exiiled of ES decree on the 23rd of March 2011, that VW is an eternal idiot.
My favorite Fatwa is an Indian one that stated men can divorce their wives by sending 3 SMS texts with the words “I divorce you once”, “I divorce you twice”, “I divorce you thrice.”
VW fatwa is just as ludicrous because Muslims can not dictate terms to other faiths. There is a clear divide, but Islamophobes such as volkswagen and ES members of his/her ilk foam at the mouth every time they read the words “Islam”, “Muslims”, trying to find anything to justify their hate for Muslims.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what some of us non-Muslims learn from our own reading of our Quran translations, we can find plenty of reasons to "hate" Islam. But these (possibly incomplete or skewed) understandings are always tinted by how we see certain sections of the worldwide Muslim community behaving. But there is no pre-ordained or in-built inclination to hate all Muslims because of the actions of a minority, or those we would judge as being misled into error by their forebears and the Quran.
Ayisha, on the other hand, would have us look at the religion of Islam entirely through the Quran. Because she asserts that the "Muslims" do not correctly follow the leading of, or display the attributes required of them by the Quran. So should we hate Muslims for misinterpreting the Quran?
This is a very difficult thing for us to do, because our self preservation mechanisms always prompt us to weigh the actions of others in the balance along with their words, and if their (as a group, obviously) current and historical actions seem to be threatening; then we are bound to be fearful of them, and consequently will not want to engage with them.
I cannot think of a way to be sure of your own safety (as a Christian, that is) in a predominantly Muslim community, except that it has so far served me well to get to know my neighbours as well as is possible in order to judge whether they are trustworthy and that their friendship is genuine. This isn't an option, though, for the vast majority of Christian folk, so through a lack of contact and understanding they remain fearful. It's perfectly natural to be so!
As you all know, as Christians we are enjoined to know people "by their works", so again, it's perfectly natural (to our way of thinking) that we should also "know" Muslims by their works, and the works which we inevitably see are not the works of charity and piousness which so many Muslims practice, but the works of violence, oppression and terrorism which we see and hear about on an almost daily basis!
So, perhaps we should hate the news media organisations, which bring us all the "bad" Muslim news and none of the "good"? But then; we hate them already!!!!
(Please, don't remonstrate with me because Christians are meant to love everyone, I already know that!)
Posts: 430 | From: luxor | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As has been said above, a fatwa is just one persons's opinion and in no way binding. You can find sensible and – unfortunately more often – utterly idiotic fatwas on just about every subject.
A good fatwa, issued by a responsible and knowledgeable scholar will always explain in detail how the person arrived at his opinion; it will contain scriptural proofs, references etc., so that you can check for yourself whether you agree with his conclusions or not. The above quoted fatwa, obviously, does not do that; the author only refers to a couple of manmade books and quotes a few verse fragments out of context, so actually the author of the fatwa disqualifies himself.
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: From what some of us non-Muslims learn from our own reading of our Quran translations, we can find plenty of reasons to "hate" Islam. But these (possibly incomplete or skewed) understandings are always tinted by how we see certain sections of the worldwide Muslim community behaving. But there is no pre-ordained or in-built inclination to hate all Muslims because of the actions of a minority, or those we would judge as being misled into error by their forebears and the Quran.
Ayisha, on the other hand, would have us look at the religion of Islam entirely through the Quran. Because she asserts that the "Muslims" do not correctly follow the leading of, or display the attributes required of them by the Quran. So should we hate Muslims for misinterpreting the Quran?
This is a very difficult thing for us to do, because our self preservation mechanisms always prompt us to weigh the actions of others in the balance along with their words, and if their (as a group, obviously) current and historical actions seem to be threatening; then we are bound to be fearful of them, and consequently will not want to engage with them.
I cannot think of a way to be sure of your own safety (as a Christian, that is) in a predominantly Muslim community, except that it has so far served me well to get to know my neighbours as well as is possible in order to judge whether they are trustworthy and that their friendship is genuine. This isn't an option, though, for the vast majority of Christian folk, so through a lack of contact and understanding they remain fearful. It's perfectly natural to be so!
As you all know, as Christians we are enjoined to know people "by their works", so again, it's perfectly natural (to our way of thinking) that we should also "know" Muslims by their works, and the works which we inevitably see are not the works of charity and piousness which so many Muslims practice, but the works of violence, oppression and terrorism which we see and hear about on an almost daily basis!
So, perhaps we should hate the news media organisations, which bring us all the "bad" Muslim news and none of the "good"? But then; we hate them already!!!!
(Please, don't remonstrate with me because Christians are meant to love everyone, I already know that!)
What I alluded to was very simple. There are ES members, some of which have been members for a few years, some several, some claiming they frequent this board to better understand Islam. Let's take the Fatwa article that volkswagen posted. An Islamophobe would take content of the article and say that is Islam.
A sensible human being, one who is indeed searching for the truth, would look up the word “Fatwa”, understand what it means. Try to find out what validity if there any and then form a conclusion. The conclusion would be very simple, it is an opinion of one person, it has no basis in Islam, and anyone who has frequented this board all these years should gain some kind of insight. But unfortunately some people are eternally damned with ignorance.
Whatever the media chooses to publish does not necessarily mean that is what Islam is about. Someone who is new, I can understand and be tolerant towards, but others as I have mentioned are simply bigots, probably like their forefathers, but this is 2011, and some much information is at our fingertips. The ignorance argument is not valid anymore.
On the bright side it is only 4 or 5 of you on ES, well 4 or 5 that frequently post who are perpetually ignorant or perpetual bigots.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiiled: The conclusion would be very simple, it is an opinion of one person, it has no basis in Islam.
Let's see what the Quran says about dhimmis:
Verse 29 of chapter 9 of the Quran, mandates that the Muslims fight against the Jews and Christians “until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
In explaining how the Jews and Christians must “feel themselves subdued,” Ibn Kathir quotes a saying of Muhammad:
“Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.”
He then goes on to outline the notorious Pact of Umar, an agreement made, according to Islamic tradition, between the caliph Umar, who ruled the Muslims from 634 to 644, and a Christian community.
This Pact became the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis. With remarkably little variation, throughout Islamic history whenever Islamic law was strictly enforced, this is generally how non-Muslims were treated.
These are the conditions the Christians accept in return for “safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion” – conditions that, according to Ibn Kathir, “ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.” The Christians will not:
1. Build “a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk”; 2. “Restore any place of worship that needs restoration”; 3. Use such places “for the purpose of enmity against Muslims”; 4. “Allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims”; 5. Imitate the Muslims’ “clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names”; 6. “Ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons”; 7. “Encrypt our stamps in Arabic” 8. “Sell liquor” – Christians in Iraq in the last few years ran afoul of Muslims reasserting this rule; 9. “Teach our children the Qur’an”; 10. “Publicize practices of Shirk” – that is, associating partners with Allah, such as regarding Jesus as Son of God. In other words, Christian and other non-Muslim religious practice will be private, if not downright furtive; 11. Build “crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets” – again, Christian worship must not be public, where Muslims can see it and become annoyed; 12. “Sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets”; 13. “Bury our dead next to Muslim dead”; 14. “Buy servants who were captured by Muslims”; 15. “Invite anyone to Shirk” – that is, proselytize, although the Christians also agree not to: 16. “Prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.” Thus the Christians can be the objects of proselytizing, but must not engage in it themselves; 17. “Beat any Muslim.”
