Washington’s New Islamic Front

[TheGuy85]

"Now you're trying to create a straw man. Christ gave no commandments to subjugate anyone. Ever. "


Matthew 10:34. New International Version (NIV). 34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Come again?

I am not going to go on with this discussion, people can form their own opinions of the material. I am glad you did quote tafsir.

The pride of the Byzantine State made it deny Muslims their right to live. The Byzantine arrogance made them even kill those agents of theirs, who embraced Islam. Killing Farwah bin ‘Amr Al-Judhami, who was their agent on Mu’an, was an evidence of their arrogance. Due to that arrogance and presumptuousness of the Byzantines, the Messenger of Allâh started to mobilize a great army in Safar in the eleventh year of Al-Hijra and made it under the command of Osamah bin Zaid bin Haritha with orders to have the horses of Muslims tread on the lands bordering Al-Balqa’ and Ad-Darum of Palestine.

The hostilities of the "People of the Book" are evident. Both the Byzantines and Jews initiated violence against Muslims, and the Muslims responded accordingly. They were given the option to pay the jizyah "IF they were under Islamic rule".

 

[TheGuy85]

Once a Muslim was slain unjustly the Muslims declared war and fought their enemies relentlessly to honor the blood (which was considered sacred) of the Muslim(s) that were murdered. Lets not forget Abyssinia at that time was ruled by a Christian King, A??ama ibn Abjar, (who according to Muslim tradition, later embraced Islam). Abyssinia granted refuge to the Muslims who were being persecuted and tortured in Mecca by the polytheists. They were on good terms despite one faction being Christian and one faction being Muslim.

 

[nuncaquite]

I don't know why the Saudis would intentionally aid a terrorist group that has attacked them in the past and even tried assassinating a Saudi prince. Could it be similar to how we are aiding terror groups unintentionally by arming rebels? This is something I cannot answer, honestly, but it would seem odd to intentionally aid a group that has been hostile towards you in the past. Not to mention why would the Saudis even lash out at the U.S., have you seen how greedy the royal family is, would they really compromise their wealth and economic interests by pissing off the U.S. Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have been on good terms for a long time, not to mention there are many Saudi students who study here in the U.S. and look at the number of American companies who are invested in the Saudi market.

Maybe out of fear of saying no? Either way, they were in on it. That's just a fact.
I like the fact that you analyze the facts that make sense. But this is exactly where you may be going wrong. You can never make sense of what Arabs/Muslims do.
They are an intelligent people, but raised and steeped in hate. Truly brought up to think that they are always the victim and therefor have the right to take vengeance.
I have lived in that part of the world and experience their incredible anger.

 

[kawilt]

Maybe out of fear of saying no? Either way, they were in on it. That's just a fact.
I like the fact that you analyze the facts that make sense. But this is exactly where you may be going wrong. You can never make sense of what Arabs/Muslims do.
They are an intelligent people, but raised and steeped in hate. Truly brought up to think that they are always the victim and therefor have the right to take vengeance.
I have lived in that part of the world and experience their incredible anger.

"You can never make sense of what Arabs/Muslims do."

I'm not taking anybody's side in any of this, It's not that simple, It's way to complicated, all this about Christian vs. Muslim, who did what to who and why. Right now we are in a mess, and have been for many years, there were an awful lot of "false flags" thrown in over the years to bring us to this state of madness.

 

[nuncaquite]

"You can never make sense of what Arabs/Muslims do."

I'm not taking anybody's side in any of this, It's not that simple, It's way to complicated, all this about Christian vs. Muslim, who did what to who and why. Right now we are in a mess, and have been for many years, there were an awful lot of "false flags" thrown in over the years to bring us to this state of madness.

