Ask a Muslim

[silver 2039]

Do you consider Muhammad to be a conqueror? He did unite the Arabian Peninsula by force, wage war, kill people, and so on.

Now if you accept that he was a conqueror who killed people how do you reconcile it with the fact he is supposed to be a moral role model for Muslims?

Also compare this to Jesus who presumbly never killed anyone. Do you think it was acceptable for Muhammad to kill people like that?

Do you also think the spreading of Islam to Persia, India, Africa, Central Asia, North Africa, and Europe by the sword was an acceptable thing to do? Do you think the destruction of the ancient religon of Zoastarianisim was acceptable? The destruction of the Hindu temples?

Do you consider the Ottoman Empire to be a true Islamic Empire, or do you not consider it to be a true Islamic Empire because it was Turkish?

Do you think jizya was an acceptable thing to do? Also what is actually stated about non-believers in the Quaran? Where is Sharait law dervied from?

Previously you stated the you did not consider Saudi Arabia to be a truely Islamic country, why is that if it operates under Shariat law and is clearly the most religous of all the Islamic countries?

What do you think of secular or democratic Islamic nations like Turkey, Egypt, and Bangladesh? Do you think democracy is compatiable with Islamisim?

What is the actual orignal meaning of jihad?

What do you think were the epitomies of Islamic civillization? The earlier ones? The Abbassaid Caliphate, Malmukes, Andalusians, Moors etc...

Or the later one's like the Ottoman Empire, Safavid Empire, Delhi Sultanate, Bijapur, Ahmadnagar, Golkonda, Mugal Empire etc...

How do you reconcile the prospoerity and devlopment of nations like UAE, Qatar, Baharain, Kuwait, and Turkey who are generally Westernized as a pose to the comparative lack of development in nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc... and the massive problems faced by them when it comes to a young unemployed and fanatical pouplation?

Also wha do you think of all the foreginers in the Guf States including the 5,000,000 in Saudi Arabia?

 

[Elrohir]

Well, I do not take six to mean six literally, but somewhere around six. This is because of what I mentioned in my post, namely that Arabs gave "fantastic numbers" as the French historian A. Maalouf mentions. See my post above. Nonetheless, this is not a cop-out but simply a clarification. Whatever the case, Aisha (ra) was young. She was bethroated at an early age and moved into her husband's age around 3 years later. Again, the numbers, 3, 6, and 9 are likely estimates. The reason I emphacize this is that otherwise there would be chronological inconsistincies in the life of Aisha (ra), if we take it to be exactly 3, 6, and 9.

But why would they say six if they just meant very young? Why not just say "She was a very young girl, still a child, when she was betrothed to Mohammed"? Wouldn't that be more accurate? I thought the hadiths were considered completely reliable. What makes you think that they were simply "estimating" here? And do you allow the possibility that what is said is not literally, 100% accurate and can be an exaggeration to be used in interpreting other verses?

In our current time and society, I believe a nine year old is not an adult nor is mature. Therefore, I would not find it justifiable. Just like I wouldn't feel comofortable any more with a fourteen year old Caliph.

However, in the time and society of the ancient cultures, I do not judge them for something that was done by all humanity. To do so, would typify arrogance. People got married early and there were Caliphs and kings that were that age, conquering vast lands and wielding immense power. Obviously, they were considered adults at that time.

But does simply the fact that much of humanity did it excuse them from moral judgement? "Everyone did it, so we won't condemn anyone"? I don't know, if you don't have a problem judging the actions of those who lived in the past in one area - like, say, condemning the Crusades, which I imagine you do, with a quote from "Saladin" as the "Liberator of Jerusalem" in your signature - then why can you not judge the actions of those who lived in the past who did other things? Is it simply that because Mohammad was, in your view, the last and greatest prophet from God, and you don't want to condemn him?

I'm not trying to be offensive, I just don't understand how you can say that it's OK to judge the actions of mankind in one area that was common at the time (Religious war) and not in others (Early marriages).

Take care, my Christian brother.

Why exactly do you call me this?

Orthodox Jews, Christians, and Muslims slaughter their meat in the name of God. Jews call this meat Kosher. Muslims call it Zabeeha. (I don't know what happened to the Christians in this matter, although I've heard that they abandoned the Law and therefore can eat any meat.)

Actually, this is a Jewish tradition that Mohammad revived, it was never really a Christian one. We aren't supposed to eat meat we know is sacrificed to idols, but that's simply because it's a bad example and could make it look like we are worshiping those idols as well as God. There's no mainstream Christian tradition for a specific method of butchering animals and preparing meat like there is in Judaism and Islam. (Other than the fact that we aren't supposed to eat food cooked in it's own blood, and we know was sacrificed to idols, that is. Other than that, we can eat pretty much anything.)

Scripture on this:

23"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."[c]

27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake[d]— 29the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

(Sorry - I'll stop threadjacking now.)

 

[Whomp]

Considering knigh+'s comments about the Baha'i faith brings to mind what Princeton professor Bernard Lewis has said.

He states that the Muslim laity and Islamic authorities have always had great difficulty in accommodating post-Islamic monotheistic religions such as the Baha'i Faith, since on one hand the followers of such religions cannot be dismissed either as benighted heathens, like the polytheists of Asia and the animists of Africa, nor as outdated precursors, like the Jews and Christians. Moreover, their very existence presents a challenge to the Islamic doctrine of the perfection and finality of Muhammad's revelation.

Any thoughts on this commentary? Do you disregard them because it's an off shoot from Islam?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello, Brother Silver.

You asked a whole slew of questions...here goes!

Do you consider Muhammad to be a conqueror? He did unite the Arabian Peninsula by force, wage war, kill people, and so on.

Now if you accept that he was a conqueror who killed people how do you reconcile it with the fact he is supposed to be a moral role model for Muslims?

Also compare this to Jesus who presumbly never killed anyone. Do you think it was acceptable for Muhammad to kill people like that?

I do not accept the idea that Prophet Jesus (as) did not kill anyone according to Biblical scripture. In fact, the Bible says that Prophet Jesus (as) killed upwards of fifty thousand men. We read:

"And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us?" (1 Samuel 6:19-20)

Jehovah is Jesus, at least according to the Bible. Jehovah is declared to be "Almighty God" in Ex 6:3, and Jesus (as) is also declared to be "Almighty God" in Rev 1:8. Therefore, by conclusion, Jehovah is Jesus (as)--according to the Bible. When you introduce such strange ideas of Trinity and Jesus (as) being God, then at least deal with the ramifications of that.

Although Prophet Muhammad (s) definitely fought as a brave soldier and general, he (s) never butchered and massacred fifty thousand men, and definitely not for the unjustifiable reason Jehovah/Jesus did in the Bible.