Meanwhile, the Christians will:
1. Allow Muslims to rest “in our churches whether they come by day or night”; 2. “Open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby”; 3. Provide board and food for “those Muslims who come as guests” for three days; 4. “Respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them” – shades of Jim Crow; 5. “Have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist” – these are so that a Muslim recognizes a non-Muslim as such and doesn’t make the mistake of greeting him with As-salaamu aleikum, “Peace be upon you,” which is the Muslim greeting for a fellow Muslim; 6. “Be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.”
"Restrictions on building new churches or repairing old ones are among the oldest and most consistently applied provisions of dhimmi law in Islamic history."
"Modern" states such as Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia have tended to cloak this under bureaucratic "permit" rules—where permits to build or repair non-Muslim religious buildings are difficult or impossible to come by.
Hence, a lot of building or repair work is necessarily "illegal", which can be used against the institution anytime it becomes politic for the Muslim authorities.
In addition, much work is simply not done at all, which necessarily means that churches, temples, and monasteries eventually become completely uninhabitable with time, and at length fall into ruin.
Some Muslim rulers have been more of less "liberal" with these strictures, but they are rules that can be enacted in Muslim countries at any time.
Virtually every country in the Muslim world has at least some strictures on the erection and maintenance of non-Muslim places of worship.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: This ignoramus wrote:
nice Christian quality there, should we assume all Christians are of this attitude?
quote:Virtually every country in the Muslim world has at least some strictures on the erection and maintenance of non-Muslim places of worship.
as they also do on Muslim places of worship
You still have not answered my question, do you believe in hell?
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiiled: I Sheik Exiiled of ES decree on the 23rd of March 2011, that VW is an eternal idiot.
My favorite Fatwa is an Indian one that stated men can divorce their wives by sending 3 SMS texts with the words “I divorce you once”, “I divorce you twice”, “I divorce you thrice.”
Good one Sheikh Exiiled Tantawi Posts: 2591 | From: **Ex Oriente Lux** | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
03/23/2011 08:45 Two Christians gunned down by armed Muslims outside Church in Pakistan
Karachi (AsiaNews / Agencies) - Two Christians were gunned down and two others are in serious condition after young Muslims attacked them outside a church in Hyderabad on the evening of March 21. Christians living in Camp Hurr, in Hyderabad, in Sindh, were celebrating the 30th anniversary of the founding of their church and the Salvation Army when a group of young Muslims gathered outside the church, playing loud music and annoying the Christian women who entered the church.
Younis Masih, 47, Siddique Masih, 45, Jameel Masih, 22, and a youth named Waseem came out of a church to ask the Muslims to respect the people and place. An argument ensued. Shortly afterwards the Muslims returned armed with guns. Witnesses say that Muslims opened fire immediately, killing him instantly Younis Masih and Jameel Masih, and seriously injuring the other two Christians, who were transported to hospital in Karachi. Younis Masih leaves a wife and four children; Jameel only married a month ago.
The attitude of the authorities has exacerbated the Christians. Jameel's mother, Surraya Bibi, says: "The police acted as if it was not important. They didn’t file the report until late at night when we blocked the main road of Hyderabad, with the two dead bodies for several hours". So far police have not arrested any of the accused, who are still at large. They instead arrested some teenagers who are not involved in the crime.
posted
Indonesia: Mob burns two churches over lack of "permits"
Jakarta (AsiaNews) - A crowd of at least 1000 people burned down two Protestant churches last night in Sibuhuan (district of Padang Lawas, North Sumatra). The blaze was the culmination of tension between the faithful and the local Islamic community, tired of seeing " too many faithful and too many prayers " in a place not registered as a church.
According to police, neither of the two buildings had a building permit and had to be considered "places of prayer" and not "churches". In Indonesia, to build a church a special legal permit (Izin Mendirikan Bangunan, IMB) is necessary. The process to get the permit is almost always hard and the Islamic community has boycotted the emergence of new churches. This lack of legal permits has become the main source of Muslims violence against Christians. http://www.asianews.it/news-en/North-Sumatra,-two-Protestant-churches-burnt:-too-many-faithful-and-too-many-prayers-17427.html
In practice, the permit system described in the article above functions rather like a modern-day Pact of Umar, making the construction of churches- or the use of existing buildings as churches - similarly subject to the whims of local Muslim communities. These churches were not approved, and thus, not "protected" under the dhimma pact.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: Indonesia: Mob burns two churches over lack of "permits"
Jakarta (AsiaNews) - A crowd of at least 1000 people burned down two Protestant churches last night in Sibuhuan (district of Padang Lawas, North Sumatra). The blaze was the culmination of tension between the faithful and the local Islamic community, tired of seeing " too many faithful and too many prayers " in a place not registered as a church.
According to police, neither of the two buildings had a building permit and had to be considered "places of prayer" and not "churches". In Indonesia, to build a church a special legal permit (Izin Mendirikan Bangunan, IMB) is necessary. The process to get the permit is almost always hard and the Islamic community has boycotted the emergence of new churches. This lack of legal permits has become the main source of Muslims violence against Christians. http://www.asianews.it/news-en/North-Sumatra,-two-Protestant-churches-burnt:-too-many-faithful-and-too-many-prayers-17427.html
In practice, the permit system described in the article above functions rather like a modern-day Pact of Umar, making the construction of churches- or the use of existing buildings as churches - similarly subject to the whims of local Muslim communities. These churches were not approved, and thus, not "protected" under the dhimma pact.
You still have not answered my question, do you believe in hell?
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vwwvv: This ignoramus wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Exiiled: The conclusion would be very simple, it is an opinion of one person, it has no basis in Islam.
Let's see what the Quran says about dhimmis:
Verse 29 of chapter 9 of the Quran, mandates that the Muslims fight against the Jews and Christians “until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
In explaining how the Jews and Christians must “feel themselves subdued,” Ibn Kathir quotes a saying of Muhammad:
“Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.”
He then goes on to outline the notorious Pact of Umar, an agreement made, according to Islamic tradition, between the caliph Umar, who ruled the Muslims from 634 to 644, and a Christian community.
This Pact became the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis. With remarkably little variation, throughout Islamic history whenever Islamic law was strictly enforced, this is generally how non-Muslims were treated.