Point taken........Almost never.....Im not bringing anything Christian into this particular argument. But normally, where there are Muslims there are problems.
Its the rule. Believe me, I dont like it anymore than anyone else. But that stands.
Dont make me name examples. We dont have all night. I read the Quran, so I know the reasons behind this problem. But to me, their rational is very flawed.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

You really think the jizyah was soooooo bad, well lets look at what the Christians did to the Jews and other groups of people. I think the jizyah is much more humane. This tax was paid because the male disbelievers were not aloud to fight within a Musim army (good thing due to the constant treachery they encountered), where as all able bodied Muslim men were REQUIRED to fight. The Muslims pay the Zakaat and the disbelievers pay the Jizyah, that is so terrible right, being forced to pay taxes? The Jews and Christians were aloud to celebrate their festivities and attend freely their houses of worship. Yeah 2nd class rate citizen right? .

You've tried to present the view that everything was roses for dhimmis (non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state). The reality is much different. As I mentioned earlier, dhimmis were indeed second class citizens in every sense. Being forced to pay the jizya (poll tax) was only one part of the discrimination they faced. Dhimmitude still exists today to varying degrees, depending on which Islamic state they live. For example, non-muslims citizens in Iran are under very strict terms whereas in Egypt, although not as strict, they are still not permitted an arms license, nor can they proselytize, nor can they build or repair places of worship without permission from the president himself, etc.

But don't take my word for it, feel free to check these references yourself..



The basis for life as a dhimmi was formalised under the caliphate of Umar, who when Syria was captured, drew up a pact with their leader to determine how their Christian population would exist under Islamic rule. These rules and regulations, based on the Qur'an and Hadiths, have become the norm in such societies for the last fourteen hundred years and formalised in a document known as the Pact of Umar.

Those who did not convert to Islam were forbidden from the following:
- Building and repairing places of worship or residences for monks
- Closing doors to Muslim passers-by and travellers requiring board and lodging for up to three days
- Sheltering or hiding anyone considered to be an enemy of the Muslims
- Teaching the Qur'an to non-Muslim children. (because it would be taught incorrectly)
- Displaying their religion publicly
- Converting anyone to their religion
- Preventing anyone from converting to Islam
- Sitting should a Muslim wish to sit
- Trying to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their clothing or hairstyle
- Mounting on saddles
- Bearing or carrying any kind of arms
- Engraving Arabic inscriptions on their seals
- Selling fermented drinks
- Displaying crosses or religious books in the roads or markets
- Raising voices when following the dead
- Burying their dead near the Muslims
- Taking slaves who have been allotted to Muslims
- Building houses taller than those of the Muslims
- Striking a Muslim

Agreeing to these terms, many of which are still relevant in today's Islamic societies, means that non-Muslims receive safety from the Muslims. Should there be any violations, the culprit forfeits protection as a dhimmi, and becomes liable to the penalties for contempt and sedition; in other words, death. Inability to pay the Jizya tax usually resulted in payment in the form of children, taken as slaves whose value would be deducted from the tax owed.




One must go on jihad at least once a year. One may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them or drown them. If Jews and Christians are enslaved, their marriage is revoked. One may cut down their trees and must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide.

The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle. Jews, Christians, and Majins must pay the jizya and on payment must hang their head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits him on the protuberant bone beneath his ear. Their houses may not be higher than the Muslims'. The dhimmi may not ride a horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road and must wear an identifying patch, even women. Dhimmis must hold their tongue......

Al-Ghazali (1058-1111)
(The most celebrated scholar in the history of Islamic thought)

 

[TheGuy85]

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

“If we assume that someone narrated the view of the salaf but what he narrated is far removed from what the view of the salaf actually is, then he has little knowledge of the view of the salaf, such as Abu’l-Ma’aali, Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali, Ibn al-Khateeb and the like, who did not have enough knowledge of hadeeth to qualify them as ordinary scholars of hadeeth, let alone as prominent scholars in that field. For none of these people had any knowledge of al-Bukhaari and Muslim and their ahaadeeth, apart from what they heard, which is similar to the situation of the ordinary Muslim, who cannot distinguish between a hadeeth which is regarded as saheeh and mutawaatir according to the scholars of hadeeth, and a hadeeth which is fabricated and false. Their books bear witness to that, for they contain strange things and most of these scholars of ‘ilm al-kalaam and Sufis who have drifted away from the path of the salaf admit that, either at the time of death or before death. There are many such well-known stories. This Abu Haamid al-Ghazzaali, despite his brilliance, his devotion to Allaah, his knowledge of kalaam and philosophy, his asceticism and spiritual practices and his Sufism, ended up in a state of confusion and resorted to the path of those who claim to find out things through dreams and spiritual methods. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, part 4, p. 71)

That was what was thought about your man Al-Ghazali by the salaf and you use Iran as an example? A country full of Shi?ah? You do know that the Salaf are far removed from Shi'ah and Sufis right? There is a difference a huge difference.