Your question is basically how can Prophet Muhammad (s) be a Prophet when he killed people in battle, and then you say this is unlike Jesus (as). However, I have already shown you that Jesus (as) killed fifty thousand men. You mention how Prophet Muhammad (s) supposedly killed people (in battle) which is mentioned in the Islamic canon, but let us see how Christian prophets also killed people in the Biblical canon.

For example, Prophet Joshua (as)--one of the Judeo-Christian Prophets--is said to have massacred entire cities and towns. The things mentioned in the Bible quite frankly ammount to war crimes. The Bible blatantly says that this Christian prophet killed men, women, and children (even infants and sucklings). He burned down entire cities, razing them to the ground, all in a Holy War against the infidels.

Here is what one of the Prophets of Christianity says:

"We smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain" (Deuteronomy, Chapter 2, 34-36)


"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)

We see that the Judeo-Christian Prophet Moses (as) goes on entire killing sprees in the Bible:

"We smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves" (Deuteronomy, Chapter 3, 1-7)

If Jesus (as) is God, then why doesn't God show mercy on people?

"1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deuteronomy, Chapter 7: 1-6)

"But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die" (Deuteronomy, Chapter 13:9-11)

Here, we see that the Biblical conduct of war is to kill everything that walks, destroying everything...contrast that sharply with the purity of arms displayed by the Islamic Prophet:

"15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again." (Deuteronomy, Chapter 13:15-17)

Or how about Prophet Joshua (as) who the Bible says that he waged a Holy War against a city that he raided, killing everyone in it except a harlot and her family. This is narrated in the Bible "Joshua, Chapter 6". I will only post a part of it, but we see clearly that the Bible advocated a Prophet to massacre an entire city, a very violent Holy War. The Bible says that this Holy Prophet killed 12,000 people...Prophet Muhammad (s) never did this. Here, we read how the Christian Prophet burns an entire city to the ground, in sharp contrast to the purity of arms shown by the Islamic Prophet:

"23 And the king of Ai they took alive, and brought him to Joshua. 24 And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. 25 And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. 26 For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. 27 Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which he commanded Joshua. 28 And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day. 29 And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide: and as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should take his carcass down from the tree, and cast it at the entering of the gate of the city, and raise thereon a great heap of stones, that remaineth unto this day." (Joshua, Chapter 8:23-29)

And how many cities did Prophet Joshua (as) of the Christians actually massacre? Many. Here is another harrowing account in the Bible, in which the city of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, and many others are put to the sword.

"28 And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jericho. 29 Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah: 30 And the LORD delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto the king of Jericho. 31 And Joshua passed from Libnah, and all Israel with him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it: 32 And the LORD delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah. 33 Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left him none remaining. 34 And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him; and they encamped against it, and fought against it: 35 And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish. 36 And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they fought against it: 37 And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were therein. 38 And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it: 39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king. 40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. 41 And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. 42 And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel. 43 And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal." (Joshua, Chapter 10:28-43)

The same thing happens in multiple places in the Bible: Christian Prophets engaging in massacres, leaving no souls alive.

"The descendants of Joseph attacked the town of Bethel, and the LORD was with them. They sent spies to Bethel (formerly known as Luz), who confronted a man coming out of the city. They said to him, 'Show us a way into the city, and we will have mercy on you.' So he showed them a way in, and they killed everyone in the city except for this man and his family. ..." (Judges 1:21-25)

"You Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword, says the LORD." (Zephaniah 2:12)

And the verse continues to talk about how they will be slaughtered...

"And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us?" (1 Samuel 6:19-20)

Here is the Lord of Christianity once again commanding a massacre of an entire city, ordering all the men, women, and children to be killed...and then throwing all the dead bodies in the Temple:

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, 'Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.' So they began by killing the seventy leaders. 'Defile the Temple!' the LORD commanded. 'Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!' So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

"I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers" (Jeremiah 51:21-22)

The Holy War of the Christian Prophets is to kill little children and their women raped:

"Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children." (Isaiah 13:15-18)

------------------------------

To conclude, the Christian Prophets engaged in massacre after massacre in their Holy Wars. So why should a Christian have anything to say about the Islamic Prophet? In fact, unlike the Christian Prophets who--according to the Bible--waged unjustified wars of aggression, we find that Prophet Muhammad (s) only fought justifiable wars of self-defense. He (s) was never the aggressor, but rather he fought only as a response to aggression. This is clearly mentioned in the Quran:

When you can fight:

"Permission to fight is (only) given to those who are being attacked, because they have been wronged." - (Quran, Surah al-Hajj verse 39)

It is to protect a people who are being attacked and oppressed by wrongdoers. Allah says to defend those people of cities who cry out in help due to oppression and tyranny:

"And what is with you that you do not fight in the path of Allah and (in the path) of the oppressed of men and women and children, those who say 'Our Sustainer, take us out from this city, its people are wrongdoers, and decree for us a protector, and decree for us a helper.'" - (Quran, Surah an-Nisa verse 75)

Only fight those who drive you out of your homes, who fight you and aggress against you, as well as those who aid those who oppress you:

"Allah does not forbid that you do good and make justice for those who do not fight you in the religion or drive you out from your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who do justice. Allah only forbids your friendship with those who fight you in the religion and drive you out from your homes and back those who drive you out. And who befriends them, such are wrongdoers." - (Quran, Surah al-Mumtahana verses 8-9)

Do Not Aggress:

"Fight in the path of Allah those who fight you, but do not aggress. Surely Allah does not love the aggressors. And fight them where you come upon them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is a worse thing than fighting...Then if they cease, so Allah is All-Forgiving, Gentle. And fight them until there is no more persecution and the religion is for Allah. But if they cease, so let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." - (Quran, Surah al-Baqarat verses 190-193)

If they lean towards peace, you lean towards peace:

"And if they incline to peace, so you must incline to it. And trust in Allah, for He hears and knows all." - (Quran, Surah al-Anfal verse 61)

"Therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way (to war against them)." - (Quran, Surah an-Nisa verse 90)

Whenever possible, Prophet Muhammad (s) leaned towards peace. He (s) fought only when there was no option available, after the enemy had aggressed so much that the lives of the Muslims were no longer safe. This was the case with the Meccan pagans, who persecuted the Muslims for an entire decade before finally permission was given to defend against their persecution.

And unlike the Biblical Prophets who had no purity of arms--as mentioned in the Bible--we see that Prophet Muhammad (s) followed very strict Ethics of War: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4994143&postcount=364

Whereas the Biblical Prophets razed cities and burned things to the ground, the Prophet of Islam was forbidden even to uproot trees and harm cattle. And the killing of innocent women, children, and old men was strictly forbidden in multiple places, and there is an entire Chapter in the Prophetic Sayings about this.

