Ask a Muslim

[Salah-Al-Din]

Dear Brother Aneeshm,

I believe that you are being unfair. You seem to blame everything on the Muslims. You blame Hindu religious practises, such as Sati, female infanticide, and early marriage on the Muslims. It seems as if you can come up with fanciful explanations for everything, laying all the blame on the Muslims.

You say that the Muslims are to be blamed for the fact that Indian girls were married so early, for fear that they be taken as slaves. That's strange, since the practise of sex slavery was flourishing in India through the Hindu priests, who would have concubines (i.e. sex slave girls) who would satisfy their needs in the temple. This is the Devadasi system. So perhaps *this* is the reason that girls were married early, to avoid the sexual exploitation by the Brahmin priests? You make it sound like the Muslims came and invented such things in India, but in reality, Hindus also had their abuses, such as the Devadasi system, in which low caste Hindu girls would be forced into becoming sex slaves. It is therefore strange that suddenly the Hindus would become fearful of this when the Muslims came, even though the Brahmin oppressors had been doing this for a very long time.

I have studied the ArthaShastra, and the only type of slavery which is allowed is what we would today call indentured servitude, not slavery proper. For instance, a person could only become a slave for a limited time, until he had worked off his debt. His family or descendants were not slaves. Nor was his wife's property involved. He could buy his freedom. Also, slaves were forbidden from doing demeaning jobs. It was also completely illegal to enslave another person without his consent. Not really slavery, is it?

Actually, this was the type of slavery practised by the Muslims in India. (I don't approve of *any* type of slavery and believe it is against Islam.) However, the slaves taken by Muslims in India were also indentured slaves who could work off their freedom. They could either be ransomed, or work off their "debt" and thereby gain emancipation.

Therefore, I see no difference between the slavery practised by Hindus and that by the Muslims. However, I would like to state that Hindus practised slavery with a racial element to it, whereby the Aryans enslaved the darker people. More on that later.

Another thing - the worst thing which can be said about the caste system before the Muslim invasion was that it prescribed different punishments for the same crime for different castes (the lower the caste, the higher the punishment). That was about the extent of its oppression. Other than that, people were equal. Caste was not a static institution, it was dynamic and fluid. You would know this if you actually bothered to study the material in question.

You make the caste system sound so nice and rosy.

The caste system was what allowed slavery to flourish, and the Shudras (the lowest in the caste system) were none other than slaves. So slavery was done by the Aryan invaders (i.e. Brahmins) far before the Muslims came...and entire castes of people were put into forced bondage.

"Shudras are the lowest in the institution of Varna (caste) system. It is an exclusively Indian phenomenon, created to maintain a gradation in Hindu social order and broaden the scope of enslavement serfdom.

"In the Aryan social life the biologically unscientific and artificial caste system was not the growth of a single age, it took centuries to reach in its present form. Varna system became so deep rooted that it gave rise to social injustice and colossal vice like untouchability, slavery, degradation, uprooting from land and ancestral property, exploitation at every stage in life to a vast majority of non Aryan races or Shudras.

" In the Purush-Sukta of Rig-Veda there is mention of four varnas (castes), which are presumed to be originated from the supreme being. Brahmin from his mouth, Kshatriya from arms, Vaishya from thighs and Shudra from his feet. From Vedic period to the middle of Sutras and the Buddhist period fourfold division represented these classes as a division of labour and Shudras became the servile class, the slaves of Aryans.

" The present book traces the historical evolution of the Shudras and their wretched conditions in the ancient period of history, which the eminent scholars like H.H. Wilson, Dr. P.V. Kane, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chanchreek and Chandra have narrated in their research oriented papers. This publication will serve as an authentic reference tool on the historically abused Shudra communities."

(Source: Shudras in Ancient India/R. Chandra and K.L. Chanchreek. New Delhi, Shree Pub., 2004, xiii, 253 p., $33. ISBN 81-88658-65-0.)

The Untouchables weren't even allowed for their shadows to cross over a Brahmin, for fear that this would contaminate the greatness of the Brahmin. The Untouchable had to wear bells on his ankles (like a cow) so that the Brahmin knew he was coming, so as to hide himself from the cursed Untouchables. Even the lower castes were not allowed to even hear the religious scripture and if they heard it, they were in deep trouble.