These are the conditions the Christians accept in return for “safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion” – conditions that, according to Ibn Kathir, “ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.” The Christians will not:
1. Build “a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk”; 2. “Restore any place of worship that needs restoration”; 3. Use such places “for the purpose of enmity against Muslims”; 4. “Allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims”; 5. Imitate the Muslims’ “clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names”; 6. “Ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons”; 7. “Encrypt our stamps in Arabic” 8. “Sell liquor” – Christians in Iraq in the last few years ran afoul of Muslims reasserting this rule; 9. “Teach our children the Qur’an”; 10. “Publicize practices of Shirk” – that is, associating partners with Allah, such as regarding Jesus as Son of God. In other words, Christian and other non-Muslim religious practice will be private, if not downright furtive; 11. Build “crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets” – again, Christian worship must not be public, where Muslims can see it and become annoyed; 12. “Sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets”; 13. “Bury our dead next to Muslim dead”; 14. “Buy servants who were captured by Muslims”; 15. “Invite anyone to Shirk” – that is, proselytize, although the Christians also agree not to: 16. “Prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.” Thus the Christians can be the objects of proselytizing, but must not engage in it themselves; 17. “Beat any Muslim.”
Meanwhile, the Christians will:
1. Allow Muslims to rest “in our churches whether they come by day or night”; 2. “Open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby”; 3. Provide board and food for “those Muslims who come as guests” for three days; 4. “Respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them” – shades of Jim Crow; 5. “Have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist” – these are so that a Muslim recognizes a non-Muslim as such and doesn’t make the mistake of greeting him with As-salaamu aleikum, “Peace be upon you,” which is the Muslim greeting for a fellow Muslim; 6. “Be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.”
"Restrictions on building new churches or repairing old ones are among the oldest and most consistently applied provisions of dhimmi law in Islamic history."
"Modern" states such as Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia have tended to cloak this under bureaucratic "permit" rules—where permits to build or repair non-Muslim religious buildings are difficult or impossible to come by.
Hence, a lot of building or repair work is necessarily "illegal", which can be used against the institution anytime it becomes politic for the Muslim authorities.
In addition, much work is simply not done at all, which necessarily means that churches, temples, and monasteries eventually become completely uninhabitable with time, and at length fall into ruin.
Some Muslim rulers have been more of less "liberal" with these strictures, but they are rules that can be enacted in Muslim countries at any time.
Virtually every country in the Muslim world has at least some strictures on the erection and maintenance of non-Muslim places of worship.
You initially began with a “Fatwa” against Christians, one that I and several others pointed out was a mere opinion, and one that was baseless.
Let me ask you – did you learn anything about fatwas? Did you comprehend that they are the opinion of 1 individual, and did you understand that the individual has to have merit in issuing a fatwa and that they must also substantiate their legal opinion? After the “Fatwa” your copy and paste march lead you onwards (or actually backwards as we're going back in time) to the Dhimmis and 634 Arabia, quoting 9:29, and did you try to understand the verse?
A sensible human being who is truly after truth would sincerely take the time to find out a number of things. Such as when and under what circumstance was the verse revealed. Was it a eternal decree (hukm) or was it relevant to that specific circumstance at the time. Also there a unique word in the verse – Jizya, what does it actually mean? Why did a Jizya exist? Were all people subjected to a Jizya, were their any benefits? Is it like Zakat that Muslims were subjected too?
After you Dhimmi/Jizya your march took you too, and this time onwards to “Modern” states such as Egypt, Indonesia and Malaysia. So clearly you are all over the place and trying to make a connection as your reasoning is more or less: Fatwa>Dhimmis>Jizya>Arabia 634>Egypt 2011
Here is your assignment:
I. Learn what a fatwa is II. Learn everything about verse 9:29 III. Learn what Jizya is in its entirety IV. Learn about the social and political structure of Arabia in 634 V. Learn about Modern day Egypt's secular laws pertaining to the building of Mosques and Churches . VI. Lastly try to explain what the relationship is between the Fatwa you posted to Arabia 634 and to modern day Egypt, an analysis would be fare.
Use various sources, and do cite them. Simply look at the matter objectively and finally offer an analysis and conclusion.
And do use your own words, as I will in replying. You mentioned that your English is not your native language and I understand. So in the spirit of dialogue use your own language and I will take the time to translate your words.
Fair is fair, I wrote this reply word for word. I know what I wrote, and I'm hoping you will absorb better the information you attain by actually making an effort to digest it rather than continuous copy and past articles from whichever sources. After all this isn't merely a news article about Elizabeth Taylor, this about people we want to better understand. Or are your intentions different? I look forward to constructive dialogue with you.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
An obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion,......
So, I don't suppose that the Muslims on this board could possibly be described as such?
Anyone searching after "truth" MUST end up at the feet of Muhammad! If not, then they are routinely ridiculed and insulted for their waywardness and (of course) bigotry!
At least the Christian bigotry doesn't usually come with personal insults, as the Muslim bigotry invariably does. (On here, anyway.)
As a beneficiary of the love of the Living God I think that I am perfectly justified in being "obstinate" in my belief. I'm tolerant to the point of not wishing to stop the adherents of other religions from practicing their mumbo jumbo, but only to the point where they start to cause fear or actual injury to folk who are not of their persuasion.
I become "intolerant" when I read all the Muslim excuses for the savagery of their fellows, or come across repression or ill treatment carried out in the name of one of these "pretend" religions.
Yes I admit it; I am a bigot! In fact, there are one or two people of my aquaintance who still know me as "the bigot" from years ago!
I did come here (ES Religion Forum) to find out the truth about Islam, I was ignorant of the real Islam. But, here I am however long later, and I'm not really any the wiser, as there are differing opinions about what Islam means and is in practice. Although almost everyone of the Muslims on here proclaim Islam as "the religion of peace", Some members of your Ummah(?) are still going around killing people simply because they don't measure up to their standards of Islamic dress, or their beard is too short, or because they are of another faith. Why won't you realise that everyone else is justifiably frightened of you because of what they see happening all over the world, supposedly, in the name of Muhammad's religion? How are they to know that the man sitting next to them in a galabeya is as ordinary as themselves?
Posts: 430 | From: luxor | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: I did come here (ES Religion Forum) to find out the truth about Islam
Do you seriously believe you can find the truth about Islam – or any other religion, for that matter – by relying on what a few people who happen to be members of the same message board are saying? No offense, but that's naïve at best and stupid at worst.
There are countless books, websites, forums etc. out there; if you want to research a subject, it is best to rely on as many sources as possible and also on as many different sources as possible. That might be confusing at first, but it's the only way to find out the "truth" about anything. Or, in this case, to understand and be able to evaluate the fact that different adherents of the same faith can have completely different – and often contradicting – opinions.
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Why shouldn't I find the truth (or at least some measure of it) on a forum about religion? Yes, I admit to being a bit naive or even stupid (I've been called worse) but why wouldn't the other contributors be truthful?
I'm not THAT interested that I would go digging up books and websites etc. I just want to know enough so that I don't unintentionally cause offence to the people whom I deal with on a daily basis. Sorry if I gave the impression that I was a serious student looking for the reason for life etc. I've already got my religion, thank you.
I also have a limited amount of time to spend on this, that's why I'm on only for short periods during the day or late into the night. There is, actually, more to life than ES, or someone elses ideas about religion.