Do I find a problem with saying that Prophet Muhammad (s) was a great general and admirable conquerer? No, I do not. I believe that bravery can be shown on the battlefield and I do not find this to be a negative thing. I believe passive submissiveness is cowardly, as it allows the oppressors and tyrants to kill and harm more innocent people. A brave man is one who fights against these people to protect the innocents, not someone who refuses to do so. I believe that Prophet Muhammad (s) risked his life for the safety of the Muslims, barely escaping death at the hands of the Enemies of Allah. I do not adhere to the "Turn the Cheek" phenomena; although Islam does say to forgive insults that are delivered directly towards yourself, I do not see how one can turn the cheek when the aggression is against the innocent and the weak? If someone wronged me, then I would forgive them as much as I could; but if he wronged the weak and oppressed, and if he created mischief in the land, then it would be cowardly of me to allow that and to save my own hide at the expense of the weak. Defending the weak is a part of Islam.

Do you also think the spreading of Islam to Persia, India, Africa, Central Asia, North Africa, and Europe by the sword was an acceptable thing to do?

Islam was not spread by the sword. There are no reports in history of forced mass conversions or inquisitions like that took place in Christiandom. The Non-Muslims were allowed to practise their faith freely and nobody forced them to convert. As Allah said in the Quran:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion." (Quran)

And there are many other verses in the Quran which forbid forcing people to convert at the sword.

As for the Muslim Empire expanding into Persia in the East and Byzantium in the West, I have already stated my position on this in previous posts. The Byzantine Christians had conquered and persecuted the Arabs of Syria/Palestine for hundreds of years, and the same is the case for the Iraqi Arabs who had been conquered and persecuted by Persia. These Arab lands were fought over by these two empires and their peoples oppressed, so much so that revolts took place. These revolts by the people preceded their rescue and liberation by their fellow Arabs under the banner of Islam. In fact, twelve thousand Arab Ghassanids under the rule of Byzantium defected to the Muslims, showing how their fellow Arabs were seen as liberators.

This aggression by the Byzantine Empire against the Arabs, and the subsequent rescue by the Arabs under Islam, started centuries of back-and-forth warfare between Islam and the West, including North Africa (conquered by the Christians) and Europe. I see no problem with this, and I see the Christian Crusaders as nothing but aggressors and oppressors. As for the East, Persia was fought only to free Iraq for the Arabs, and the Second Caliph even wanted to make peace with Persia after he liberated Iraq. He had no intention of invading Persia, and even stated that he wished there was a wall of fire forever separating the Arabs from Persia (due to Persian attacks and aggressions). But Persia continually remained a threat as it tried to re-conquer the Arabs of Iraq, and so battle with them was necessary and justified.

Do you think the destruction of the ancient religon of Zoastarianisim was acceptable? The destruction of the Hindu temples?

Islam and Islamic Empires have a very long history, so of course you will find isolated cases of such actions, just as you will find the same with the Christians and their history, and indeed any people. However, in general, the Muslim Empires respected the rights of Non-Muslims, who were protected as "Protected Peoples" (Dhimmis). The Second Caliph, Umar bin Khattab (ra), liberated the Arabs of Jerusalem, and he forbade the taking down of any churches. In fact, he (ra) refused to pray in a church, because he said that if he did that, he feared that Muslims of later generations might want to convert the church into a mosque. Therefore, he went outside the mosque to pray across the street, and indeed today there is a mosque there.

Generally, in the long history of the Muslims, non-Muslims were treated fairly well, at least in regards to the times, and definitely better than in the Christian Empires. In fact, Jews used to flee from Christian persecution and find haven in the Islamic lands. There were indeed many aliyahs of Jews who fled Europe for the Lands of Islam. Such was the condition of non-Muslims in the Lands of Islam.

Of course, you will always find exceptions and isolated cases of persecution. This is obvious if you take into account that Islam has been in existence for over 1400 years.

Do you consider the Ottoman Empire to be a true Islamic Empire, or do you not consider it to be a true Islamic Empire because it was Turkish?

In Islam, racism is completely forbidden. It does not matter which race of people rule, and in fact, Islam flourished under the Turks. As for the Ottoman Empire, I do believe it was a great Islamic Empire. However, the rulers were generally corrupt and far removed from Islam; nonetheless, the masses of people were good and Islam did quite well under the Ottomans, in spite of the poor leadership. See my answer below, to this:

What do you think were the epitomies of Islamic civillization? The earlier ones? The Abbassaid Caliphate, Malmukes, Andalusians, Moors etc...

Or the later one's like the Ottoman Empire, Safavid Empire, Delhi Sultanate, Bijapur, Ahmadnagar, Golkonda, Mugal Empire etc...

I believe that most of these are great Islamic Empires. However, generally the leadership of the Muslims went downhill after the First Four Rightly Guided Caliphs. There have been exceptions in history, such as Nur Al-Din and Salah Al-Din (Saladin), but generally we Muslims look at only the First Four Caliphs as the perfect example.

Most of the empires you listed above were great Islamic Empires, but from a pure doctrinal and religious standpoint, the leadership was flawed (sometimes a little and sometimes a lot). So, religious Muslims will always look back at the time of the Prophet (s) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs (i.e. first four Caliphs) with more reverence than any other great Islamic Empires.

Do you think jizya was an acceptable thing to do?

Yes, I do. The Jizya tax was a protection tax that non-Muslims paid in order for the army to protect them and maintain the army, since non-Muslims did not serve in the army. Whereas the Muslims were FORCED by LAW to fight in the army, non-Muslims were exempt and instead paid a tax to maintain the army. So Muslims were drafted and conscripted in the army, and non-Muslims paid a tax for the military. Notice: the Jizya was only collected from able-bodied non-Muslim men.

The Muslims also had religious taxes, including the Zakat, Khums, and an additional tax for the Baitul Mal. These taxes were greater than the Jizya tax paid by non-Muslims! So what is the complaint?

Please see this post on Jizya:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5014522&postcount=277

I also have a recent post (scroll up) about how the Christians also took a religious tax from the Muslims, and it was generally more severe and harsh than the one Muslims extracted from Christians.

Also what is actually stated about non-believers in the Quaran?

That is too vague a question, since a very large bulk of the Quran is aimed towards the disbelievers. Allah cautions them, threatens them, promises them rewards if they believe, promises them punishment if they continue to disbelieve, urges them, encourages them, etc.

Where is Sharait law dervied from?

There are four sources of the Shariah. The first two are the basis of the latter two. The first two are the Islamic canon, which comprises of the Quran and the Prophetic Sayings. Indeed, our entire faith is based upon the Quran and Prophetic Sayings, nothing else.

-------------------------------------

More to come, Allah Willing.