(George Boyden - "Pact Of Umar" . His article is actually very short, what i first noticed is that he unlike other polemics against Islam admitst that the pact of Umar was not written or issued by the second Muslims Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab, but attributes it to the eight century Umayyid Caliph Umar abd al-Aziz [ this view is also questionable ) , in other words he actually admitst that neither the prophet, nor any of the four rightly guided caliphs issued the stipulations in the pact of Umar, therefore the conditions stipulated in the pact of Umar are not an obligation for Muslim rulers to carry out ( since they were not issued by the prophet or any of the four rightly guided caliphs, which examples we should follow ) , not do they represent the true islamic view on the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Islamic State. Despite this fact George Boyden tries to discredit Islam by referring to some treaties made by the Umayyads and the Abbasids with some towns they conquered. For example he claims "Dhimmis were in a constant danger of being enslaved" , as some "proof" for his argument he argues that
"Nubia was forced to send an annual contingent of slaves to Cairo" . Now let us take a look at this treaty in full, to see what was actually going on here, prof Hilmi M. Zawati states:



Soon after they failed to annex Nubia, Muslims were successful in concluding a treaty of interdependence with the Nubians on a reciprocal basis. this treaty, which was signed in 31 A.H. , ensured security and peace between both parties. According to the norms of the treaty, Nubians shall pay an annual tribute of three hundred and sixty slaves to the chief of the Muslims. in return, the Muslims are bound by the treaty to supply the Nubians with wheat, horses and clothing [ see: Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam, Abu al-Qasim 'Abd al-Rahman, "Futuh Misr wa Akhbaruha" , Cairo: maktabat Mabduli 1991, p. 254 ]


source:

Prof. Hilmi M. Zawati, "Is Jihad a Just War ? - War, peace, And Human Rights Under Islamic and Public international Law" [ The Edwin Mellen Press 2001 ] , p. 74

Notice how according to this treaty the Muslims were bound to supply the Nubians with horses, wheat and clothing, why did George Boyden not mention this also ?? Further based on this peace treaty the Nubians were not subject to Muslim laws or jurisdiction and were not bound to pay the poll tax [ see: Abu al-Qasim Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abd al-Hakam, Futuh Misr wa Akhbaruha ( Cairo: Maktabat Madbuli 1991 ) , pp. 188-189 ] . In others words the Nubians did not became "dhimmis" , Nubia rather became part of Dar al-ahd [ house of truce ] not dar al-islam. So it's ignorance on the part of George Boyden to argue that the "dhimmis were in a constant danger of being enslaved".


Further is reported that the second Muslim Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab sanctioned blood retaliation [ qisas ] in favour of an Egyptian Coptic man against Muhammad, the son of ‘Amr Ibn al-‘As, ruler of Egypt. Umar uttered these historic words to ‘Amr: “O, ‘Amr, how could you have enslaved the people, when their mothers have born them free”. [ see: Ibn al-Jawzi, Abu al-Farai. 2001. “Sirat wa Manaqb Amir al-Mu’minin Umar Ibn al-Khattab”. Cairo: Dar al-Da’wah.al-Islamiyyah,.p.89 ] This incident occurred when the son of ‘Amr hit the Coptic man, saying: “I am the son of the honoured people”. The Copt reported this to Umar, who did not hesitate to recall Amr and his son from Ehypt, and he told the Copt to hit ‘Amr’s son back”. [ see: Ibn al-Jawzi, Abu al-Farai. 2001. “Sirat wa Manaqb Amir al-Mu’minin Umar Ibn al-Khattab”. Cairo: Dar al-Da’wah.al-Islamiyyah, p. 89 ] . In others it was not the way of the Prophet, nor of any of the Four Righty Guided Caliphs to enslave dhimmis, and Islam should be judged by the actions of these men [ and the quran and the authentic sunnah ] , and not by the actions of a few later groups Muslims who not acted according to true spirit of islam.