Posts: 430 | From: luxor | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: Although almost everyone of the Muslims on here proclaim Islam as "the religion of peace"
The question must be asked: what peace are we talking about? Islamic peace. How does Islamic peace come about? Islamic peace comes after jihad and the victory of Islam. Peace is one of those words that everyone considers to be universally good, but peace is what losers (kafirs) get, while winners (Muslims) get victory. Islamic peace is all about the victory over the kafirs.
To find out what "peace" and “peacemaker” means we have to go to Mohammed. Mohammed was an Islamic peacemaker. In the last 9 years of his life, he was involved in an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks.
Every single neighbor of Mohammed experienced his peacemaking. Take the Jews of Khaybar, for instance. They were going about their lives when the army of Mohammed showed up. It took the murder, rape, theft, torture and becoming semi-slaves before the Jews experienced the peace of Mohammed. Once they submitted to Islam as dhimmis and agreed to live under Sharia law and give him half of what they earned, the jizyah (the dhimmi tax), they were left to live in peace. This is the peace of Islam.
As long as Mohammed merely preached the religion of Islam in Mecca, he was a failure. Very few people were interested in the religion of Islam. It was only in Medina where he became a warlord that Islam succeeded, and he became a peacemaker.
The natural state of Islam in relation to kafirs is jihad, not peace. If you want to discover peace in Sharia law, you must look under the general heading of jihad to find the subject of “truce”. You learn that Muslims are not to call for a truce as long as they are winning. When Islam offers peace, it means that they are losing and need to gain time to prepare for the next jihad. When you examine the hadiths about jihad in Bukhari, about 2% of them can be construed as jihad is an inner struggle. However, the other 98% of the jihad hadiths are about killing unbelievers until the rest submit to Islam.
Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi explains:
At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. ”We have sent you forth to all mankind” (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (dawa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the dawa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam. Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Quranic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Quran and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the dawa, are blamed for this state of war, for the dawa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is temporary truce (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of temporary).
Tolerance is that we share the same rules and values, and are still nevertheless different. Islam doesn’t have this idea. Islam has no tradition of tolerance. In Islam tolerance means that Christians and Jews are allowed to live under the protection of Muslims but never as citizens with the same rights. What Muslims call tolerance is nothing other than discrimination……. (I would add Islamically sanctioned exploitation, humiliation and oppression.. )
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: Why shouldn't I find the truth (or at least some measure of it) on a forum about religion? Yes, I admit to being a bit naive or even stupid (I've been called worse) but why wouldn't the other contributors be truthful?
I'm not saying that other contributors aren't truthful, just that you can't find out anything about a religion by relying on the opinions of about a handful of people.
I didn't mean to offend you, and I don't think you are stupid. But I think that in the time you spent here on ES trying to learn a bit about Islam, you would have been able to get more – and more useful – information by looking at a variety of sources elsewhere.
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: I'm not THAT interested that I would go digging up books and websites etc. I just want to know enough so that I don't unintentionally cause offence to the people whom I deal with on a daily basis.
I don't know how long you've been living in Luxor, but surely you must have Muslim friends, neighbours, business partners etc.? Why don't you ask them?
Learning the basics in order to not unintentionally offend someone doesn't require an enormous amount of time and energy, as you are suggesting here.
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: Sorry if I gave the impression that I was a serious student looking for the reason for life etc.
You didn't give that impression at all.
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: I've already got my religion, thank you.
Good for you.
In case you haven't noticed – I don't belong to those who want to convince everyone that there is only one *true faith*. I believe there are as many ways to God as there are people on this planet, and what works for one person might not work for the next; so trying to convince someone else that they should believe the same thing you do is utterly ignorant and arrogant imho. Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Maybe so. Nevertheless, I do know what being a Christian means to me. The sheer joy found in praising God is, IMHO, beyond measure or comparison, there is nothing which comes near. (No, God doesn't NEED our praises, but He does know what's good for us.) Our hymnwriters almost capture the essence of this joy when they pen lines like " Oh, what a foretaste of Glory Divine!" As Christians, we believe that we are, indeed, experienceing something of God's glory here and now, and day by day. Another hymnwriter goes further with "Changed from glory into glory, till in Heaven we see His face" alluding to the fact that we grow ever closer to God's will for us as we realise more and more the power of God's Holy Spirit in our daily lives. I don't see any evidence of this joy in other religions. So what is their point for us humans? When one is convicted (and convinced as well) as I am, how can I therefore imagine that there is another way? It's not arrogance, it's just not realisic for me to think that another way could be available, let alone better, sorry! And, if that isn't also the resulting attitude of most of the Muslims on here, I'll eat my hat!
Posts: 430 | From: luxor | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well thank you exiiled, but it's a great pity that none of your ilk (including you, it seems) are prepared to admit to their bigotry as well!
But I have learned this much from this forum, Muslims have to have the last word, even if it's a sneering one when they cannot find something pertinent to say.
Posts: 430 | From: luxor | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Learning the basics in order to not unintentionally offend someone doesn't require an enormous amount of time and energy, as you are suggesting here.
It is impossible not to offend Muslims no matter how hard you try, and that is precisely why it is important to be able to freely criticize Islam.
quote:In case you haven't noticed – I don't belong to those who want to convince everyone that there is only one *true faith*.
Personally I am not trying to convince anyone of the "truth" of Christianity. What annoys me enormously is that Muslims cannot take criticism of their religion. That they do not respect their minorities, that they bully dissenting voices into silence and ostracize them from their communities.
Not all people like like Christianity, but I accept and respect this. I have no right to mistreat a person because he happens to 'hate' my religion. If he dislikes my religion perhaps he has a good reason; As long as he respects my person, I will be the first to defend his right to freely criticize my religion, and yes even mock it.
A Muslim once wrote: "‘Freedom of expression’ violates the concept of tolerance. If what I say does more good than harm then I will certainly say it. If what I say Causes more harm than good then I will stay Quiet, and that’s TOLERANCE for me."
To quote Ali Sina's reply:
This is the most absurd statement you could ever say. What you describe could be defined as tact or political correctness but has nothing to do with tolerance. You are putting the carriage before the horse. The tolerance comes from the listener not from the one who wishes to express herself freely. If what you say is hurtful to me, it is up to me to be tolerant and let you say what you say without chopping off your head. If you have to keep silent because you fear angering me, and that may cause me to act erratically, you can choose to remain silent because a) you don’t want to lose your life and b) you don’t want me to go nuts. That is not tolerance. That is fear in the first case and tact in the second. But as long as I keep suppressing your opinions by behaving violently you will not be able to talk. It is me who is intolerant towards you. I am the one who is taking away your right to tell your side of he story. What is your side of the story is not important. Whether it is a logical argument against me or simply a satire ridiculing my tantrums is not important.
Muslims have acted like hooligans throughout the history. They have silenced anyone who has said anything against that book they call the book of miracles. How in the world anyone can learn the truth if as soon as someone tells the truth his head is demanded? Is this rational? If Quran has any truth in it, it should withstand the criticism of its opponents and if it hasn’t then why should anyone follow it?