 

[Sidhe]

Interesting as ever, one point though is that there is a limit of 1000 posts on every thread, when this happens be sure to start up a Ask a muslim thread: just rename ask a muslim 2: the return of the Ansar or something, and of course get permission first.

 

[aneeshm]

I have another question:

How do you deal with the fact that Mohammed basically murdered anyone who criticised him, as soon as he got the chance? He had a number of poets murdered, whose only crime was opposing Mohammed by means of words.

Is this tradition (of killing critics of Mohammed or Islam) to be followed under Shariah?

 

[Elrohir]

Salah-Al-Din, you say that Mohammad never slaughtered anyone who didn't deserve it, right? Then what about his treatment of the Banu Qurayza in Medina, after the Battle of the Trench? They surrendered to him - and he beheaded all the men, 600-700 of them, and then sold the women and children into slavery. (I believe he took the Qurayza's leaders wife as his own, and since she wasn't likely to want to live with the man who killed her husband, I'd consider it likely that he raped her.) All this for supposedly talking with the Meccans during the Battle of the Trench, but never actually helping them - quite the contrary, they gave Mohammad tools to assist him. The other two tribes of Jews in Medina were simply exiled, and I believe they tried to poison Mohammad. So, was this justice?

As for the things that happened when Canaan was taken, there are a couple of answers to that. First of all, even if we accept that hypothetically, that those actions were wrong - would that justify other wrong actions by an unrelated man two thousand years later? Secondly, the people who lived here were a far cry from the peaceful Jews and Christians - fellow monotheists, by the way, whom you call "brothers" and "sisters" - Mohammad fought and killed, these are child-sacrificing polytheists. Thirdly, those who repented (Rahab) were not killed - if everyone else was killed, it was because they were evil and refused to repent.

I'm afraid I don't understand why you're bringing up the conquest of Canaan in a discussion about the character and acts of Mohammad, as well. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

EDIT: Taking off from Aneeshm's post, what about Mohammad's killing of Asma bint Marwan, a female poet whose only crime was satirizing him in her poetry? She wrote a poem criticizing him, and one of Mohammad's men cut her up while she slept with her children

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Considering knigh+'s comments about the Baha'i faith brings to mind what Princeton professor Bernard Lewis has said.

He states that the Muslim laity and Islamic authorities have always had great difficulty in accommodating post-Islamic monotheistic religions such as the Baha'i Faith, since on one hand the followers of such religions cannot be dismissed either as benighted heathens, like the polytheists of Asia and the animists of Africa, nor as outdated precursors, like the Jews and Christians. Moreover, their very existence presents a challenge to the Islamic doctrine of the perfection and finality of Muhammad's revelation.

Any thoughts on this commentary? Do you disregard them because it's an off shoot from Islam?

I will simply state the view and feeling of most Muslims on the Bahai faith. I understand that such a critical view of another faith may not be justified or appropriate, but I think the topic you referred to was the general Muslim laity and scholarship.

Yes, you are right to say that the Bahai faith "annoys" Muslims due to the fact that we like to claim that we are the last of the Abrahamic faiths and monothiestic religions. I will grant you that. We believe that Islam superceded Judaism and Christianity. And we also believe that Islam is the universal religion, and we believe that all nations and peoples were sent Prophets and Messengers. Many Muslims even postulated that Bhudda and other such people were really prophets of Allah. The Bahai simply took this concept and really used it to spread their faith (i.e. the universal religion). And then the Bahai used our game against our ownselves, claiming that the Bahai faith superceded Islam. Yes, Muslims were annoyed at that!

And yes, Muslims are generally super annoyed because the Bahai faith is an offshoot of Islam. It started out as a deviant sect, and slowly distanced itself from Islam until finally it declared itself independant of Islam. As such, orthodox Sunni Muslims classify it along with so many other deviant sects and cults that originated from Islam. You will find that Muslims are more critical of "deviant" sects of Islam than of other religions. For example, the "annoyance" of Sunni Muslim scholarship towards the Shia is greater than the annoyance shown towards say Jews and Christians.

Indeed, most Muslims think of the Bahai faith as nothing but a cult. It only has around three million followers in the world, grand total. Three million is thought of as insignificant to the Muslim population as a whole. It cannot be classified as a major religion.

I'm just saying what commonly Muslims think of the Bahai faith, since this is what you asked. I understand it might be offensive, but I am just giving the honest answer and the real view of Muslims on the topic. The Bahai faith is disregarded amongst the ranks of the Muslims as a deviant sect gone wild, an offshoot, and a cult, nothing more.

Justified or not, the Islamic scholarship has a more critical view of "deviant" sects more than it does against other faiths.

Admittedly, Muslims should change this attitude and be softer towards the Bahai and other such groups. A lot of the criticisms against the Bahais, after all, could be used by Christians against Muslims. In the end, I believe that Islam teaches us tolerance towards all groups, and I think within time, the Muslim community will be able to adjust to the Bahai faith in a better and more productive way.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why exactly do you call me this?

My guess? It is due to you being a) Christians, and b) a member of the brotherhood of man so to speak.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hold your horses, people.

I'm in the process of replying to posts, Allah Willing.

 

[da_Vinci]

I do not accept the idea that Prophet Jesus (as) did not kill anyone according to Biblical scripture. In fact, the Bible says that Prophet Jesus (as) killed upwards of fifty thousand men. We read:

"And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us?" (1 Samuel 6:19-20)

Jehovah is Jesus, at least according to the Bible. Jehovah is declared to be "Almighty God" in Ex 6:3, and Jesus (as) is also declared to be "Almighty God" in Rev 1:8. Therefore, by conclusion, Jehovah is Jesus (as)--according to the Bible. When you introduce such strange ideas of Trinity and Jesus (as) being God, then at least deal with the ramifications of that.

Although Prophet Muhammad (s) definitely fought as a brave soldier and general, he (s) never butchered and massacred fifty thousand men, and definitely not for the unjustifiable reason Jehovah/Jesus did in the Bible.

This post is outrunning my ability to keep up with all of it, but the attribution of all of the killings mentioned in the Old Testament to Jesus requires some rebuttal.

The first point I would make is that in my opinion, The Old Testament should be viewed as a mixture of Jewish creation mythology (all peoples need a creation mythology: in the west we now have the big bang and evolution, neither of which are incompatible with a Deity by the way), history of the Jewish people, and religious instruction. In that view, I don't think one can necessarily attribute all of the massacres committed by Jewish men to Jehovah ... I would hope that God is less bloodthirsty. Men writing may well have invoked Jehovah to justify their actions, but that is no guarantee that he approved. And so if this is in doubt, then the deaths should not be attributed to Jesus.