As for the issue of "devshirme" [ in which children were taken away from their parents by the ottomans and forced to convert to islam , in order to train them for becoming infantrymen in the ottoman army ] , to which George Boyden refers in his short article, it should be noted that this practice was "only" introduced by the Ottomans, none of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs, nor the prophet, or any caliph after them issued such practice. Further J.A.B. Palmer in his article The Origin of the Janissaries has argued that the practise of devshirme was "totally unjustified by the sacred law of Islam" but could be "justified on ground of custom and analogy" [ see: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xxxv / 2 , March 1953, pp. 448-481 ]


In regards to the issue of devshirme John Joseph Saunders states:



devshirme was rarely levied outside country districts. Strictly, the practise was contrary to Islamic Law and violated the protection given to Christians living under Muslim rule. No trace of it is found in any other Muslim state.

source:

John Joseph Saunders: "The Muslim World on the Eve of Europe's Expansion" [ Prentice-Hall 1966 ] , p.12

it is ignorance on the part of George Boyden to discredit Islam by practises [ such as the devshirme ] that were unjustified by the Holy Law of Islam [ the qur'an and the authentic sunnah ] and contradictory to the Sharia. Islam should be judged by the Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah of our beloved Prophet Muhammad [ saaws ] , and the practises of the four rightly guided Caliphs, and "not" by selecting incidents from later periods in islamic History that are absolutely contradictory to the Sharia.

Just stop, your resorting to quoting Sufis and using Shi'ahs to represent proper Islam. George Boyden though, seriously? Not to mention the Umar that is referenced was not one of the rightly guided caliphs but came after the 4 rightly guided caliphs.

You attribute a later generations transgressions to the fundamentals of the religion; that would be like me saying that Christianity and Jesus promoted burning Jews at the stake and eradicating whole religions because that is what the Church did during the Spanish Inquisition. Any rational person knows that this is not a proper reflection of Christianity but the actions of people who transgressed and manipulated religion. So the same can't happen with Islam; there can't be deviance and manipulation of religion?

 

[TheGuy85]

The Umar referenced in the "Pact of Umar" is the eighth century Umayyid Caliph Umar abd al-Aziz and not Umar Ibn al-Khattab who was one of the rightly guided caliph.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

That was what was thought about your man Al-Ghazali by the salaf and you use Iran as an example? A country full of Shi?ah? You do know that the Salaf are far removed from Shi'ah and Sufis right? There is a difference a huge difference.

You people make me laugh, you really do. You'll reject every source that doesn't reinforce the chimera you put forward by saying they misunderstand or lack the *right* kind of knowledge, no matter how credible the source may be. Al-Ghazali is HIGHLY respected and his influence on MAINSTREAM Islam is beyong dispute. Deal with it.

I might find your hypocrisy easier to stomach if you actually had the guts to stand on a street corner in Riyadh and proclaim Islam promotes the equality of infidels and Muslims. But, we both know THAT is NOT going to happen.

 

[TheGuy85]

It is funny that you say that Al-Ghazali is a "highly" respected influence yet he is denounced by the sheikhs of the salafiyyah. And these same sheikhs reside in Saudi Arabia . Muslims DO NOT view disbelievers as their equals however they are supposed to be treated humanely under the Shari'ah and treated without persecution. Your objections to Islam do not stand on solid ground. You use deviant sects who are refuted by the sheikhs of the salafiyyah minhaj, to press your distaste towards Islam, as would any other person with bias. What you failed to do was seek out where the religion started, and how it was properly passed down from scholar to student. You fail in your ability to identify deviant sects and where and when they appeared. Your opinion has conveniently stuck all Muslims under the same roof, even though they couldn't bear to stand in the same room and hold conversation with one another.