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiiled: Jizya, what does it actually mean? Why did a Jizya exist? Were all people subjected to a Jizya, were their any benefits? Is it like Zakat that Muslims were subjected too?
Jizya from day one has been perceived as extortion money. As a return, Christians and Jews were allowed to live under the protection of Muslims but never as citizens with the same rights.
The second-class status non-Muslims must assume while paying the jizya is, in fact, directly found in Quran 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."
Lest there be any confusion, here is a typical tafsir for this verse, by Al-Zamakhshari: "the jizya shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say "Pay the Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."
I have often encountered, Muslims who claim that the jizya, was a special tax required of non-Muslim dhimmis under Islamic law, much like zizya.
This is patently absurd of course, since innumerable respected historians (including A.S. Tritton, Maxime Rodinson, and Bat Ye'or) have noted that it was money from the dhimmis, not from Muslims, that financed the early Islamic empires. Muslims paid nothing at all into the state treasury in the days when there were large populations (i.e., in Egypt and Syria) of conquered dhimmi Christians.
For non-Muslims in Muslim societies, there was not just jizya, but kharaj, the land tax. Tritton in The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects equates the two: "Hafs, another governor of Egypt, announced that all dhimmis who abandoned their religion would be free from kharaj, which is jizya" (pp. 35-6). It is important to remember the two names because while the jizya was generally set at a fixed amount by the jurists (although this was highly adjustable), the kharaj was another matter. In the Hedaya, an Islamic legal manual, in a discussion about the purchase of land by a dhimmi, it declares: "it is lawful to require twice as much of a Zimmee [dhimmi] as of a Mussulman [Muslim], whence it is that, if such an one were to come before the collector with merchandise, twice as much would be exacted of him as of a Mussulman" (Hedaya I.vi).
The rate of Zakat tax is as low as 2.5 per cent and that on the apparent property only. All kinds of concessions are given in Zakat with regard to nisah or taxable minimum. In its collection no force is applied because force vitiates its character. On the other hand, the rate of Jiziyah is very high for the non-Muslims- 48, 24, and 12 silver tankahs for the rich, the middling and the poor, whatever the currency and whichever the country. Besides, what is central to Jiziyah is the humiliation of infidel always, particularly at the time of collection. What is central in Zakat is that it is voluntary; at least it cannot be collected by force. In India Zakat ceased to be a religious tax imposed only on the Muslims. Here Zakat was levied in the shape of customs duties on merchandise and grazing fee on all milk-producing animals or those which went to pasture, and was realized both from Muslims and non-Muslims. According to the Islamic law, ‘import duties for Muslims were 5 per cent and for non-Muslims 10 per cent of the commodity’. For, Abu Hanifa, whose Sunni school of law prevailed in India, would tax the merchandise of the Zimmis as imposts at double the Zakat fixed for Muslims.
From K.S. Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Delhi, 1999, pp. 139-140.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Learning the basics in order to not unintentionally offend someone doesn't require an enormous amount of time and energy, as you are suggesting here.
It is impossible not to offend Muslims no matter how hard you try, and that is precisely why it is important to be able to freely criticize Islam.
quote:In case you haven't noticed – I don't belong to those who want to convince everyone that there is only one *true faith*.
Personally I am not trying to convince anyone of the "truth" of Christianity. What annoys me enormously is that Muslims cannot take criticism of their religion. That they do not respect their minorities, that they bully dissenting voices into silence and ostracize them from their communities.
Not all people like like Christianity, but I accept and respect this. I have no right to mistreat a person because he happens to 'hate' my religion. If he dislikes my religion perhaps he has a good reason; As long as he respects my person, I will be the first to defend his right to freely criticize my religion, and yes even mock it.
That's how you justify your Islamophobia?
One more thing. What does Pakistan Blasphemy Law that was enacted by a dictator in 1982 that violates Christian rights have to do with Islam?
Wouldn't such a conviction of a Christian be a clear contradiction of Islam? Wouldn't it have been truthful if you concluded:
These Pakistanis are clearly contradicting Islam by convicting this Christan woman. Why are they do it, it is unislamic.
Here is another assignment for you.
VII. Learn about Pakistan's Blasphemy Law and determine for yourself if the charge/conviction against this Christan woman is in accordance with Islam.
Ahh, but you won't. Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pakistan: Christians coerced into signing "peace deal" restricting church activities to avoid attack from people on "peace committee"
The situation ended non-violently, and will be spun by local Muslims as a "peaceful" resolution. Cooperation. Dialogue. Name your buzzword.
This incident is reminiscent of forced "reconciliation" meetings in Egypt where, of course, the Copts get the short end of the stick. It is another of many ways in which, if one supposes there is "no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256), the means of subtle and not-so-subtle coercion -- of finding ways to make life difficult, unpleasant, and ultimately dangerous for the subjugated non-Muslim -- are still limited only by the overlord's imagination.
March 24, 2011 Christians pressurised into signing so-called 'peace deal' with Muslim clerics in Lahore
Lahore, Mar 24 : Muslim clerics and hardliners, who tried to attack a church in Lahore's landmark Badami Bagh, have agreed to avoid doing so on a condition that the church authorities would suspend its activities, especially at the time when Muslims living in the area offer prayers.
The “peace deal” was reached through the efforts of the Badami Bagh Police Station SHO, who organised a peace committee comprising 14 people- including four Christians and ten Muslims- to settle the matter, the Daily Times reports.
However, local police sources revealed that the peace deal was signed after “posing threats and putting immense pressure on local Christians who simply succumbed to the pressure for being left alive and untouched, hence promising to follow the SHO’s and the peace committee’s directions”.
“It was quite ironic that the same people, who were members of the peace committee, also led mobs against Christians, one of them being a cleric Zubair from Madina Mosque, who called on local Muslims to unite and attack the church over accusations that the church had deliberately burnt papers containing Quranic verses, which were found on a nearby garbage heap on Tuesday morning,” they added.
[Convenient: they "were found."]
The local people alleged that a Christian in the area kept reciting verses from the Bible while passing through streets, and demanded that he should be barred from doing so in order to ‘ensure peace of mind’ to Muslim residents of the area.
[That turn of phrase, intended or not, says a great deal. It makes Muslims' faith look weak and unstable if they are so threatened and thus so determined to suppress other expressions of faith.]
Meanwhile, Christian representatives in the peace committee told the newspaper that they were very happy with the decision of the committee and local police authorities, as their on-time intervention had avoided a big chaos.
[-What would happen if they said they weren't happy?]
Christians would never want to come into a conflict with their Muslim brothers, as they believed in peace and harmony as per Christ’s saying of “putting the second cheek forward if somebody slaps you on the first,” they added.
[In citing this verse, there may be a subtle criticism of the Muslims' behavior, setting up a contrasting picture of how the religions' respective scriptures tell them to behave. For that matter, there is no "Meccan" or "Medinan" period in Christanity, no abrogation of this verse such that they could behave otherwise once politically strong enough.