Second, in many ways, Jesus replaced the old laws of the Old Testament with new and more peacful expectations. And eye for an eye was replaced with turn the other cheek, and in the New Testament, the teaching is to love your enemies. So it does not make sense to say that Jesus was a killer based on the killings noted in the Old Testament. While the Old Testament may be considered an historical foundation for Christianity, in my opinion it is not itself Christianity (some will call this heresy). Sometimes a rigid following of the Old Testament ideas by Christians, to the exclusion of the replacments given in the New Testament, causes much harm.

Of course, Christians have not followed the New Testament ideals since becoming a dominant human organization, and so we have Constantine, Joan of Arc, and the centuries of war and opression justified by Christians as being in the name of God. I suspect Jesus cried over all of that.

Western Christianity has by and large evolved beyond warring and killing for God. We do it for other reasons (resources, national security, liberation, opposing tyrrany, or other causes) and we use just war philosophies to reconcile it to our notion of a peaceful God. God may or may not agree that it is just.

I hope that most of Islam has also evolved beyond warring and killing for God. But there appears to be a well armed and well funded subset who have not, and either believe in killing for God, or believe in using God as an excuse for killing for political or economic ends.

The question is, are those in Islam who believe in killing for God correctly following Islam, or are they astray? If they are astray, then Islam needs to reign them in and stop them. The fact that Christians have been equally astray in their history does not excuse the current behavior of jihadists.

And if they are not astray, if the jihadists represent something that is at the core a correct part of Islam, then we are in for the mother of all religious wars, because while individuals might turn the other cheek, larger human organizations (religions, nations) do not.

dV

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I have another question:

How do you deal with the fact that Mohammed basically murdered anyone who criticised him, as soon as he got the chance? He had a number of poets murdered, whose only crime was opposing Mohammed by means of words.

Is this tradition (of killing critics of Mohammed or Islam) to be followed under Shariah?

EDIT: Taking off from Aneeshm's post, what about Mohammad's killing of Asma bint Marwan, a female poet whose only crime was satirizing him in her poetry? She wrote a poem criticizing him, and one of Mohammad's men cut her up while she slept with her children

The idea that Prophet Muhammad (s) killed poets and poetresses like Asma bint Marwan has no truth to it. These are based on forgeries and lies. They find no basis in the Islamic canon, nor in any of the authentic narrations. They are, quite simply, fabrications, furthered by anti-Islam haters. They have no basis in any reliable historical source either.

The story of Asma bint Marwan was fabricated by Ibn Al-Hajjaj who was called a liar and a fabricator against the Prophet (s). In reference to this fanciful story about Asma bint Marwan, we see:

"They all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it." [Ibn 'Adiyy, Al-Kamel, Volume 6, page 145]

There were *many* lies, forgeries, and slander against the Prophet (s). These cannot be a basis for history. These same people accused the Prophet (s) of insanity, they accused his wife of adultery, and so many other lies. Yes, if you accept these lies by Islamaphobes, then of course Prophet Muhammad (s) was an evil person.

--------------------

In fact, in one of the Prophetic Sayings, a man insulted the First Caliph and the First Caliph then insulted him back. To this, the Prophet (s) criticized the First Caliph for this, and warned against taking revenge like so. We read:

While the Apostle of Allah was sitting with some of his companions, a man reviled Abu Bakr and insulted him. But Abu Bakr remained silent. He insulted him twice, but Abu Bakr controlled himself. He insulted him thrice and Abu Bakr took revenge on him. Then the Apostle of Allah got up when Abu Bakr took revenge.

Abu Bakr said: "Were you angry with me, Apostle of Allah?"

The Apostle of Allah replied: "An angel came down from Heaven and he was rejecting what he had said to you. When you took revenge, a devil came down. I was not going to sit when the devil came down." (Sunan Abu-Dawud, General Behavior [Kitab Al-Adab], Book 41, Number 4878)"

And there are so many more Prophetic Sayings to this effect. In one instance, an old woman dumped garbage on him every day as he passed below her window, and the Prophet (s) never even insulted her back. In fact, he (s) addressed her with kindness and softness. One day, she didn't dump the garbage, so the Prophet (s) was worried for her and scared she might have fallen sick. He visited her to make sure she was OK. And there are many other stories like this, such as the time in which the Prophet (s) was given poision to eat, and yet he forgave the person who did that. And another time a man threatened to kill the Prophet (s), and later when the Prophet's Companions came to his aid, the Prophet (s) forbade them from punishing that man, as a sign of mercy.

---------------------

More to come, Allah Willing.

 

[Rossiya]

More to come, Allah Willing.

Why do you rub our noses in your cult all the time at the end of all your posts?

Answer to come, Giuseppe Rossi willing.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

It will take some time to respond to all of your posts, so give me some time, Allah Willing. I've already responded to the accusation of Banu Qurayza, but I'll re-answer it shortly, but first....let's deal with the following posts:

As for the things that happened when Canaan was taken, there are a couple of answers to that. First of all, even if we accept that hypothetically, that those actions were wrong - would that justify other wrong actions by an unrelated man two thousand years later?

Your question was: how could the Islamic Prophet be a Prophet because he killed people in battle? You are a Christian, and therefore I responded by saying how could those Biblical Prophets be Prophets of God if they also killed people--and in a much more brutal way in fact.

And no, two wrongs do not make a right. However, whereas the wars waged by Prophets in the Bible were wrong and unjustified massacres, the wars fought by Prophet Muhammad (s) were justified wars of self-defense against oppressors and tyrants. There is a huge difference. The Quran says to only fight those who agress against you, whereas the Bible shows how Prophets of God devestated entire cities for no justifiable reason, other than of course "God gave the land to the Israelites."

How in the world can you *not* see the relevance of the quotes from the Bible in our discussion? The premise of our debate/dialogue is that you said that a Prophet of God could not wage war, and I showed you that your own Prophets did that, so what's the big fuss about?

Secondly, the people who lived here were a far cry from the peaceful Jews and Christians - fellow monotheists, by the way, whom you call "brothers" and "sisters" - Mohammad fought and killed, these are child-sacrificing polytheists. Thirdly, those who repented (Rahab) were not killed - if everyone else was killed, it was because they were evil and refused to repent.

First of all, Prophet Muhammad (s) fought primarily pagans, and definitely did not fight "peaceful" Jews and Christians. In fact, he protected the lives of minorities that abided by the Covenant of Medinah, including Jews.

In any case, I don't see how it is morally better to kill pagans as opposed to Jews and Christians? They are both equally wrong actions. The people of Canaan did nothing to deserve being destroyed, other than of course they were of a different faith--polytheists as you yourself said. Do you really think it is OK to kill them just because they are polytheists?

I'm afraid I don't understand why you're bringing up the conquest of Canaan in a discussion about the character and acts of Mohammad, as well. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

I do not see how you can *not* see the relevance, especially when we take into account the way you posed your initial question, when you compared the Christian Prophet to the Islamic Prophet. I refuted your post by showing you that your own Christian Prophets engaged in wars, and unlike Prophet Muhammad (s), they were unjustified wars of aggression. If, therefore, your Prophets are allowed to wage wars of aggression, then what is the big deal with the Islamic Prophet waging wars of defense against aggressors and oppressors?

The first point I would make is that in my opinion, The Old Testament should be viewed as a mixture of Jewish creation mythology (all peoples need a creation mythology: in the west we now have the big bang and evolution, neither of which are incompatible with a Deity by the way), history of the Jewish people, and religious instruction. In that view, I don't think one can necessarily attribute all of the massacres committed by Jewish men to Jehovah ... I would hope that God is less bloodthirsty. Men writing may well have invoked Jehovah to justify their actions, but that is no guarantee that he approved. And so if this is in doubt, then the deaths should not be attributed to Jesus.

Is the Bible your religious book or not? If so, then deal with it. The Old Testament is part and parcel of your religious canon. It is the inspired word of God, according to you. The same God who inspired the New Testament.

That your God and your past Prophets would do such things is something you must deal with. Fine, you might say that now the Old Testament Laws no longer apply, but this doesn't deal with the fact that your past Prophets did such and such thing, and that your God advocated such things. How can these things *not* be attributed to Jehovah and your Prophets when the Old Testament itself says so? Read:

"...he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter." (1 Samuel 6:19-20)

You cannot tap-dance around this. Your own book claims that Jehovah/Jesus did that. And there are so many other quotes about Prophet Joshua and others.

The only way out for you is to claim that the Old Testament is a lie and wrong, and this would be just like a Muslim claiming the Quran is a lie or wrong. It would be capitulating the entire argument altogether by declaring one's faith a complete lie. Either stand by what the Bible says, or deny your faith altogether. One or the other.

Second, in many ways, Jesus replaced the old laws of the Old Testament with new and more peacful expectations. And eye for an eye was replaced with turn the other cheek, and in the New Testament, the teaching is to love your enemies.

That's fine. But you have to admit then that your Judeo-Christian Prophets were commissioned by God to do atrocious things and were only stopped later when the New Testament came about. This would be like a Muslim saying that Prophet Muhammad (s) was allowed to kill mercilessly, but later that law was changed and so what's the big deal. Obviously, you cannot just wipe the past clear like that. If the Judeo-Christian prophets did things, then this is a part of your religious tradition, regardless of wether or not later these laws were abrogated.

So it does not make sense to say that Jesus was a killer based on the killings noted in the Old Testament.

Is the Jehovah mentioned in the Old Testament a different Jehovah than in the New Testament?

While the Old Testament may be considered an historical foundation for Christianity, in my opinion it is not itself Christianity (some will call this heresy). Sometimes a rigid following of the Old Testament ideas by Christians, to the exclusion of the replacments given in the New Testament, causes much harm.

Your Christian leaders would definitely call this a heresy. You cannot just abandon your canon because it makes debating over the internet easier. The likeness of this are the Muslims who abandon the Quran...those Muslims or Christian who do that are just admitting that their religion is a pack of lies, nothing else. I've always advised fellow Muslims not to do that, and I'm sure your fellow co-religionists would say the same to you.

Of course, Christians have not followed the New Testament ideals since becoming a dominant human organization, and so we have Constantine, Joan of Arc, and the centuries of war and opression justified by Christians as being in the name of God. I suspect Jesus cried over all of that.

Western Christianity has by and large evolved beyond warring and killing for God. We do it for other reasons (resources, national security, liberation, opposing tyrrany, or other causes) and we use just war philosophies to reconcile it to our notion of a peaceful God. God may or may not agree that it is just.

I applaud the Christians who advocate peace. This is a very good thing.

I hope that most of Islam has also evolved beyond warring and killing for God. But there appears to be a well armed and well funded subset who have not, and either believe in killing for God, or believe in using God as an excuse for killing for political or economic ends.

The question is, are those in Islam who believe in killing for God correctly following Islam, or are they astray? If they are astray, then Islam needs to reign them in and stop them. The fact that Christians have been equally astray in their history does not excuse the current behavior of jihadists.

And if they are not astray, if the jihadists represent something that is at the core a correct part of Islam, then we are in for the mother of all religious wars, because while individuals might turn the other cheek, larger human organizations (religions, nations) do not.

Islam advocates peace. Terrorism is Haram (forbidden). The terrorists comprise a very small minority of a minority, and are part of a deviant sect called the Khawaarij. The rest of the Muslims abhor them.

I believe that this coin can be flipped, and we can see that there are many Zionists and neo-conservative Christians who war-monger, killing hundreds of thousands of people, by starting illegal wars, and using laser guided bombs and other such things to carry out state terrorism. George Bush and his cronies are all Bible thumping Christians, and they are war-mongerers just as guilty as any deviant Khawaarij.

I agree with you that the deviant Khawaarij amongst the Muslims must be stopped, but you on your end should condemn and stop the war-mongering Zionists and neo-conservative Christians who are nothing but war-mongerers and oppressors. In fact, if you bring an end to them, the Khawaarij themselves will die out, due to lack of support. These two groups feed each other.

Of course, Muslim lives are not as important as Christians ones. A couple thousand people who died in 9/11 are more important than the thousands upon thousands of Muslims killed by the US-backed Israel and the USA itself, under the auspices of such Christian leaders as Bush.

At least this is the feeling you give Muslims when you refuse to acknowledge the state terrorism carried out against them, but continually lament the terrorism carried out by Khawaarij.

I believe that both communities--Christians and Muslims--should work together to remove their own extremists, including the Khawaarij on the side of the Muslims, and the Zionists and "Crusaders" in the Judeo-Christian camps. For example, the Muslims have been in close cooperation with "Jews Against Zionism" and other peace movements in the camp of the Jews and Christians. We need to work on building bridges of understanding between Jews, Christians, and Muslims, because this senseless war of hatred benefits nobody but the extremists on each side. I believe that there are good people amongst the Jews, Christians, and Muslims who can work together to achieve this.

Take care, Brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Why do you rub our noses in your cult all the time at the end of all your posts?

Answer to come, Giuseppe Rossi willing.

Hello, Sister Rossiya.

Peace be unto you.

(By the way, one in five people on this earth is a Muslim...far from a cult. )

Take care.

 

[Rossiya]

Hello, Sister Rossiya.

Peace be unto you.

(By the way, one in five people on this earth is a Muslim...far from a cult. )

Take care.

Why do you not answer the question I asked?

Next time, answer the question I have asked now, and the question I asked before please.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Which question? The one where you got mad because he uses a standard farewell, which you seem to interpret as an effort to offend you personally?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Salah-Al-Din, you say that Mohammad never slaughtered anyone who didn't deserve it, right? Then what about his treatment of the Banu Qurayza in Medina, after the Battle of the Trench? They surrendered to him - and he beheaded all the men, 600-700 of them, and then sold the women and children into slavery. (I believe he took the Qurayza's leaders wife as his own, and since she wasn't likely to want to live with the man who killed her husband, I'd consider it likely that he raped her.) All this for supposedly talking with the Meccans during the Battle of the Trench, but never actually helping them - quite the contrary, they gave Mohammad tools to assist him. The other two tribes of Jews in Medina were simply exiled, and I believe they tried to poison Mohammad. So, was this justice?

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

I already wrote a detailed post on Banu Qurayza, so please scroll up for that. However, I shall re-iterate some of the points here, Allah Willing.

You have made a number of claims. Let us analyze them:

Your first claim is that the people of Banu Qurayza did nothing against the law. However, this is untrue. They committed high treason which is punishable by death even in the United States.

When Prophet Muhammad (s) was elected the leader of the State of Medinah, all of the Muslims and the Jewish tribes pledged allegiance (Baya'ah) to him. The people of Banu Qurazya--like the others--signed a covenant with the Muslims, a mutual protection pact that was binding on both sides. If one or the other was attacked, the other was honor-bound by law to come to the communal defense of Medinah.

When the Quraish pagans (known as the Confederates) attacked Medinah, all sides were honor-bound by the pact to come to the defense. But instead of doing this, the people of Banu Qurayza betrayed the Muslims and failed to take up arms against the invaders. Instead, they committed high treason and betrayed the State of Medinah by defecting to the side of the Confederates. The Confederates had sent their spy, Huyay bin Akhtab An-Nadari, into the town of Banu Qurayza, and he convinced their leader, Kaab bin Asad, to renounce the covenant of mutual protection with the Muslims and to defect against the Muslims.

This defection and high treason by the Banu Qurayza caused many deaths amongst the Muslims, because the Confederates were emboldened by the news of the defection, the Muslim morale was shot (as now they had the fear of a threat from the inside), the Confederates were able to concentrate their forces more heavily on the Muslims without worrying about the Banu Qurayza, and the Muslims had to deal with a possible pincer movement and two fronts. Had the Banu Qurayza upheld the treaty and covenant, then the Muslims would have lost fewer lives and the enemy would have been defeated *much* sooner.

Therefore, the Banu Qurayza are the ones who brought the war on themselves, and so the Muslims laid seige to the town. You have made the misleading claim that the Banu Qurayza simply surrendered. This is not true at all. The town was laid seige to for twenty-five days, in which the Banu Qurayza fought back. Instead of begging for forgiveness for their treason, they committed more treason by openly fighting the Muslims.

Finally, the Muslims conquered the Banu Qurayza, and they were taken as prisoners to be punished for high treason. Now here is the *key point* to remember: Prophet Muhammad (s) was *not* the one who passed the sentence on them. The Banu Qurayza refused to be judged by the Prophet (s) and instead begged to be judged by Saad bin Muadh, who was the leader of the Aws tribe (former allies of the Banu Qurayza). It was Saad bin Muadh who passed the judgment on the Banu Qurayza, and *not* the Prophet (s), who as we have seen in many other instances, usually set prisoners free. In fact, the Prophet (s) was so lenient in this regards that he (s) was once rebuked by Allah for letting war criminals go.

Saad bin Muadh asked the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza wether they wanted their judgment and penalty to be from the Islamic Law or from the Judaic Law. They chose the latter. Had they chosen the former, the merciful law of Islam would have been enacted. Instead, they chose the Judaic Law, and the punishment in Judaic Law is killing the men, and selling the women and children into slavery. This is based on the following verse in the Old Testament (as well as others):

"Thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword (even the unarmed ones): But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee." (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

And so Saad bin Muadh (not Prophet Muhammad) passed this judgement down upon them. It was the Jewish Law, not the Islamic Law.

EDIT: This city in the Old Testament was put to the sword and its women/children sold into slavery due to "treason against God" and for refusing to surrender to the soldiers of God. In the famous Ingersoll-Black Debate (Part II), Mr. Black (a Christian) defends the city massacres in the Old Testament by saying: "Blasphemy was a breach of political allegiance," and "idolatry was an act of overt treason," and that "to worship the gods of the hostile heathen was deserting to the public enemy, and giving him aid and comfort."

Jews and Christians have always defended these city raids in the Old Testament by claiming that it was treason they were guilty of (i.e. treason against God) and they refused to surrender to the soldiers of God at the doors of the city.

It was ruled therefore, based on Judaic Law, that Banu Qurayza was guilty of high treason and also of holding out to the Soldiers of Allah for twenty-five days.

Banu Qurayza was asked wether or not they wanted to follow Islamic Law or Judaic Law (the rule of their own people), and they chose the latter. So Saad bin Muadh therefore ruled by that law, and the punishment of a city that was guilty of high treason in Judaic Law is what was done to them. It is of course ironic that Christians will criticize the incident of Banu Qurayza, and that is in fact the only instance that they can nit-pick because all other instances were ruled by Islamic Law which is more merciful. So the only ONE instance that they continually bring up is Banu Qurayza, but that was the ONE time that the rule was by the Bible (i.e. OT), not the Quran.

This irony should not be lost on the Christian reader. The Christian propagandists have looked through all the books of the Muslims and they only are able to find this ONE instance to bring up, and they continually doing so, compeletely oblivious to the fact that this was the ONE time in which Biblical Law was used, not the Quran. It was Biblical Law applied by an arbiter that Banu Qurayza themselves chose (Saad bin Muadh), NOT Prophet Muhammad (s).

The men were killed and this was justified because they had committed high treason, and the punishment for that in many countries is death. Only the guilty were put to the sword, and these were the ones in the tent and also the ones who were put on one side. Saad bin Muadh said: "My judgement will be carried out...and it will be carried out on those who are in this tent...and on those who are on this side." All who were outside the tent and on the other side were spared.

It should be noted that in actuality all able-bodied men of Banu Qurayza were guilty of high treason and violating the pact with the Muslims. The pact was binding on *all* able-bodied men, and when the Confederates attacked Medinah, the able-bodied men from Banu Qurayza should have joined the Muslims instead of staying with their leaders who betrayed the Muslims. It was their choice to do that, and each and every one of them violated the pact that was binding on all of them. Military service was binding and these were all refuseniks and defectors. Nothing prevented any of them from joining the Muslims against the Confederates, both during the battle and after when the Muslims laid seige on the town for twenty-five days.

As for the taking of the women and children as slaves, this was the judgement of Judaic Law that they were judged by on their own request. It was a binding agreement by law and an oath taken that the judgement would be based on Jewish Law. Prophet Muhammad (s) could *not* break his oath and revoke the judgement because it would be a violation of the law to do so. Nonetheless, even though the women and children were taken as captives, the Prophet (s) advised them to be treated nicely and kindly, to treat them as family and to call them by the name of brother and sister and son and daughter. He (s) advised Muslims to free them and adopt them as their own family members. It should be noted that the women and children had nobody to take care of them or provide for them since the men were put to death. Therefore, taking them as family members (albeit as captives) was not necessarily a bad thing.

Prophet Muhammad (s) said: "Not one of you (Muslims) should [when introducing someone] say: 'This is my slave'...he should call them 'my daughter' or 'my son' or 'my brother.'"

Prophet Muhammad (s) said: "Your slaves are your brothers (and sisters) upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if a person has his own brothers (and sisters) under his command, he should feed them with the like of what he (himself) eats and clothe them with the like of what he (himself) wears."

And he (s) said: "Your slaves are your brothers (and sisters), so treat him (and her) well."

The Prophet (s) said: "And your slaves, see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them what you yourself wear."

The Prophet (s) said: "Feed them from what you eat and clothe them from what you wear. Do not punish what Allah has created."

So whereas the Prophet (s) upheld the judgement passed by Saad bin Muadh, which was binding by law since the Jews had asked to be judged by Judaic Law, he (s) nonetheless made the captives/slaves as pretty much family members to be taken care of.

y. (I believe he took the Qurayza's leaders wife as his own, and since she wasn't likely to want to live with the man who killed her husband, I'd consider it likely that he raped her.)

I believe you are talking about Safiyyah bint Huyayy (may Allah be pleased with her!). Firstly, her husband was not killed by Prophet Muhammad (s) but by one of the other Muslim soldiers in the battle. Safiyyah (ra) was brought to Prophet Muhammad (s) by Bilal (ra). Safiyyah (ra) was in mourning over the loss of her husband's life. The Prophet (s) immediately felt pity on her and put his cloak around her shoulders to console her. This struck Safiyyah (ra) as odd, because her father had plotted a (foiled) assassination attempt against the Prophet (s), and her husband had fought the Muslims. Not only did the Prophet (s) show compassion to her, he (s) rebuked Bilal (ra) for not showing more mercy towards Safiyyah, saying:

"Bilal, has Allah plucked mercy from your heart that you let these two women pass by those of their menfolk who have been killed?" (This is in reference to Safiyyah and her cousin, both of whom Bilal [ra] had brought to the Prophet and on the way they had come across the dead bodies of their husbands.)

The Prophet (s) freed Safiyyah (ra), and she converted to Islam after she saw the kindness and compassion of the Prophet (s). After her conversion, the Prophet (s) married her and made her a wife, and bestowed upon her the title of Umm Al Mumineen (Mother of the Believers). She was praised in the Quran and given a higher status than any of the Muslims. She became one of the most ardent proponents of Islam and one of the most devout women of all time.

Once, another of the Prophet's wives, Hafsa (ra), insulted Safiyyah (ra) by calling her "the daughter of a Jew" in a derrogatory manner. It is said that Safiyyah (ra) is a direct descendant of Prophet Aaron (as) and related to Prophet Moses (as). So the Prophet (s) reprimanded Hafsa (ra) by saying about Safiyyah (ra): "You are certainly the daughter of a Prophet (Aaron), and certainly your uncle was a Prophet (Moses), and you are certainly the wife of a Prophet (Muhammad), so what is there in that to be scornful towards you?" Then he said to Hafsa (ra): "O Hafsah, fear Allah!"

*This* was the high status of Safiyyah (ra), who identified herself as an ardent Muslim and who would even distance herself from the Jews of her tribe, by saying: "I have not loved the Sabbath since Allah replaced it with Friday for me, and I only maintain ties with those Jews to whom I am related by kinship."

There are entire books about her and she is remembered as one of the greatest women of Islam. I encourage you to read those.

May Allah be well-pleased with her!

 

[da_Vinci]

Is the Bible your religious book or not? If so, then deal with it. The Old Testament is part and parcel of your religious canon. It is the inspired word of God, according to you. The same God who inspired the New Testament.

That your God and your past Prophets would do such things is something you must deal with. Fine, you might say that now the Old Testament Laws no longer apply, but this doesn't deal with the fact that your past Prophets did such and such thing, and that your God advocated such things. How can these things *not* be attributed to Jehovah and your Prophets when the Old Testament itself says so? Read:

"...he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter." (1 Samuel 6:19-20)

You cannot tap-dance around this. Your own book claims that Jehovah/Jesus did that. And there are so many other quotes about Prophet Joshua and others.

The only way out for you is to claim that the Old Testament is a lie and wrong, and this would be just like a Muslim claiming the Quran is a lie or wrong. It would be capitulating the entire argument altogether by declaring one's faith a complete lie. Either stand by what the Bible says, or deny your faith altogether. One or the other.

I reject the false dichotomy that your last statement above generates. That is the kind of religious absolutism that creates the very problems that we are discussing. Do you not see the likelihood that all of the world's religious books are subject to contamination by the imperfection of their human authors? Or to manipulation by persons and powers that might seek to use religion for their own purposes? It is imperative that a believer use their conscience to think through where text in holy books may not be the work of God, but the work of man.

We are always choosing what to believe. I cannot say that I know which holy texts Islam embraces, if any, besides the Quran, but I am sure that there are books that some allege to be holy that you do not accept. In Judeo-Christianity, we have an interesting dilemma: The Jews believe in the Old Testament but not in the New Testament. Most Christians believe in the Old and New Testaments, but not in the Book of Mormon. The Mormons are perhaps the most consistent in that they believe in all three. And yet they all are believing in the same God.

So why is it so difficult to think that perhaps some portion of a single holy text, alleged to be the word of God, might in fact be the error of man? I believe that God expects us to use the brain he gave us to examine this, and not be mislead like sheep by the errors of man.

Does this threaten those who run religious organizations? Of course. Is it uncomfortable to those who prefer the comfort of certainty (whether right or wrong) to the challenge of uncertainty? Most likely. But I think it is the only way to sort the wheat of how to live a holy life from the chaff of creation mythology and bloody military history that seems to coexist in holy books.

And this is not an idea that I have concocted just for this internet discussion. It is the conclusion that I have come to over a lifetime.

dV

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Why do you rub our noses in your cult all the time at the end of all your posts?

Answer to come, Giuseppe Rossi willing.

Why do you not answer the question I asked?

Next time, answer the question I have asked now, and the question I asked before please.

Hello, Sister Rossiya.

I do not know what you mean by "rubbing your nose in my cult at the end of my posts." Perhaps you can clarify. I simply took it as a rhetorical question designed to insult me.

More to come, Allah Willing.