My advice to you is to stop using google and wikipedia to learn about Islam and actually pick up authentic writings of the Salafiyyah minhaj and make an attempt to become properly educated unless your own ignorance appeals to you.

 

[kawilt]

"You fail in your ability to identify deviant sects and where and when they appeared. Your opinion has conveniently stuck all Muslims under the same roof, even though they couldn't bear to stand in the same room and hold conversation with one another."

I couldn't agree with you more on this point Guy85. And you can substitute "Muslims" with Christians or Jews, and the same applies.

 

[TheGuy85]

"You fail in your ability to identify deviant sects and where and when they appeared. Your opinion has conveniently stuck all Muslims under the same roof, even though they couldn't bear to stand in the same room and hold conversation with one another."

I couldn't agree with you more on this point Guy85. And you can substitute "Muslims" with Christians or Jews, and the same applies.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[nuncaquite]

"You fail in your ability to identify deviant sects and where and when they appeared. Your opinion has conveniently stuck all Muslims under the same roof, even though they couldn't bear to stand in the same room and hold conversation with one another."

I couldn't agree with you more on this point Guy85. And you can substitute "Muslims" with Christians or Jews, and the same applies.

You guys are far more studied in Islam than I am. I commend you for your discipline.
There is one thing I am waiting on: For these peaceful followers of Mohamed to make a public stand against those who have hijacked their religion.
Make's it kinda easy to put them under the same roof, no?

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

You fail in your ability to identify deviant sects and where and when they appeared. Your opinion has conveniently stuck all Muslims under the same roof, even though they couldn't bear to stand in the same room and hold conversation with one another.

My "opinion" has stuck "Islam" under the same roof - not "Muslims," the majority of whom are as ignorant of what their faith teaches as most Christians. And my point was never to suggest all Muslims want to kill the infidel. However, my point is that the extremists are practicing what their faith dictates and not some perversion of it.

I have repeatedly offered quotations from Islamic scripture, scholars, jurisprudents and other authorities which you have rejected on the basis of "they don't know real Islam," but I'm the one that's failed to make my case?

Since you will not except any of the above, maybe this debate will help put this discussion into perspective for everybody else. You might notice Mr. Ahmed uses the same tactic you like to use, that is, saying the opponent doesn't have accurate information or the truth. [The debate on Islam and violence starts at 55:00.]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tia7HoOqlH8]"Does Islam Teach Violence?" (Robert Spencer) vs (Nadir Ahmed) - YouTube[/ame]

I couldn't agree with you more on this point Guy85. And you can substitute "Muslims" with Christians or Jews, and the same applies.

You, like TheGuy85, have completely missed the point, which was never about "Muslims" but the teachings of Islam.

To suggest "the same applies" when substituting "Christian teaching" for "Islamic teaching" would be absurd.

 

[TheGuy85]

I am glad you have sat under a sheikh or a student of knowledge and offered us the insight of the longest standing sect of Islam, the Salafiyyah. Oh wait you didn't you resorted to using a Sufi that you believe is a prominent authority in Islam. You probably don't even know what the Salafiyyah is and how it came to bear the name, I am sure you will google it for answers.

The Sheikhs have denounced the actions of extremist terrorist groups, they insulted Osama bin Laden before 9/11 for his nonsense and false teachings. This guy quotes Qur'an and Sunnah and applies whatever interpretation most conveniently supports his own opinion. He sits around reading Qur'an and books like Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih-Muslim and applies his interpretation or one that he likes the most. It is obvious you have never properly studied any particular methodology of Islam. I say look towards the teachings of the Salaf, as they are the oldest sect of Islam tracing it's routes back to Muhammad himself, yet you quote a Sufi.

"Christian teaching"? You mean the Christian teachings of today correct? I assure you they have changed dramatically. You find violence in the Bible, yet it is so hard to comprehend I don't think anyone actually understands it, they just interpret what they read whatever way makes them happy.

You think Islamic doctrine is terrible maybe you should read the Talmud . I am sure you would find a lot there that will shock you.