The verse they quoted certainly does set the stage for a more stable, civilized society than, say, "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" (Qur'an 9:29). ]
The SHO said that he did not file any cases against the clerics as per the requests of the Christian locals and church leaders, keeping in mind the possibility that such an action could have further instigated the mobs instead of calming them.
He also said that the police was closely monitoring the situation in the area although there were no chances of any riots or violence in the area anymore.
quote:Originally posted by Exiiled: Jizya, what does it actually mean? Why did a Jizya exist? Were all people subjected to a Jizya, were their any benefits? Is it like Zakat that Muslims were subjected too?
Jizya from day one has been perceived as extortion money. As a return, Christians and Jews were allowed to live under the protection of Muslims but never as citizens with the same rights.
The second-class status non-Muslims must assume while paying the jizya is, in fact, directly found in Quran 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."
Lest there be any confusion, here is a typical tafsir for this verse, by Al-Zamakhshari: "the jizya shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say "Pay the Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."
I have often encountered, Muslims who claim that the jizya, was a special tax required of non-Muslim dhimmis under Islamic law, much like zizya.
This is patently absurd of course, since innumerable respected historians (including A.S. Tritton, Maxime Rodinson, and Bat Ye'or) have noted that it was money from the dhimmis, not from Muslims, that financed the early Islamic empires. Muslims paid nothing at all into the state treasury in the days when there were large populations (i.e., in Egypt and Syria) of conquered dhimmi Christians.
For non-Muslims in Muslim societies, there was not just jizya, but kharaj, the land tax. Tritton in The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects equates the two: "Hafs, another governor of Egypt, announced that all dhimmis who abandoned their religion would be free from kharaj, which is jizya" (pp. 35-6). It is important to remember the two names because while the jizya was generally set at a fixed amount by the jurists (although this was highly adjustable), the kharaj was another matter. In the Hedaya, an Islamic legal manual, in a discussion about the purchase of land by a dhimmi, it declares: "it is lawful to require twice as much of a Zimmee [dhimmi] as of a Mussulman [Muslim], whence it is that, if such an one were to come before the collector with merchandise, twice as much would be exacted of him as of a Mussulman" (Hedaya I.vi).
The rate of Zakat tax is as low as 2.5 per cent and that on the apparent property only. All kinds of concessions are given in Zakat with regard to nisah or taxable minimum. In its collection no force is applied because force vitiates its character. On the other hand, the rate of Jiziyah is very high for the non-Muslims- 48, 24, and 12 silver tankahs for the rich, the middling and the poor, whatever the currency and whichever the country. Besides, what is central to Jiziyah is the humiliation of infidel always, particularly at the time of collection. What is central in Zakat is that it is voluntary; at least it cannot be collected by force. In India Zakat ceased to be a religious tax imposed only on the Muslims. Here Zakat was levied in the shape of customs duties on merchandise and grazing fee on all milk-producing animals or those which went to pasture, and was realized both from Muslims and non-Muslims. According to the Islamic law, ‘import duties for Muslims were 5 per cent and for non-Muslims 10 per cent of the commodity’. For, Abu Hanifa, whose Sunni school of law prevailed in India, would tax the merchandise of the Zimmis as imposts at double the Zakat fixed for Muslims.
From K.S. Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Delhi, 1999, pp. 139-140.
I made this clear, use your own words. Use various sources, give an analysis and conclusion. Again, various sources, not merely the Jihadwatch variety, and cite them, footnotes with the link would be cool. Use your own language if you want.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiiled: What does Pakistan Blasphemy Law that was enacted by a dictator in 1982 that violates Christian rights have to do with Islam?
Why isn't there an uprising in Pakistan since the law they have created and enforced is unIslamic? I thought in Pakistan ("Pure") no law could be made that was outside or above Islam?
How come the only demonstrators we see are in support of the unIslamic law and those who object to it are slaughtered?
Could it be because the death penalty for blasphemy is universal in Islamic law, and has existed as long as Islamic law has existed? Does the whole damn country misunderstand Islam?
And what about Muhammad's examples. I suppose it has nothing to do with Muhammad too and how he dealth with his critics.
Also the spirit of the Quranic law - which is all the more problematic - is that Islam is to dominate absolutely, and that unbelievers in particular must "feel themselves subdued". It should be no surprise, then, that the blasphemy law is used in efforts to abuse and take over non-Muslim property and businesses. It is a logical extension with regard to the overarching intent of the law: to stamp out unbelief and even the slightest defiance of Islam's dominance.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiiled: What does Pakistan Blasphemy Law that was enacted by a dictator in 1982 that violates Christian rights have to do with Islam?
Why isn't there an uprising in Pakistan since the law they have created and enforced is unIslamic? I thought in Pakistan ("Pure") no law could be made that was outside or above Islam?
How come the only demonstrators we see are in support of the unIslamic law and those who object to it are slaughtered?
Could it be because the death penalty for blasphemy is universal in Islamic law, and has existed as long as Islamic law has existed?
I suppose it has nothing to do with Muhammad too and how he dealth with his critics.
Also the spirit of the Quranic law - which is all the more problematic - is that Islam is to dominate absolutely, and that unbelievers in particular must "feel themselves subdued". It should be no surprise, then, that the blasphemy law is used in efforts to abuse and take over non-Muslim property and businesses. It is a logical extension with regard to the overarching intent of the law: to stamp out unbelief and even the slightest defiance of Islam's dominance.
Let's not lose focus, ok.
What was your finding? What did you find and conclude? Was the conviction and death sentence of the Christian woman in Pakistan in accordance with Islam and did it contradict Islam?
The Issue: Christian woman convicted and sentenced to death under Pakistan blasphemy law.
Is this in accordance with Islam? Or is it a contradiction of Islam? Choose one, make an argument, cite your sources, and I will reply.
P.S Again - Let's not lose focus and let's take this step by step. This might takes days, weeks, or months. It's okay I have time. We shall have dialogue, we shall have understanding, just no cut and paste. Take your time.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I too will also do my research and supply sources, with footnotes. Our dialogue does not have to be entirely academic in structure.
Let's take this issue we are discussing. Christian woman convicted and sentenced to death under Pakistan blasphemy law. It appears that you are anxious to supply cut and paste articles of protests in support of the blasphemy law.
We however have to have legitimate and structured outline. Meaning let us address first address whether or not this conviction is in accordance with Islam or not. And then we can ask why people support it or not.
Step by step. Everything you want to state will be heard.
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this in accordance with Islam? Or is it a contradiction of Islam?
Muslims follow the examples of Muhammad. Muhammad assasinated those who criticized him, so I don't see how Blasphemy Laws are a contradiction of Islam. Laws that are inherently abusive of freedom of speech and conscience can only be misused, as there is no "right" way to implement them.
One consistent hallmark of abusive laws is how often they lend themselves to being used to settle scores, to frighten a subjugated class into continued submission, or to pile on additional punishments out of sheer contempt. Sharia is replete with such examples.