Brahminism and the Vedas have paved the way for the bonded Labour System in India. After 40 years of independence, India still can't save the low caste Shudras from this bonded labour. The Times of India reported on 10th May 1987 that Swami Agnivesh, President of the Bonded Labour Liberation Front, said that more than 20,000 people, mostly Harijans and Adivasis, were still being exploited and were leading the lives of slaves in the West Champaran and Gopalganj districts of North Bihar.

Apastambha Dharma Sutra III, 10-26, says:

The tongue of a Shudra, who spoke evil about a BRAHMIN should be cut off. A Shudra who dared to assume a position of equality with the first three castes was to be flogged. If a Shudra overheard a recitation of the Vedas, molten tin was to be poured into his ears; if he repeated the Vedas his tongue should be cut and if he remembered Vedic hymns, his body was to be torn into pieces.

MANU, 167-272 says:

If a Shudra arrogantly teaches Brahmins Dharma, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and ears.

Again, MANU, 167-272 says:

Let the king never slay even a Brahmin though he may have committed all possible crimes.

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

It seems that you are white-washing the entire caste system. You might say that this is a gross distortion of your faith by certain deviant Hindus. And I'd understand that, and I could also sympathize with you, since this happens in my faith all the time. However, to deny all of these things, and then lay the blame on the Muslims, this is not right at all. You say that the Indians did such and such because of the Muslims, yet the Brahmin priests were doing that long before the Muslims came.

A part of its later origins lie in the custom of Jauhar, where Rajput women, who knew that their men were not coming back from a fight with the Muslims, chose death before dishonour (at the hands of Muslims who would take them as prisoners of war and thus rightful slaves), and burnt themselves together on a huge fire in the city square.

This is ridicolous, to blame the Hindu tradition of Sati on Muslims, since this practise pre-dates the Arab invasion. Please stop blaming everything on the Muslims. It is really stretching the truth quite magnificiently.

I don't really agree, and I'll tell you why. During the time of the Buddha, a single village was capable of supporting the Buddha's few thousand followers for around a month. This indicated great prosperity. It was only after the imposition of very harsh taxes, and of taxes such as jaziya, that people were impoverished enough to marry off a child. Also, the Muslim administration did not provide any incentive schemes like the ArthaShastra to the producers, leading to a decline in the overall productivity of society.

Once again, blaming everything on the Muslims. Long before the Muslims came, the Brahmins were exploiting the lower castes. The Brahmins made up only 5% of the population and yet they oppressed the masses. *This* is why they didn't reach prosperity, since the Brahmins were eating up all the wealth of the lower castes.

There is also another point which you fail to consider - that the girl lived with the parents until she attained maturity. Thus, impoverishment could not be a reason for marrying off the girl early - they would have to support her anyway until she became old enough.

Maturity = puberty in that society. Therefore, girls mov into their husband's house at puberty and her parents no longer support her.

Again, you are completely white-washing everything. You make the caste system sound like something rosy and amazing. The Untouchables were not even allowed to have their shadow pass over the Brahmin, because that would contaminate the Brahmin. They had to wear bells around their ankles so that the higher class people could hear them approaching and then leave so that they don't get contaminated.

This may be a gross interpretation of your faith done by deviant followers. Fine. But do not deny that this was a major problem. The lower castes were treated like garbage by the upper castes. There was even a lower caste which would furnish the upper caste with sex slaves.

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

In India, it is not unheard of a girl getting married to a dog at birth. Is this, in your opinion, due to the Muslims?

Please stop blaming everything on the Muslims. You have made up a ludicrous explanation for why Hindu girls were married early, even though this fails to explain why Indian males in villages get married so early, at a very similar age as the girls.

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

Aneesh, your entire claim can be completely refuted by the fact that Hindu priests used to take slave girls all the time...devadasi style.