 

[TheGuy85]

Nadir Ahmed.....seriously, you grab this guy. You will pick anybody up to try to push your agenda. Just post some old sermons by Osama bin Laden, hell grab the guy next door and have him put something on YouTube.

Here are some real scholars Abu Hanifah, al-Awzai , ath-Thawn , al-Laith bin Sad, Malik bin Anas . Abdullah bin al-Mubarak , Sufyan bin 'Uyainah, ash-Shafi'i, Is'haq, Ahmad bin Hanbal, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Ibn Taymiyyah, adth-Dthahabi, Ibn ul-Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, Muhammad bin 'Abdil Wahhab and his many students, and 'Abd ul-'Aziz bin Baz, Muhammad Nasir ud-Din al-Albani, Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I am glad you have sat under a sheikh or a student of knowledge and offered us the insight of the longest standing sect of Islam, the Salafiyyah. Oh wait you didn't you resorted to using a Sufi that you believe is a prominent authority in Islam. You probably don't even know what the Salafiyyah is and how it came to bear the name, I am sure you will google it for answers.

No, Unlike some people in this discussion, I don't have to google it - I'm not naming any names but that kind of narrows it down. That said, I'm now certain you don't know much about this topic yourself. I mean, why else would you cut and paste your arguments from websites and present them as your own. And YOU KNOW what I'm talking about - I can post the links proving it if you'd like.

But I'm curious. Do you have any thoughts of your own on this topic or are you going to plagiarize it all?

 

[TheGuy85]

I copied and pasted things off websites, but I have actually read some volumes of Tafsir ibn Kathir, read Bulugh Al-Maram, read Riyadh-us-Saliheen, read Sahih Muslim, read the Sealed Nectar, read Aqeedah Al-Waasitiyah, I have listened to lectures by students of knowledge and have read many other Islamic books that conform with the methodology of the salaf, and I have read Islamic Verdicts given by Sheikhs of the Salaf. I own these books as well. You cannot say the same. You resort to being petty now. My knowledge of Islam far outweighs yours, maybe you should stick to the writings of David Duke, maybe you will find yourself being more educated in his area of expertise.

 

[TheGuy85]

What point is there in me typing anything, it is obvious your bias and misguidance is overly in abundance. You will not be swayed, you have a personal distaste for a group of people and now you try justifying it any way you can. You don't care for truth. Just be honest, you don't like Muslims. If you read the Talmud you probably wouldn't like Jews, it's okay, you can express yourself, no Muslims will harm you. Everybody needs a boogeyman, yesterday it was the Church today it is them there Muslims.

 

[kawilt]

My "opinion" has stuck "Islam" under the same roof - not "Muslims," the majority of whom are as ignorant of what their faith teaches as most Christians. And my point was never to suggest all Muslims want to kill the infidel. However, my point is that the extremists are practicing what their faith dictates and not some perversion of it.

I have repeatedly offered quotations from Islamic scripture, scholars, jurisprudents and other authorities which you have rejected on the basis of "they don't know real Islam," but I'm the one that's failed to make my case?

Since you will not except any of the above, maybe this debate will help put this discussion into perspective for everybody else. You might notice Mr. Ahmed uses the same tactic you like to use, that is, saying the opponent doesn't have accurate information or the truth. [The debate on Islam and violence starts at 55:00.]

"Does Islam Teach Violence?" (Robert Spencer) vs (Nadir Ahmed) - YouTube





You, like TheGuy85, have completely missed the point, which was never about "Muslims" but the teachings of Islam.

To suggest "the same applies" when substituting "Christian teaching" for "Islamic teaching" would be absurd.

I am not familiar with the teachings of Islam. I have been exposed to the beliefs of the Messianic Jews, and listened to the racist and hateful rantings of the orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jewish sects. I read (out of curiosity) the Old Testament and The New Testament and still have a difficult time in believing that they are speaking about the same God. Since this debate is about "the Teaching of Islam", then I'm not qualified to put in my two cents worth, since I've never read a thing about it. But the differences between the sects in all three religions is a problem. They all seem to be able to quote some writing of something to justify their belief.