Also, thanks to Muhammad many Muslims (especially in Islamic countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) are brought up to think of non-Muslims as their enemy. They feel it is completely legit to humiliate them, abuse them, loot them and all that to them seems self-defense.
If you see a poisonous snake, you will kill it even though the snake is not attacking you. You perfectly justify this killing as self defense. Why? It is because you are convinced that the snake is your enemy and if you don't kill it, it may kill you. This is how many Muslims are brought up to think of non-Muslims. Muhammad poisoned their minds. In their mosques, madrassas, textbooks and in their media, they are constantly told that the kafirs are the enemy. They see and distrust you, the way you see and distrust a poisonous snake. In the same way that you justify killing the snake, these Muslims justify killing you.
"The Kaafir plots against the Muslims by night and betrays them in the day. Enmity towards you is vividly shown in his face and his utterances. He bites his fingertips in severe anger against the Muslims and his inner-self is full of evil plans against them..
There are many statements like these, each backed by a verse from the Quran. These hate teachings of the Quran, make those who are exposed to them distrust the non-Muslims as if they were venomous snakes, and even rejoice when jihadiis blow up infidels. Don't blame them, they are victims of their own poison.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Muslims follow the examples of Muhammad. Muhammad assasinated those who criticized him, so I don't see how Blasphemy Laws are a contradiction of Islam. Laws that are inherently abusive of freedom of speech and conscience can only be misused, as there is no "right" way to implement them." ________________________________________________________________________
The matter of Prophet Muhammad (saw) and “assassinations” is a historical one for historians. Let's keep this dialogue factual, relevant and focused. Some/many Muslims do in fact follow the daily habits (Sunnah) of Prophet Muhammad (saw), and this can include wearing their best clothing for Friday's prayer or even praying Taraweeh during the Ramadan.
Blasphemy however is governed by law, and must be in accordance with the law of the land, simply said – judges make rulings. Blasphemers are afforded a day in court, what sunnah followers believe is irrelevant. This is a serious judicial matter, and not one of emotions or following daily habits.
The case against Asia Bibi was apparently a very serious one in Pakistan. She made a derogatory remark against Prophet Muhammad (saw). She was arrested, prosecuted and convicted under Pakistani Penal Code section 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code:
295-C .Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Asia Bibi was sentenced to death. This sentence is a Pakistani issue and Pakistani ruling, it has no validity Islamically, whatsoever. The Holy Quran does not decree death nor any kind of punishment for blasphemy. Allah (SWT) did not state anywhere in the Holy Quran to kill or even punish blasphemers. On the contrary the decree is to turn and walk away from the blasphemers.
This is a specific verse that pertains to blasphemy:
028:55 YUSUFALI: And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant.
But some Muslim nations do however have the death penalty in their penal codes for the severest forms of blasphemy. These nations constitute only 5 out of 54 Muslim nations. 1
They are Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and UAE/sharjah. Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular are atop human rights violation lists. Their violations of human rights are not limited to Christians and minorities but rather their entire society.
Conclusion:
The Holy Quran does not decree any form of punishment for blasphemy. Furthermore the Penal Codes for the overwhelming number of Muslim nations do not impose capital punishment for blasphemy convictions.
There is cinema and then there is reality. The reality is that capital punishment/death sentence is not Islamic and is not practiced by the overwhelming muslim states. Claims that capital punishment for blasphemy is Islamic are fallacious, misleading and wrongfully stigmatizes 1 billion muslims.
____________
Death Penalty for Blasphemy Rare in Muslim World
1- http:// juancole.com/2011/01/death-penalty-for-blasphemy-rare-in-muslim-world . html
note: connect http in begining and . html at end make link work, ES was invalidating my reply due to html nonsense
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Exiiled: Allah (SWT) did not state anywhere in the Holy Quran to kill or even punish blasphemers. On the contrary the decree is to turn and walk away from the blasphemers.
This is a specific verse that pertains to blasphemy:
028:55 YUSUFALI: And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant. [/qb]
In a previous post you wrote: "A sensible human being who is truly after truth would sincerely take the time to find out a number of things. Such as when and under what circumstance was the verse revealed."
You should do just that, and put the verse that you quoted in its right context. The verse you quoted (out of context) was revealed in Mecca when Muhammad was weak and outnumbered. The Meccan Sunna, was later abrogated by the sword verses (9:5, 9:29), except when Muslims also find themselves outnumbered and weak.
Passages revealed later in Muhammad's career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. This is not my opinion, all four Islamic schools of thought say this. The Quran itself lays out the principle of abrogation:
2:106. "Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?"
2:106 was revealed in response to skepticism directed at Muhammad that Allah's revelations were not entirely consistent over time. Muhammad's rebuttal was that "Allah is able to do all things" - even change his mind.
quote:Originally posted by Exiiled: The case against Asia Bibi was apparently a very serious one in Pakistan. She made a derogatory remark against Prophet Muhammad (saw). She was arrested, prosecuted and convicted under Pakistani Penal Code section 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code: 295-C .Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet[/qb]
Here is Bibi's own account of how the case came about in the first place:
""What my village people have accused me of is a complete lie,"[/b] she said. "I had previously had a row over a trivial issue of water running out of my house onto the street, and a man called Tufail verbally abused me. On June 14, when I was out picking falsas [a type of berry] with about 30 women, they again asked me to convert to Islam."
Noreen said the women of the village frequently asked her to renounce Christianity while they worked in the fields, and that she refused each time. Meantime, one of the women asked her for water, she said. After she had fetched it, [b]the others told the woman not to drink water brought by an "untouchable" and "dirty woman," Noreen said. "I asked them if Christians were not human ...why the discrimination?" she said. "This annoyed them, and they started verbally abusing me." http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/pakistan/28627/
quote:The reality is that capital punishment/death sentence is not Islamic and is not practiced by the overwhelming muslim states.
That depends on the degree a state is Islamic. Although the laws of the dhimma mandating a second-class status for Christians are not fully in force in the Islamic world today, in many areas they remain as a cultural hangover, manifesting themselves in various ways to the detriment of equal rights for Christians and other non-Muslims.
Even in "modern" Indonesia Sharia rules halv the provinces.Sharia rules half of Indonesia. (So much for the notion that Indonesia represents a modern, moderate form of Islam.)
The Islamic supremacist spirit underlying Pakistan's blasphemy laws aims to establish Islam's dominance and create a climate of fear to maintain it, all the more so that non-Muslims (and those Muslim minorities regarded as such) "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29). Cases such as that of Asia Bibi, are then not so much "abuses," but a predictable outgrowth of the mentality underlying the original law.
Pakistan's blasphemy laws are a weapon - a "wild card" up the sleeve, to be played wherever the accusing Muslim feels the need to keep someone in line, or remove an obstacle or inconvenience.Such laws are clearly, fatally flawed by nature, and by those very defects, lend themselves to further abuses.