Perhaps that is the reason that they were married early? To avoid that fate and that humiliation? The Hindu priests would use these girls as concubines in the temples. Surely, since the Hindu priests had long beat the Muslims in this practise, then why would you suddenly use this as an excuse to justify early marriage?

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

Anyways, I ask that you move all this to another thread. I don't think this debate fits in this thread, and you will really hijack this thread if you continue with this.

I understand that you have legitimate gripes against the Arab invasion of India. I sympathize with you on this, and believe me, I wish things had gone differently in many aspects. However, I think some of the things you said are really big stretches, and I do not think it would behoove anyone to continue this conversation.

Take care.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Sorry, was consolidating posts, and in the meantime, people responded.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Fair enough, but two have to play that game. I understand why you have some dislike of Islam, and certainly you have every right to ask difficult questions, but you both should be polite about it.

I think I also lost my temper and should have been more polite.

However, I kindly ask that this thread refrain from becoming a discussion about history, but about religious matters about the faith in specific.

And yes, it takes two to tango. So let's just stop now. You already responded to my previous post (which I re-posted), so let's just end it here.

May Allah unite our hearts in brotherhood.

Take care, Brother Aneeshm.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

So ummm....let's change the topic.

Anyone have any genuine questions about the faith?

 

[aneeshm]

Yes. What is the punishment ordained for a Muslim ruler who demolishes the temple of some other faith (which is in his dominion)? Is he going to hell for such an act?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Yes. What is the punishment ordained for a Muslim ruler who demolishes the temple of some other faith (which is in his dominion)? Is he going to hell for such an act?

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

It is considered strictly Haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to demolish a temple of another faith. The First Caliph, on the behest of the Prophet (s), gave the following orders to the soldiers of Allah when they attacked the enemy forces in Non-Muslim lands:

"...[Do not harm] trees; do not kill an animal or a fruit tree; do not destroy markets; do not kill children, old men, or women. You will find some people who have retired in places of worship, so leave them there to practice in peace."

The following is a Fatwa from Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi, the leading Islamic scholar of our times.

Question:

We hear every now and then that some people have attacked churches or temples in different places, so we'd like to ask whether these acts are deemed right according to Shariah (Islamic Law).

Answer by Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi:

Islam does not only prohibit assaulting non-Muslims who do not wrong us, but also urges us to treat them well and be just when dealing with them. Thus, it is prohibited to attack their places of worship. This is based on the fact that assaulting such places is considered to be an act of injustice, which neither Allah nor His Messenger accept. Freedom of religion and belief is a right which Islam guarantees, Allah Almighty says: "There is no compulsion in religion." (Quran, 2:256)

The K. Encyclopedia of (Islamic) Jurisprudence says:

"All opinions adopted...assure that no temple, church, or other place of worship can be destroyed."

"All [schools of thought] state that dhimmis (non-Muslims living under the protection of a Muslim state) must not be forbidden from repairing their churches, temples, and other places of worship, because forbidding them from doing so would lead to the destruction of these places. Thus, the ruin of these places takes the same ruling as destroying them."

In addition, Shehab Ad-Deen Al-Qarafi stated the following:

" The covenant of protecting dhimmis imposes upon Muslims certain obligations towards them. They are our neighbors, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and the religion of Islam. Whoever transgresses against them, even with a mere word of injustice or insult against any non-Muslim , has breached the Covenant of Allah, His Messenger, and his or her conduct would be considered counter to the teachings of Islam."

Ibn Hazm also said the following:

"If a dhimmi is threatened by an enemy, it is our obligation to fight the enemy with soldiers and weapons, and even to die defending him. By doing so, we will be honoring the Covenant of Allah and His Messenger. To hand him or her over to the enemy would mean that we were negligent of the Covenant of Allah and His Messenger."

Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi continues:

A clear separating line should be drawn here between the teachings of Islam, which prohibit attacking non-Muslim places of worship, and the acts of some Muslims who possess a narrow-minded view of Islam.

Those people harm Islam and Muslims with their wrong behavior; as the threat they pose to Islam is much more than that of the enemies of Islam.

Along the same line, a traditional Arabic proverb reads, "A wise enemy is better than a foolish friend."

The fanaticism we see in some certain people is often due to reasons that have nothing to do with religion, even if it takes the form of religion. In fact, its reasons may turn out to be social, economic, or political after thorough study. That is why we see it appearing in certain areas and not others; as some social circumstances and inherited traditions sow the seed of fanaticism and help it grow. Therefore, it is unfair to accuse religion of being responsible for such fanatic acts.

In Islam, dhimmis have the nationality of Dar al-Islam (Muslim lands), which means that they are citizens of a Muslim nation. Thus, the word "dhimmi" is not a dispraising one, but rather a word that implies the obligation of protection and allegiance, and that is the way of piety and being obedient to Allah's law.

It is incumbent upon Muslims to preserve dhimmis' blood, honor, property, and places of worship; to respect their beliefs and rites; to defend them from any outside aggression; and to avoid anything that may kindle their rancor, or offend them, their families, and their relatives.

These rights acknowledged by Islam are not mere words, but rather are sacred rights regulated by Allah's law. Therefore, no human being is allowed to nullify them. These rights are also surrounded and protected by several guarantees as follows: The guarantee of belief in the conscience of every Muslim individual who worships Allah through obeying Allah's commands and avoiding Allah's prohibitions, and the general Islamic conscience represented in the entire society.

End quote.

On the same note, Dr. Abdus-Sattar F. Saeed of Al-Azhar University says the following:

"Islam respects other religions and prohibits attacking their places of worship."

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

The standing Muslim army must also lay down their lives to protect the churches and temples of other faiths. See fatwa below:

Question:

Could you please furnish us with a fatwa about Islam's stance on protecting non-Muslims' places of worship such as Churches and Synagogues?

Answer by Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi:

"(The Muslims must) give due respect to non-Muslims' places of worship, which are part and parcel of their property (and they enjoy) full protection in Islam."

Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi continues:

The Islamic government is bound to protect the properties of non-Muslims. In his book Al-Kharaj, Abu Yusuf sheds light on the Prophet’s contract with the people of Najran (a group of Non-Muslims): “Najran and its neighboring area are in the security of Allah, the Almighty, and His Messenger. The property, religions and churches of the inhabitants, as well as properties, whether much or little, are under the protection of the Prophet.”

`Umar ibn Al-Khattab, in his letter to Abu `Ubaydah ibn Al-Jarrah (may Allah be pleased with them both) wrote: “Prevent Muslims from wronging or causing harm to them (non-Muslims) or taking their property illegally.”

About the Second Caliph, he passed an edict protecting the temples of other religions:

“This is the protection which the slave-servant of Allah, Umar, the Commander of the Believers, extends to the people of Ilya: The safeguarding of their lives, properties, churches, crosses, and of their entire community. Their churches cannot be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched. They will never be forced to abandon their religion, nor will they be oppressed. ” (At-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol III, p. 609, ed. Dar Al-Ma`arif, Egypt.)

End quote.

Take care, Brother.

 

[Elrohir]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, I've been busy. And I'll probably be gone for the next 3-4 days, so no hurry in getting a response to this.

Haha, yeah. But when I publish this book, I'll of course have to heavily edit the conversation so you look silly and I look incredibly intelligent. Maybe throw in a bunch of spelling mistakes for everything you say.

And yet, even with all your dishonest changes, the brilliancy of my arguments and the sharpness of my questions will shine through.

I've already responded to this, good sir. You missed my post, although I don't blame you, considering how long this thread is. My response is here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpo...&postcount=832

(Prophet Muhammad never ordered a poetress to be killed.)

Sorry, I missed that. So, you don't accept Ibn Ishaq's "Sirah Rasul Allah" as part of the "Islamic canon"? I was under the impression that it was considered a very important piece of the Islamic canon, and that it recorded this incident. Am I wrong about either one of these two beliefs?

Baghdad was very much destroyed, tantamount to carpet bombing.

Spoken like someone who has never seen a city carpet-bombed. Of course, neither have I, but I know what it does, and believe me: Baghdad is a lot better off than if the US Air Force decided to reduce it to nothing but rubble.

Listen, I don't care if Americans and the war-mongerers justify their killing for their imperial ambitions. They *know* that their imperial ambitions will lead to the killings of civilians. Therefore, they are responsible for those deaths.

What imperial ambitions? We aren't declaring Iraq a territory of the United States, we aren't stealing their oil - we're trying to set up a stable, democratic government.

Answer me this: If the Prophet Mohammad had invaded a nation, would he have after a war that lasted for years and cost him thousands of lives, have tried to set up an independent government, so he could simply leave? Honestly now - would he have? I don't think so, and yet that is exactly what America is trying to do now. If all the fighting stopped, and the democratic government took over, we'd all happily go home. We have no interest in permanently staying there or killing everyone, as you seem to believe - we want a stable, democratic government.

In any case, I do not believe for even one second that the American war-planners do not want Muslim deaths. This is mere postulation on your part, and only because you believe the lies said by that administration. The same administration that said that there were weapons of mass destruction. Madeline Albright was asked by a newsreporter about how the sanctions killed half a million children in Iraq and wether or not it was worth it, she said "yes." The sanctions killed innocent children, and had no effect on Saddam, the same Saddam whom the US gave weapons to begin with (and then invaded Iraq on that premise!).

No no - I don't know about in your system, but in ours a man is innocent until proven guilty. You are guessing, against the available data, that President Bush wants to kill innocent Muslims. That is a very serious accusation, and you must provide proof of it - if you are going to accuse someone of a monstrous action, you need to provide evidence, not accuse me of simply "postulating" the opposite.

Also, our sanctions did not kill Iraqi children. If Iraqi children died of starvation, that is the fault of Saddam and his minions - not America. If a man takes hostages, and threatens to shoot them if his demands are not met, and you refuse to meet those demands as they are unreasonable and the man will never be reasonable, and he shoots a hostage - you should be tried and found guilty of his murder? Are you morally or legally culpable for his actions? Of course not. America is not culpable for the deaths caused by Saddam and his underlings; Saddam and his underlings are.

"And how often has a small force vanquished a great one, by Allah's Will? And Allah is with the steadfast." (Quran, 2:249)

The West does not spare the Muslims for any benevolence on their part, let that be rest assured. They don't attack other Muslim lands because: (1) They already control most of the region through puppet governments, and (2) It would be a nightmare for them if they attacked all the Muslim countries at once...instead, they have adopted the tactics of the British colonializers, which is to "divide and conquer." If they attack every Muslim country at once, they will unite their enemy. And that is the only reason that they do it one at a time. But in the end, no Muslim country shall be spared by these war-mongerers. It is just like Civ: attack your enemy one at a time, and pray to God that the other Civs don't unite against you.

Who are these puppet governments we supposedly control? I'm sure President Bush would be very glad, and very surprised, to hear about them. We have a few allies - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan - but they are tenuous allies at best, and hardly puppet states. Even Israel is not a puppet state, if we told them to stay out of Gaza when they wanted to go in, they would say "Screw you" and do it anyway. We don't control Israel, much less any other nation in the Middle East. (Except maybe Afghanistan and Iraq, and they grow even more independent every day)

America couldn't even properly take Afghanistan and Iraq, so what makes you think that they could take over the entire Middle East? A handful of Vietnamese men on bicycles defeated them, and even today the Afghanis are routing the vastly superior US troops. Wars are not about the initial seige weaponry, but about keeping them. If the city keeps flipping, then you probably don't have that city completely.

Who said anything about ground troops? What is the Afghani mujadeen going to do against a few thousand nuclear warheads? Their AK-47's and RPG's and hidden trails would be about as useful as a pile of pencil shavings. Don't be under any delusions, if the US wanted the entire Middle East as a pile of radioactive rubble, there's precious little anyone but God could do to stop us. (You can say God would if you want, that's your right, but saying guerrilla fighters could is absurd.)

They renounced the treaty and promised to aid the invaders. That is high treason. They simply didn't get a chance to do it because the enemies were defeated quickly. However, it was a public declaration of high treason, designed to destroy the morale of the Muslims and boost the morale of the invaders. And had the battle not ended so quickly, Banu Qurayza would have aided the invaders as they promised.

What do you mean they didn't get the chance? If there was time for the declaration to be made, then presumably they could have attacked in that same amount of time, right? It seems to me that the Banu Qurayza more stood by and did nothing than actually fought against Mohammad, at least until he assaulted their section of Medina.

You have a strange view of history. Please, instead of reading random quotes by Islamaphobes, pick up any history book and read the story of Prophet Muhammad (s) and the early Muslims...even from a secular history book. You will find that it was the Muslims who were being persecuted and it was the Quraish pagans who were superior in number...they were trying to wipe out the State of Medinah and trying to destroy Islam which they saw as a threat to their pagan faith.

......

What *YOU* are talking about is another battle: the early Muslims had been persecuted and run out of Mecca. Prophet Muhammad (s) had barely survived this escape and had been hunted down with a bounty on his head. The early Muslims were forced to leave behind all their property and wealth which was greedily consumed by the Quraish pagans. The Quraish sent out a caravan with the wealth of the Muslims, in order to make a huge profit on it. It was *this* caravan that was attacked by the Muslims, who were trying to get their lost wealth back.

But from what I've read, Mohammad basically started the war by raiding Meccan caravans. The easiest to get at is Wikipedia, so I'll quote that even though I know you don't particularly like it.

This is about the Battle of Badr, which I believe was one of the earliest battles in the Muslim/Quraish war.

Following the hijra, tensions between Mecca and Medina escalated and hostilities broke out in 623 when the Muslims began a series of raids on Quraishi caravans. In late 623 and early 624, the Muslim raids grew increasingly brazen and commonplace. In September 623, Muhammad himself led a force of 200 in an unsuccessful raid against a large caravan. Shortly thereafter, the Meccans launched their own raid against Medina.

He is an idiot. You can't possibly take the example of one Muslim to be indicative of Muslims as a whole. There was one Christian man who recently chopped off his genitalia because he said that Christ told him to do so since it was genitalia that led him to carnal sin. Is this indicative of Christians or Christianity? It's just one stupid man who doesn't know anything of the scriptures.

Good to know.

Thank you as well.

I hope that our dialogue does not lead to ill feelings between us. May peace be unto you.

Take care, Brother.

No, no ill feelings. Just more curiosity.

OK, a few more: In your opinion, did Mohammad ever make mistakes after God began speaking to him? (I'm mostly interested in moral mistakes, not tactical errors)

You believe Muslims should not listen to music, correct? Do you turn the background music when playing Civ? What about in games where you can't turn the music off, do you then believe you should not play those games?

I've heard that some Muslims don't believe any pictures should be drawn of, well, anything, which strikes me as a little weird. Is this just a bizarre fringe belief that the vast majority do not share, or is there Quranic support for this concept?

 

[Xanikk999]

How do you view muslims who converted from islam?

I know that is a crime in some middle eastern countries with theocracies.

 

[knigh+]

But from what I've read, Mohammad basically started the war by raiding Meccan caravans. The easiest to get at is Wikipedia, so I'll quote that even though I know you don't particularly like it.

This is about the Battle of Badr, which I believe was one of the earliest battles in the Muslim/Quraish war.

This is a very easy one.

During the exodus of Muslims from Mecca to Medina, they left majority of their belongings in their homes. At some point Quraish decided to confiscate and sell all Muslim property in the city, so they broke into the closed homes of muslims and took everything. That initial trade caravan that was Mecca's casus belli for Badr was mostly carrying muslim property. Muslims raided the caravan that was carrying their own property, to get it back.

 

[Sidhe]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, I've been busy. And I'll probably be gone for the next 3-4 days, so no hurry in getting a response to this.


And yet, even with all your dishonest changes, the brilliancy of my arguments and the sharpness of my questions will shine through.


Sorry, I missed that. So, you don't accept Ibn Ishaq's "Sirah Rasul Allah" as part of the "Islamic canon"? I was under the impression that it was considered a very important piece of the Islamic canon, and that it recorded this incident. Am I wrong about either one of these two beliefs?


Spoken like someone who has never seen a city carpet-bombed. Of course, neither have I, but I know what it does, and believe me: Baghdad is a lot better off than if the US Air Force decided to reduce it to nothing but rubble.


What imperial ambitions? We aren't declaring Iraq a territory of the United States, we aren't stealing their oil - we're trying to set up a stable, democratic government.

Answer me this: If the Prophet Mohammad had invaded a nation, would he have after a war that lasted for years and cost him thousands of lives, have tried to set up an independent government, so he could simply leave? Honestly now - would he have? I don't think so, and yet that is exactly what America is trying to do now. If all the fighting stopped, and the democratic government took over, we'd all happily go home. We have no interest in permanently staying there or killing everyone, as you seem to believe - we want a stable, democratic government.


No no - I don't know about in your system, but in ours a man is innocent until proven guilty. You are guessing, against the available data, that President Bush wants to kill innocent Muslims. That is a very serious accusation, and you must provide proof of it - if you are going to accuse someone of a monstrous action, you need to provide evidence, not accuse me of simply "postulating" the opposite.

Also, our sanctions did not kill Iraqi children. If Iraqi children died of starvation, that is the fault of Saddam and his minions - not America. If a man takes hostages, and threatens to shoot them if his demands are not met, and you refuse to meet those demands as they are unreasonable and the man will never be reasonable, and he shoots a hostage - you should be tried and found guilty of his murder? Are you morally or legally culpable for his actions? Of course not. America is not culpable for the deaths caused by Saddam and his underlings; Saddam and his underlings are.


Who are these puppet governments we supposedly control? I'm sure President Bush would be very glad, and very surprised, to hear about them. We have a few allies - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan - but they are tenuous allies at best, and hardly puppet states. Even Israel is not a puppet state, if we told them to stay out of Gaza when they wanted to go in, they would say "Screw you" and do it anyway. We don't control Israel, much less any other nation in the Middle East. (Except maybe Afghanistan and Iraq, and they grow even more independent every day)


Who said anything about ground troops? What is the Afghani mujadeen going to do against a few thousand nuclear warheads? Their AK-47's and RPG's and hidden trails would be about as useful as a pile of pencil shavings. Don't be under any delusions, if the US wanted the entire Middle East as a pile of radioactive rubble, there's precious little anyone but God could do to stop us. (You can say God would if you want, that's your right, but saying guerrilla fighters could is absurd.)


What do you mean they didn't get the chance? If there was time for the declaration to be made, then presumably they could have attacked in that same amount of time, right? It seems to me that the Banu Qurayza more stood by and did nothing than actually fought against Mohammad, at least until he assaulted their section of Medina.


But from what I've read, Mohammad basically started the war by raiding Meccan caravans. The easiest to get at is Wikipedia, so I'll quote that even though I know you don't particularly like it.

This is about the Battle of Badr, which I believe was one of the earliest battles in the Muslim/Quraish war.




Good to know.


No, no ill feelings. Just more curiosity.

OK, a few more: In your opinion, did Mohammad ever make mistakes after God began speaking to him? (I'm mostly interested in moral mistakes, not tactical errors)

You believe Muslims should not listen to music, correct? Do you turn the background music when playing Civ? What about in games where you can't turn the music off, do you then believe you should not play those games?

I've heard that some Muslims don't believe any pictures should be drawn of, well, anything, which strikes me as a little weird. Is this just a bizarre fringe belief that the vast majority do not share, or is there Quranic support for this concept?

You mean of course by the slimness of your tolerance and the fickleness of your wit thereby will shine through, making assumptions that a leads to b aren't we?

You do realise of course if you put up ask a Christian I could do the same. When you're standing on a quicksand and sinking, it does little good to throw insults at the man with the rope and vise a versa.

Idolatry is sinful, even in Christian faith it is. Idolatry is drawing images of figures of faith. Not of horses or cows, unless by doing so they are idolatrous.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[Elrohir]

This is a very easy one.

During the exodus of Muslims from Mecca to Medina, they left majority of their belongings in their homes. At some point Quraish decided to confiscate and sell all Muslim property in the city, so they broke into the closed homes of muslims and took everything. That initial trade caravan that was Mecca's casus belli for Badr was mostly carrying muslim property. Muslims raided the caravan that was carrying their own property, to get it back.

And they took only their property, and never stole anything else from the Meccans, either in that raid or in any other?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And do you have evidence that is the case? It is an easy claim to make, but harder to verify.

 

[Sidhe]

And do you have evidence that is the case? It is an easy claim to make, but harder to verify.

And irrelevant, unless you want me to dredge up all the Christian history? cmon man ask about faith not what was faith in 667 AD. This is not what there faith is now any more than it is what your faith is now, I can bring the Catholics down into a myre of corruption and contraversy, with little effort? But does this reflect Catholics now?

 

[Elrohir]

And irrelevant, unless you want me to dredge up all the Christian history? cmon man ask about faith not what was faith in 667 AD. This is not what there faith is now any more than it is what your faith is now, I can bring the Catholics down into a myre of corruption and contraversy, with little effort? But does this reflect Catholics now?

This is a thread about Islam, not Christianity. If you want to talk about Christianity, revive that "Ask a...." thread. The question is relevant if we say it's relevant, as the whole purpose of this thread is asking questions about Islam. If they don't want to answer that question, then that's fine, but we have every right to ask it. Why is this your concern, anyhow?

 

[knigh+]

And they took only their property, and never stole anything else from the Meccans, either in that raid or in any other?

I didn't say that. I was merely pointing out that the start of hostilities was by no means plain thievery as you suggested.

Actually even before all this the enmity between Muslims and Quraish started before the muslim exodus, when Quraishi rulers were torturing and killing muslims for their faith. Spread of islam was the biggest threat to the economy of Mecca, as its main income was the trade with the polytheist pilgrims.

 

[Elrohir]

I didn't say that. I was merely pointing out that the start of hostilities was by no means plain thievery as you suggested.

Actually even before all this the enmity between Muslims and Quraish started before the muslim exodus, when Quraishi rulers were torturing and killing muslims for their faith. Spread of islam was the biggest threat to the economy of Mecca, as its main income was the trade with the polytheist pilgrims.

It seems to me that the Meccans had cause to attack Medina, then - if Mohammad was effectively the leader of Medina, and Medina was pillaging their caravans, that is an act of war. If they had only taken back what was theirs, that would be one thing - but continuing to steal gives the Meccans quite the casus belli.

But I thought Islam was tolerant and didn't force anyone to convert, with "no compulsion in religion", and all that. If so, then why would they fear a cut off from trade routs with the pagans? If Islam would not more persecute or refuse to trade with pagans than Jews or Christians, why the worry?

 

[Sidhe]

This is a thread about Islam, not Christianity. If you want to talk about Christianity, revive that "Ask a...." thread. The question is relevant if we say it's relevant, as the whole purpose of this thread is asking questions about Islam. If they don't want to answer that question, then that's fine, but we have every right to ask it. Why is this your concern, anyhow?

This is the same, your just going back 1300 years to justify BS, this is a thread about Islam now, and your trite history is meaningless. I've said it before and I'll say it again let's keep it 2000 not 1146 or I'll start ripping the **** out of your religion. And believe me I'll let you keep your organs but not your legs and arms, Do we have a deal? Or shall we take this historical? Let the games commence I guess.

 

[Elrohir]

This is the same, your just going back 1300 years to justify BS, this is a thread about Islam now, and your trite history is meaningless. I've said it before and I'll say it again let's keep it 2000 not 1146 or I'll start ripping the **** out of your religion. And believe me I'll let you keep your organs but not your legs and arms, Do we have a deal? Or shall we take this historical?

How about you stop acting like you're four years old and I just stole your box of cookies? There's really no need to get so upset Sidhe, and take this thread off-topic.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@Sidhe: I am not trying to rip on Muslim history; granted, most branches of Islam are more dependent on the history of Islam than my religion is on the history of Christianity as a whole; but that's not the point. The point is, he made a claim, I merely asked if there was any external evidence to back up the claim.

 

[zenspiderz]

Is it just me, or are certain individuals getting really desperate in their crusade to blacken the name of Islam?