Since the law is fundamentally unjust in that it exists to deny freedom of speech and conscience, attempts to "reform" it will change nothing, there is no "right" way to apply a law that is plainly wrong. One of the strongest demonstrations of Sharia as a defective and unjust system is how its cruel and unusual provisions serve especially to exploit the vulnerable in society: those who for any number of reasons (including Sharia's own marginalization of women and non-Muslims), are not in a position to schmooze or buy (see: diyya, or blood money) their way out of trouble.
Posts: 1365 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a previous post you wrote: "A sensible human being who is truly after truth would sincerely take the time to find out a number of things. Such as when and under what circumstance was the verse revealed."
You should do just that, and put the verse that you quoted in its right context. The verse you quoted (out of context) was revealed in Mecca when Muhammad was weak and outnumbered. The Meccan Sunna, was later abrogated by the sword verses (9:5, 9:29), except when Muslims also find themselves outnumbered and weak.
Passages revealed later in Muhammad's career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. This is not my opinion, all four Islamic schools of thought say this. The Quran itself lays out the principle of abrogation:
2:106. "Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?"
2:106 was revealed in response to skepticism directed at Muhammad that Allah's revelations were not entirely consistent over time. Muhammad's rebuttal was that "Allah is able to do all things" - even change his mind. _________________________________________________________________
Alright for the sake of argument I withdraw verse 28:55. Withdrawn. But doing so does not change the conclusion I reached: The Holy Quran does not decree any form of punishment for blasphemy. Furthermore the Penal Codes for the overwhelming number of Muslim nations do not impose capital punishment for blasphemy convictions. _________________________________________________________________
Here is Bibi's own account of how the case came about in the first place:
""What my village people have accused me of is a complete lie," she said. "I had previously had a row over a trivial issue of water running out of my house onto the street, and a man called Tufail verbally abused me. On June 14, when I was out picking falsas [a type of berry] with about 30 women, they again asked me to convert to Islam."
Noreen said the women of the village frequently asked her to renounce Christianity while they worked in the fields, and that she refused each time. Meantime, one of the women asked her for water, she said. After she had fetched it, the others told the woman not to drink water brought by an "untouchable" and "dirty woman," Noreen said. "I asked them if Christians were not human ...why the discrimination?" she said. "This annoyed them, and they started verbally abusing me." http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/pakistan/28627/
Pakistani blasphemy law is unjust, and has no validity Islamically. I sympathize with Asia Bibi. I also admire the fallen Christian politician (1) and Muslim politician (2) who died in defense of Asia Bibi. I also support Pakistanis who protest publicly against the unjust blasphemy law.(3) ________________________________________________________________
That depends on the degree a state is Islamic. Although the laws of the dhimma mandating a second-class status for Christians are not fully in force in the Islamic world today, in many areas they remain as a cultural hangover, manifesting themselves in various ways to the detriment of equal rights for Christians and other non-Muslims.
Even in "modern" Indonesia Sharia rules halv the provinces.Sharia rules half of Indonesia. (So much for the notion that Indonesia represents a modern, moderate form of Islam.)
The Islamic supremacist spirit underlying Pakistan's blasphemy laws aims to establish Islam's dominance and create a climate of fear to maintain it, all the more so that non-Muslims (and those Muslim minorities regarded as such) "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29). Cases such as that of Asia Bibi, are then not so much "abuses," but a predictable outgrowth of the mentality underlying the original law.
Pakistan's blasphemy laws are a weapon - a "wild card" up the sleeve, to be played wherever the accusing Muslim feels the need to keep someone in line, or remove an obstacle or inconvenience.Such laws are clearly, fatally flawed by nature, and by those very defects, lend themselves to further abuses.
Since the law is fundamentally unjust in that it exists to deny freedom of speech and conscience, attempts to "reform" it will change nothing, there is no "right" way to apply a law that is plainly wrong. One of the strongest demonstrations of Sharia as a defective and unjust system is how its cruel and unusual provisions serve especially to exploit the vulnerable in society: those who for any number of reasons (including Sharia's own marginalization of women and non-Muslims), are not in a position to schmooze or buy (see: diyya, or blood money) their way out of trouble.
The blasphemy law in Pakistan is unjust and so are similar laws in other countries. These laws are not in accordance with Islam. They are indeed in place to control and suppress people.
Political freedom, more literacy, less wars, and less poverty are the only solutions to truly improving the lives of all their citizens, regarless of religion. It is also more than cowardly to supress minorities, and Pakistan blasphemy law has done that as 50% of the convictions are for non-Muslims.
Tremendous change needs to take place. I truly believe the combination of poverty, war, illiteracy and radical personalities are a dangerous combination. Pakistan is a great example of that, prior to 1980 Pakistan was not as radical as it is today. The neighboring Afghanistan war (against Soviet union), the ensuing Taliban control of Afghanistan and the second Afghan war played large roles in further radicalizing Pakistan.
We're talking about mentalities that broke car antennas in cars playing music and beat the drivers with the same antennas. Mentalities that prevented girls and woman from education or working outside the home. These violations similarly to the unjust blasphemy law in Pakistan have no validity in Islam.
The blasphemy law in Pakistan will one day be abolished. I strongly believe Asia Bibi will not be executed, because there's no precedent. Out of over 600+ convictions there has never been a single state execution, to date (3)
Despite the high emotions, the fact remains, capital punishment for blasphemy is only in a handful of Muslim countries, and is not in accordance with Islam. Pakistan as I pointed out has never executed one single person to date under the blasphemy law, but my understanding is that 10 people died while on trial. This is evidence of radicalization of society. This is not represenative of the 1 billion+ muslim population. The answer is not to stigmatize Islam and Muslims but rather to support change in these Muslim nations.
posted
Matt 12.31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Mark 3:28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
Lev 24:16And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
17And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: When one is convicted (and convinced as well) as I am, how can I therefore imagine that there is another way? It's not arrogance, it's just not realisic for me to think that another way could be available, let alone better, sorry!
Well, I can imagine that easily. People come from different backgrounds, make different experiences, have different personalitites and so on and so forth. So an approach that works perfectly for one person might not work at all for another. And even within one faith, there is a multitude of approaches which might be extremely different.
But if someone fails to be able to imagine that and believes there is only one exclusive way, then it does not make any sense to discuss this concept.
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dalia, I'm delighted for you! If you find it that easy, then that's fine. As for me, I was converted to Christianity in 1967, and since then I truly cannot imagine anything to beat it. The Bible (well, all the Bibles which I've read, anyway) tell us that Jesus actually said "No man comes to the Father but by me." I'm sure He said it in Aramaic or something, but I think that is what He meant. That'll do for me. Maybe He has another plan as well? All that I do know is that it is His nature to love His creation, and He shows it every day.
Posts: 430 | From: luxor | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
British archaeologists are seeking to authenticate what could be a landmark discovery in the documentation of early Christianity: a trove of 70 lead codices that appear to date from the 1st century CE, which may include key clues to the last days of Jesus' life. As UK Daily Mail reporter Fiona Macrae writes, some researchers are suggesting this could be the most significant find in Christian archeology since the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic