The real cause of Islamic terrorism - the yogic perspective

[niranjan]

Imam Khomeini - Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution


Khomeini's Teachings on sex with infants and animals

Islamic Teachings on sex with infants:"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."


The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"

Islamic Teachings on sex with animals:"The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold."

Editor's notes: I wonder if it is OK to sodomize a dead animal? What happens if the buyer brings the poor animal back into the city?


"If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it."


Editor's note: The poor animal first is sodomized and then killed and burned. What an Islamic justice towards animals? Where are the animal
rights group?


"It is forbidden to consume the excrement of animals or their nasal secretions. But if such are mixed in minute proportions into other foods their consumption is not forbidden."


"If a man (God protect him from it!) fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary."


Editor's note: It does not say who should have ablution: the animal or the man?


Taken from Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation

 

[Muslimwoman]

Okay Niranjan we are just going around in circles so lets go back to your original post and look at each verse of the Quran you posted in turn, then we will see where we get. Please don't reply with masses of links for attrocities committed by so called Muslims - I can't tell you why they misinterpret the Quran so badly I can only give you my beliefs on the verses you are quoting to refute the allegation that these awful things are instructed by the Quran.

Here are a few verses from the Quran that deals with terror.

1. (Koran 8:12) "Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

Please look at the bold underlined words. Who is G-d speaking of? He is speaking of the Angels not of mankind, He is not instructing mankind to do this.

2. (Koran 2:216) "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not."

I cannot say this any more eloquently than Pickthall, one of the most accepted translators, scholars and a religious leader:

Pickthall while commenting on verse 2:216, references verse 2:251, and interprets the notion of fighting being not optional as Quran’s way of depicting fighting as a religious duty when fighting is done in defence of the oppressed and the weak.[68] Maulana Muhammad Ali also uses the Quran to provide context for verse 2:216 and says that “It was an injunction to fight to end persecution and….save the houses of worship of every religion from being ruined”.[69]
Pickthall goes on to say that “Nowhere does the Qur’an approve a spirit of revenge” [70] and situates verse 2:194 in the context of a defensive war. Muhammad Ali explaining the same verse says retaliation is being allowed “within the limits of the original act of agression,” where forgiveness is not an option as “inaction…would be suicidal”[71]. He, and others, have argued that the Quran clearly commands believers to prefer forgivness over retaliation where ever possible, quoting several Qura’anic verses inluding 42:37-43.”

Also remember that Muslims are only allowed to fight to defend themselves, they must not start a war, so the verses that refer to war are defensive for the Muslims. Plus bear in mind that Allah was speaking to the Muslims of the time here, if you read a few verses before and after this one you will see what Allah is setting out here. It does not however mean all Muslims must go o war.

3. (Koran 69:30-37) "It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful."

As I explained before your reference here is completely incorrect, here ae verses 69:30-37

(It will be said): Take him and fetter him 69:30
And then expose him to hell-fire 69:31
And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. 69:32
Lo! He used not to believe in Allah the Tremendous, 69:33
And urged not on the feeding of the wretched. 69:34
Therefor hath he no lover here this day, 69:35
Nor any food save filth 69:36
Which none but sinners eat. 69:37

As I stated before this all refers to actions against unbelievers in Hell and we cannot remove the verses from the Quran because we believe them to be the word of G-d and protected by Him. Who is to tell G-d He is wrong in his description of Hell? Has anyone been there and come back to tell of it?

To save you looking the verse you were trying to quote is here:

It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise. 8:67

This verse and the previous one is Allah correcting the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) for an error in judgement Discover Islam - Ask About Islam

This verse goes back to the end of the Badr War, when there were prisoners, the Prophet is said to have made a wrong choice (there were 2 choices put forward, one was death and the other was ransom. The Prophet set them free with ransom and this verse is Allah admonishing him because at that time, the pagans were far more powerful than the Muslims and by releasing the prisoners (many of whom were tribal leaders) it allowed the tribes to regroup and continue attacking the Muslims. Allah is stating that prisoners should not be held until the land is subdued (ie safe for Muslims to live in). War is a part of Muslim history as it is a part of many religious histories, just a fact of life I am afraid.

4. (Koran 69:30-37) "(It will be said) Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. Lo! he used not to believe in God the tremendous, and urged not on the feeding of the wretched. Therefore hath he no lover hear this day nor any food save filth which none but sinners eat."

You quoted the right verses here. See above for comments.

5. (Koran 5: 33-34) "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is forgiving, merciful."

Okay let us not be timid about life here, war is war, it is horrific but it is war. Execution was usually beheading in that area of the world (oh yes it still is in some places but I would sure prefer it to being hung or stoned). Now look at other histories, I will take the British because that is my own nation, we amongst other nations have used beheading for thousands of years. So hardly an Islamic invention but an acccepted method of execution at the time. Crucifixtion, we all know the most famous story here which was rather a long time before Islam, so not an Islamic invention, just an accepted form of execution at the time. Cutting off a hand and foot on opposite sides - Forgive me if I am wrong but were the Chinese not doing this thousands of years ago? I certainly saw evidence of this when I lived in the far east. All horrific but all quite normal for the day and age. As for expelling from the land - can't really be called an attrocity can it when compared to the alternative.

So let us look at the two known times that the Prophet Mohammad used verses 5:33

The first was when Muslims were just starting in Medina. The people there were the Muslims, some Christians and 3 tribes of Jews (Bani Al-natheer, Bani Qaynuqaa, and Bani Quraytha). A number of Pagan tribes had decided to attack Medina and wipe out the Muslims. All the residents of Medina had signed a treaty of united defense. Salman Al-Farisi (pbuh), suggested that the Muslims should dig a trench along the open plains to disable the Pagan attack. The Jewsish tribes were stationed in the mountains on the North side of Medina. The Jews freely allowed the Pagans to enter Medina across the mountains and thus betrayed the Muslims and Christians. Allah only knows how but the Muslims and Christians won the battle. After the Pagans withdrew back to Mecca, our Prophet (pbuh) exiled the Jewish tribes from Medina in accordance with verse 5:33.

The second is seen here in this hadith:

Narrated Abu Qilaba: "Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk. So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle. (Sahih Bukhari, Ablutions (Wudu'), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234)"

Both times verse 5:33 was used after betrayal of the Muslims. The Jewish tribes were merely exiled while the Pagans had killed the committed murder and theft, this was after they had gained the Muslims trust by embracing Islam. These are the only recorded times Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) applied thisverse to anyone. We may not like the desccriptions but do we believe these people would have been treated any better, at that time of history, in any other area of the world?

6. (Koran 22: 19-22) "These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning."

All the verses here refer to Hellfire. Check it out here, the article is entitled Hellfire, just do a find on the this page 22:19

The Religion of Islam - A Description of Hellfire (part 2 of 5): Its Appearance

If anyone interprets this to mean 'do it on earth' then they need a doctor and Islam itself is not at fault for someones twisted mind.

7. (Koran 76: 4) "Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers chains, yokes and a blazing fire."

Talking about Hell again. If you want to check read the next verse, it refers to those in heaven drinking Kafur (a type of wine) which you know is forbidden to us on earth.

8. So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…. (Koran 9:5)."

Right this is the big one, this is often called 'The Sword Verse'. The loony extremists say this verse says kill all infidels, forever - utter rubbish it says no such thing when put into context. So best if you read people with more knowledge than my humble ramblings:

Kill the Infidels Surah 9:5

Sorry it takes a bit of reading but is the only way you will see how the verse fits into context and doesn't say the things the loonies want us to believe.

9."Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allah unless it is done to guard (Takeyya) yourselves against them, guarding carefully. And Allah cautions you against His retribution. And to Allah is the eventual coming." (Koran 3:27)."

This is verse 3:27

"Thou causest the night to gain on the day, and thou causest the day to gain on the night; Thou bringest the Living out of the dead, and Thou bringest the dead out of the Living; and Thou givest sustenance to whom Thou pleasest, without measure."

You meant verse 3:28 and let us quote it properly:

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.

Firstly, Muslim men can marry Christians and Jews and these women are not required to convert to Islam - don't think you can get much more friendly than that. It is not the same for women because in Islam children follow the religion of the father, so he should be Muslim. The Quran also accepts the other Abrahamic faiths and does not suggest anywhere they convert to Islam.

So let us put this into context. First the historical context. A tribal system, the Muslims did not drink wine, fornicate and prayed 5 times a day. Other tribes in the area drank and fornicated, among other things, with a big smile on their faces. So what advise would you give to your children? Go play with the drunken fornicators in the next tribe or stay among your own kind where you are protected from these sins?

Now the modern context. I have a choice, I can go to meet my Muslim friends for coffee or don my boob tube and shorts and go meet my non Muslim friends in a bar? Guess which I will choose and guess which I am commanded by Allah to choose? Now if all my friends, Muslim and non-Muslim decide to meet in the cafe, then I am a happy bunny and mines a latte and a large slice of chocolate fudge cake. This verse is purely about picking your friends carefully - and wise advise if you ask me.

 

[Muslimwoman]

10.Sura 47:4-6,15 "Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers (in fight), smite them at their necks.At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them)."

Now finish the verse, this is only half of it:

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost. (47:4)

So now we have the truth of the verse. It is war, not a tea party. Do you think the Pagan tribes turned up to war with flowers or with bloody great swords to smite at the necks of Muslims? So the Muslims are instructed to smite the enemy until they are routed, then bind them (ie take them prisoner) and then either free them or ransom them for money. So the big problem is? This verse is telling the Muslims to be merciful with prisoners of war.

11.Sura 61:4,11-13 "Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure

61:4 that ye believe in God and His Apostle, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the cause of God, with your property and your persons. 61:11 That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in gardens of eternity. 61:12 That is indeed the supreme achievement. And another (favour will He bestow), which ye do love - help from God and a speedy victory. So give the glad tidings to the believers."61:13

Rather than requote them all I have added the verse numbers in the right places to yur quote.

61:4 tells the Muslims going to defend themselves in war to stand firm - basically the same thing that has been said to every single army in history:

61:11 I have explained before that Jihad means STRUGGLE not war, so this verse tells Muslims of the time to struggle for G-d in all things including with their live if need be. That does not say go out and kill, it says when you must go to war you do so for G-d. Again something that armies leaders have been telling their troops for thousands of years.

61:12 If you die defending the Muslim people then you go to heaven. Still no suggestion of go out and indiscriminately kill. There are many verses (obviously not quoted here) that state Muslims can only fight in defence. This is one of the ifficulties with these young people that blow themselves and innocent bystanders up, they have been brainwashed into believing that the West is waging war on the Muslims so they must fight and die. But then the problem, with this brainwashing is it doesn't take into account the strict verses of the Quran where we are instructed not to kill any innocent civilians, only those men in the opposing army.

61:13 G-d says He will help the believers to victory. Forgive me if I am wrong but the other Abrahamic scriptures say the same sort of thing do they not? And didn't Joan of Arc state that G-d told her He was on their side and they would win despite the odds against them?

12.Sura

9:29-31 "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

This is the interpretation of the verse from the Institue of Arabic and Islamic studies. They begin the lecture by explaining why some arabic words are so bady translated:

The third verse to be explored is verse 29 of Chapter 9. The verse establishes that the People of the Book resident in an Islamic state, who are exempted from defending the state shall pay a defense-obligation exemption fee called jizya. If they refused to pay the jizya, then the state is obligated to obtain it by force. The verse clearly states:

“And fight against those who – despite having the Book (aforetime) – do not (truly) believe either in God or in the Last Day, nor consider forbidden that which God and the Conveyor of His Message have forbidden, nor follow the religion of truth (which God has enjoined upon them) until they agree to the payment of the exemption tax (of defense-obligations, jizya) by those who afford it, and acknowledge their subjection (to the state).” Qur'an, 9:29.​

The nature of this verse with respect to fight is not antagonistic because of ethnicity, but rather over monetary and regulatory issues within the state. A similar policy is applicable to the Muslims themselves when they refuse to pay their dues to the state. In the same manner Christians and Jews are obligated to pay the state jizya, Muslims are obligated to pay to the state zakat. Zakah is a form of taxation similar to the tax that most people have to pay to their respective states. In similar manner to the case of jizya with respect to the People of the Book, if Muslims, too, refused to pay zakat, then the state is obligated to obtain it by force. An example of this was the case of the Murtadeen, several tribes, who, during the rule of first Caliph Abu Bakr refused to pay zakat, a war was conducted against them until they paid it, and acknowledged their subjection to the state.

13.Sura

5:54 "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."

I wish you would get the right verse numbers, it takes me ages to look them up This is not 5:54.......this is 5:51

It is important to understand the context of this Sura and the situation under which this verse was revealed. In the last stages of prophetic mission in Medina, Muslims had emerged as a dominant power and had set up a society of their own. At the same time, the polytheists of Mecca, Jews and Christians had also established setups in case of an armed conflict, it seemed that any of them could have emerged as victorious. In such an environment the hypocrites amongst Muslims maintained ties with Jews and Christians and supported them in secret. Their support was in order to safeguard their interests with whoever the victorious party would be. In addition, the hypocrites obviously had not accepted Islam from within their hearts and their conversion to Islam had not affected their ties with Muslims' opponents.

The Sura deals with very specific tribes of Jews and Christians at the time of the prophet Mohammad and not all Jews and Christians throughout time. If you carry on reading 2 versess down you see it is a warning to the Muslim hypocrites that the Jews and Christians they conspired with would not protect them and that G-d would not love such people.


Phew I need a coffee and a rest now. Any clearer no Naranjan?

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Hi Niranjan

This goes rather off topic and should really be in the Islam and slavery thread - perhaps someone could move it and you can read it there?

Please can you take time to read this about slaves and intercourse with them, during the time of the Prophet and beyond, actually I found it really interesting and learnt a couple of things myself. Before you 'rant' at me about slavery please remember that slavery was the norm at the time all over the world, so Islam cannot be blamed for slavery.

Sex with slaves and women's rights
Wa `alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh:

Q
I came across tafseer of the beginning verses of Surat-Al-Mu'minoon (Al-Mawdudi), [The Yusuf Ali translation reads, "who abstain from sex, except with those joined in the marriage bond [spouses], or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,-for (in their case) they are free of blame."] and I was kind of shocked and surprised that he states it is permissable for a man to have sexual intercourse with female slaves in his possession, in addition to his legal wives (v.5-6).


A:
Slavery is unlawful (1) in the absence of the Caliph of the Muslims AND (2) unless it results from captives following a lawful war. Even so, there was always the alternative to {let the captives go free, either with or without any ransom} (47:4). Furthermore, the Ottoman Caliphate had declared - long before the US Abolition - that it prohibited slavery in its realm. Further preliminary remarks before addressing the questions: It should be clear that Islam raised the status of slaves higher than that of free men in unislamic societies even by modern standards. The author of _The House of Saud_, an American journalist, recounts how the staff and management of the New York Waldorf-Astoria hotel were horrified that King Faysal in an early US visit had not only allowed his black servant into the state dining room but had seated him at his very table - a "white-only" table in a "white-only" room! They had no idea that even slaves in Islam had to be FED and CLOTHED with the same food and clothing as their owner as the Prophet

upon him peace, had stipulated in his "last pilgrimage" speech: "And your slaves! see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them with what you yourself wear. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented!" In another hadith he said, upon him blessings and peace: "Be kind to slaves as to your own children...and those that say their prayers are your brethren." A contemporary commentator said:
"The masters were obliged not to put slaves under hardship; slaves were not to be tortured, abused or treated unjustly. They could marry among themselves - with their master's permission - or with free men or women! They could appear as witnesses and participate with free men in all affairs. Many of them were appointed as governors, commanders of army and administrators. In the eyes of Islam, a pious slave has precedence over an impious free man." Al-Tabataba'i, Tafsir (16:338-358).
What ignorant times we live in, in which a nation that used a legally-enforceable concept of "white-only" since its inception and then went on to use it for two centuries, now crusades against Islam and the rest of the world over self-proclaimed civilizational values. Islam restored dignity to slaves and enhanced their social status both by ancient and modern standards. Islam made no distinction between a slave or a free man, all were treated with equality. It was this fact that attracted non-Muslim slaves to Islam in droves. As someone said, it is sad to see that those who never cease to be vociferous in their unjust criticism of Islam remain blind to this principle of equality when even in this age there are countries where laws are made that discriminate against the vast majority of population to keep them in practical servitude.
As for the allegations of slavery made by the US and UK against Islamic Sudan they are part of a joint missionary and government rogue propaganda campaign against an Islamic government which has always condemned and actively repressed instances of abuse in inter-tribal warfare, while there has never been anything remotely near a full-fledged slave trade, cf. the Sudan Foundation papers by David Hoile posted in full: http://www.sufo.demon.co.uk/politics.htm
What follows concerns the Fiqhi rulings pertaining to the slave period even if the present tense is used.
Q
I'm far too ignorant to make judgments about the verse and that hukum taken from it, so I wanted to ask if you could explain the verse, if that opinion is generally accepted and why. Do these verses refer solely to men, or women Believers also?
A
These verses refer to the permissibility of a man for intercourse with his unmarried female slaves without having to marry them. Such an option was not available to women owners of male slaves nor to men owners of married female slaves.
Q
Is it in order to fulfill his desires and avoid any unlawful fitna? (this is hard for me to understand, seeing as how taqwa, self-restraint, and other things are so emphasized in Islam)
A
His and her desires, yes, but within certain parameters including rights. This will be detailed insha Allah. However, it seems that intercourse with slaves was probably considered a method of contraceptive sexual enjoyment through coitus interruptus (`azl), since the slave owner could practice `azl (to you and me that means pulling out before ejaculation) without prior permission from his slave mate while he could not do so with his free wife without prior permission from her. And if the contraception intended by this `azl failed and the slave woman still bore a child from her master, her child was automatically freed and obtained a son or daughter's rights including inheritance. In addition, the mother herself could no longer be sold and was freed upon the owner's death.
From the slave's perspective, the above scenario could have formed an accepted kind of lawful gamble from which she stood to gain much more than to lose. This could be problematized with the claim that "the cost of freedom is therefore rape" but such is just an inflammatory rephrasing of the truism that the cost of a war captive's life is her imprisonment; emancipation from which is a dramatically enhanced possibility in the above scenario. Consider some more the dynamic of manumission in Islam. It took the French until the 1780's and 1790's through their "Revolution" and "Terror" to finally decide that any slave that steps into French territory automatically becomes free; but Islam had already said, 11 centuries earlier: a free parent's newborn from a slave is free and that newborn inherits from his or her free parent. In addition, Islam gave all slaves the inalienable right to buy themselves out, either on payment of an agreed sum or on completion of service for an agreed period. The legal term for this is mukataba and the slave party to such a written contract was called a mukatab or mukataba. {And those of your slaves that seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if you are aware of any goodness in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah that He has bestowed upon you} (24:33). {Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to *free the captives and the debtors,* and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarers; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is knower, Wise} (9:60). {Righteous is he who believes in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the Prophets; and gives his wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free} (2:177).
Note that the above verses stipulate that when a slave wants emancipation the master not only has to agree to it but is also directed to help the slave from his own wealth and from alms, which includes the public treasury (bayt al-mal), the only provision being the satisfaction that the slave would live a respectable life after earning his or her freedom! In addition, if a non-Muslim slave accepted Islam before their masters, they would become free automatically. If the slave became blind or handicapped he would also become free. In addition to these compulsory ways of emancipation, voluntary emancipation of slaves was declared as the purest form of charity and included providing the freedmen with sufficient means to earn their livelihood respectably. Thus, Islam is the first and only religion that has prescribed liberation of slaves as a virtue and a condition of genuine faith.
How is intercourse permissable without a marriage contract binding them?
Because the contract in place is that of property which includes the right to sexual enjoyment but excludes the abuses used under all other historical forms of slavery such as mutilation, inhumane labor, or killing as was the rule in Egyptian, Greek, and Roman times, and the cruelest of all forms, unparalleled in human history, the United States Transatlantic slave trade.(*)
(*) Incidentally, many scholars estimate that over 20 percent of Africans brought in bondage to both American continents and the Caribbean were Muslim.

This is the site I took it from, called Living Islam

Sex with slaves and women's rights

As an interesting tidbit, my white English paatenal grandmother was sold by her parents as a child to be a 'servant' in the towns 'Big House'. Guess what the master did and he was a 'good christian fellow'. This was in 1909, so some things never change unfortunately.

Perhaps there is something you need to understand about Islam. A husband has the right to have intercourse with his wife when the urge takes him. So you could imagine, he throws her to the ground and does it whether she likes it or not - basically rape of the wife. Now look at the bit above about azl, the husband has to have the wifes permission to use this form of contraception. When you put the two together they just don't fit becasue you are still imagining this poor oppressed woman being raped by her husband. You need to have an understanding of the rights of Muslim wives to understand how this all fits together. I would imagine the same would go for slaves, you have to understand how all the pieces fit together before you mke judgements about Islam.

This doesn't explain why a small percentage of Muslim men, based in certan areas of the world, are still doing these awful things to women. There is nothing in Islam that allows it and quite frankly my opinion is they are sick dirty old men that are using a couple of verses of the Quran that they are twisting beyond recognition to 'allow' them to do this. I understand you say we should stop it and believe me, I am a woman, if I could stop another woman in the world being badly treated, no matter the religion of her or her attacker, I would do it right now.

Salaam

 

[niranjan]

Please don't reply with masses of links for attrocities committed by so called Muslims - I can't tell you why they misinterpret the Quran so badly .

Sorry about that, but I want to bring justice to these victims of Islamic terrorism all over the world, and I will continue to do so.

Please look at the bold underlined words. Who is G-d speaking of? He is speaking of the Angels not of mankind, He is not instructing mankind to do this..

<<<<1. (Koran 8:12) "Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them.">>>>>

And how is that possible. So-called God is exhorting the so-called believers through the angels to chop the necks of the so-called un-believers and their fingers for good measure. We don't see any angels doing it, only Islamic terrorists.

I cannot say this any more eloquently than Pickthall, one of the most accepted translators, scholars and a religious leader:

Pickthall while commenting on verse 2:216, references verse 2:251, and interprets the notion of fighting being not optional as Quran’s way of depicting fighting as a religious duty when fighting is done in defence of the oppressed and the weak.[68] Maulana Muhammad Ali also uses the Quran to provide context for verse 2:216 and says that “It was an injunction to fight to end persecution and….save the houses of worship of every religion from being ruined”.[69].

Yeah and that is why Zoroastrian, Bahai, Hindu, Sikh ,Buddhist, Jain, christian temples were destroyed by Muslim invaders in their lands.

Pickthall goes on to say that “Nowhere does the Qur’an approve a spirit of revenge” [70] and situates verse 2:194 in the context of a defensive war. .

And I wonder why the muslims engaged in offensive warfare against Asia,Africa, Europe slaughtering, torturing and raping millions.

As I explained before your reference here is completely incorrect, here ae verses 69:30-37

(It will be said): Take him and fetter him 69:30
And then expose him to hell-fire 69:31
And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. 69:32
Lo! He used not to believe in Allah the Tremendous, 69:33
And urged not on the feeding of the wretched. 69:34
Therefor hath he no lover here this day, 69:35
Nor any food save filth 69:36
Which none but sinners eat. 69:37 .

Whos bothered about what happens on hell ? I am more bothered about what happens on earth. All these torture verses of hell was implemented on earth itself, and an example is the brutal torture of the Sikh guru Teg Bahadur and his disciples.






You quoted the right verses here. See above for comments.

. Cutting off a hand and foot on opposite sides - Forgive me if I am wrong but were the Chinese not doing this thousands of years ago? I certainly saw evidence of this when I lived in the far east. All horrific but all quite normal for the day and age. .

The Buddhist, sikh and jain scriptures doesnt advocate such barbaric treatment and they too come from ancient times.



The first was when Muslims were just starting in Medina. The people there were the Muslims, some Christians and 3 tribes of Jews (Bani Al-natheer, Bani Qaynuqaa, and Bani Quraytha). A number of Pagan tribes had decided to attack Medina and wipe out the Muslims. All the residents of Medina had signed a treaty of united defense. Salman Al-Farisi (pbuh), suggested that the Muslims should dig a trench along the open plains to disable the Pagan attack. The Jewsish tribes were stationed in the mountains on the North side of Medina. The Jews freely allowed the Pagans to enter Medina across the mountains and thus betrayed the Muslims and Christians. Allah only knows how but the Muslims and Christians won the battle. After the Pagans withdrew back to Mecca, our Prophet (pbuh) exiled the Jewish tribes from Medina in accordance with verse 5:33.

The second is seen here in this hadith:

Narrated Abu Qilaba: "Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk. So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle. (Sahih Bukhari, Ablutions (Wudu'), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234)"
.

They could have been merely killed for such excesses. Why such barbaric sadistic torture treatment such as mutilation of limbs, branding of eyes with heated pieces of iron and stuff.

We may not like the desccriptions but do we believe these people would have been treated any better, at that time of history, in any other area of the world?.

And why are you comparing this to other lands. Dont you think Allah should have been compassionate to them and merely sanctioned their killing (as is done now as capital punishment) without all the torture and stuff ?

Firstly, Muslim men can marry Christians and Jews and these women are not required to convert to Islam - don't think you can get much more friendly than that. It is not the same for women because in Islam children follow the religion of the father, so he should be Muslim. The Quran also accepts the other Abrahamic faiths and does not suggest anywhere they convert to Islam.?.

13.Sura 5:54 "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."

I think the above verse explains it all.

Now the modern context. I have a choice, I can go to meet my Muslim friends for coffee or don my boob tube and shorts and go meet my non Muslim friends in a bar?

And does it strictly mean that you have to wear revealing clothes while you meet your non-muslim friends. I know of many non-muslims who wear dignified and decent clothes. It is not compulsory to wear a boob tube or miniskirt while you are out with non-muslim friends.

Hindu , sikh , buddhist ladies wear very good and decent clothes as well though they don't wear a burqa.

This verse is purely about picking your friends carefully - and wise advise if you ask me.

It doesnt seem to me to be 'purely about picking your friends carefully'. The hindu and dharmic scriptures teach us about picking good and holy company whereever they may be as it is good for spiritual progress , nothing about so-called unbelievers.

Character is the important thing, not religious faith. According to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, even an atheist who is of good character will go to heaven , while a believer in God, who has a bad character , will go to hell.

 

[niranjan]

61:11 I have explained before that Jihad means STRUGGLE not war, so this verse tells Muslims of the time to struggle for G-d in all things including with their live if need be. That does not say go out and kill, it says when you must go to war you do so for G-d. Again something that armies leaders have been telling their troops for thousands of years.

Yeah, and which as I stated before, explains why islamic fundamentalists engaged in offensive warfare against Europe, Asia and Africa, slaughtering, torturing and raping millions.

61:12 If you die defending the Muslim people then you go to heaven. Still no suggestion of go out and indiscriminately kill. There are many verses (obviously not quoted here) that state Muslims can only fight in defence..

Quran-9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

This is one of the ifficulties with these young people that blow themselves and innocent bystanders up, they have been brainwashed into believing that the West is waging war on the Muslims so they must fight and die. But then the problem, with this brainwashing is it doesn't take into account the strict verses of the Quran where we are instructed not to kill any innocent civilians, only those men in the opposing army...

This 'difficulty' is not only with these young people, but also with Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists since the 7th century A.D. who have engaged in offensive warfare against Asia, Africa and Europe and slaughtered, raped and tortured millions. In Asia itself, the Zoroastrians, the Bahais, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Buddhists, the Assyrians were the victims of Islamic terrorism.

61:13 G-d says He will help the believers to victory. Forgive me if I am wrong but the other Abrahamic scriptures say the same sort of thing do they not? And didn't Joan of Arc state that G-d told her He was on their side and they would win despite the odds against them?...

None of this sort is in the Bible. And Joan fought a defensive warfare against the english and not at all an offensive warfare .

This is the interpretation of the verse from the Institue of Arabic and Islamic studies. They begin the lecture by explaining why some arabic words are so bady translated:

The third verse to be explored is verse 29 of Chapter 9. The verse establishes that the People of the Book resident in an Islamic state, who are exempted from defending the state shall pay a defense-obligation exemption fee called jizya. If they refused to pay the jizya, then the state is obligated to obtain it by force. The verse clearly states:

“And fight against those who – despite having the Book (aforetime) – do not (truly) believe either in God or in the Last Day, nor consider forbidden that which God and the Conveyor of His Message have forbidden, nor follow the religion of truth (which God has enjoined upon them) until they agree to the payment of the exemption tax (of defense-obligations, jizya) by those who afford it, and acknowledge their subjection (to the state).” Qur'an, 9:29.​

The nature of this verse with respect to fight is not antagonistic because of ethnicity, but rather over monetary and regulatory issues within the state. A similar policy is applicable to the Muslims themselves when they refuse to pay their dues to the state. In the same manner Christians and Jews are obligated to pay the state jizya, Muslims are obligated to pay to the state zakat. Zakah is a form of taxation similar to the tax that most people have to pay to their respective states. In similar manner to the case of jizya with respect to the People of the Book, if Muslims, too, refused to pay zakat, then the state is obligated to obtain it by force. An example of this was the case of the Murtadeen, several tribes, who, during the rule of first Caliph Abu Bakr refused to pay zakat, a war was conducted against them until they paid it, and acknowledged their subjection to the state.
?...

12.Sura 9:29-31 "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


Reading this,it feels more like the muslims should fight against all non-muslims, including the jews and the christians until they are subdued and humiliated , and have to pay the jizya.

And this is what they have done in offensive warfare against Asia, africa and europe. The jizya tax was imposed on the hindus, buddhists, jains by the muslim fundamentalists in India after they invaded India.

The Sura deals with very specific tribes of Jews and Christians at the time of the prophet Mohammad and not all Jews and Christians throughout time. If you carry on reading 2 versess down you see it is a warning to the Muslim hypocrites that the Jews and Christians they conspired with would not protect them and that G-d would not love such people.

9:123: “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.”
2:191- “Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out.



When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, antisemitism would surface, often with devastating results: On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.
Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.(6)
Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.(7)
Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).(
. The population of Jewish communities of Muslim Middle East and North Africa was reduced from about 900,000 in 1948 to less than 8,000 today.

Persecution of Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Persecution of Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Armenian Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pontic Greek Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assyrian Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[niranjan]

Check out some more verses of the quran.


Quran-3:85, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).”

Quran-9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. [Allah’s hatred to those who are reluctant to join Islamic jihad]
Quran-9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

Quran-4:89— “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades (change to other religions), seize them and kill them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-” (Punishment for the apostates).

 

[Muslimwoman]

Sorry about that, but I want to bring justice to these victims of Islamic terrorism all over the world, and I will continue to do so.

as salaam aleykum Niranjan

I hope and pray you continue to fight, in a peaceful way, against the injustice to these victims. I hope everyone in the world will fight against injustice, to all peoples by all peoples, and insh'allah one day the world see's a time where no injustice is committed against anyone (religious, political, cultural, class, etc).

What I am hoping our discussions may show you, insh'allah, is that you can make a better argument aginst these wicked people by stating the fact that they are actually going AGAINST Islam. This is what amazes me about people that fight against these horrific acts, they always incorrectly state "the Quran says this, the Quran justifies that" and all this does is give an opportunity to the ignorant perpetrators of these crimes to say "you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about". 'Use' (and I mean in a nice way) the Quran and the words of G-d against them. Make them justify where G-d allows such behaviour. Expose them to be the liars and frauds they truly are. You cannot fight (even verbally) an enemy if you do not understand that enemy. These people believe, albeit mistakenly, that their actions are ordained by G-d and we all must show them the errors of their ways.

Remember Niranjan that Muslims believe wholeheartedly that if we knowingly go against the word of G-d we will be punished (and you can see from the Quran the sort of punishments we all face). So use this as your argument, show these misguided people they are chosing to be selective in their understanding of the Quran and going against G-d, they will be much more afraid of what G-d will do to them than anything mankind can threaten them with.

Because of our discussions I watched a documentary yesterday about India and the changing political situation there, I wanted a better undertanding of what people there (of all religions) are currently facing. It showed a Hindu rally, the former Prime Minister was there, and young men were singing "when Mother India calls, we will come to her with bullets". I understand the anger at what these so called Muslims are doing there but rather than bullets why not make them publicly accountable. By that I mean recruit the help of Islamic scholars (we do have some wonderful scholars) to prove to these people what they are doing is anti-Islamic. There are many Muslims out there who believe these attrocities are exaggerated or even lies to show Islam as violent, so make all Muslims in the world see the truth but do it by showing not how the Quran allows this (because it doesn't) but by showing how the Quran forbids it - show them to be the non-Muslims that they truly are.

Sorry if that sounds like a lecture, it isn't meant to be.

And how is that possible. So-called God is exhorting the so-called believers through the angels to chop the necks of the so-called un-believers and their fingers for good measure. We don't see any angels doing it, only Islamic terrorists.

This is what I say above Niranjan, these people must be made to see their actions are wrong and that just because G-d allows the Angels to do this does not mean that man may follow.

Yeah and that is why Zoroastrian, Bahai, Hindu, Sikh ,Buddhist, Jain, christian temples were destroyed by Muslim invaders in their lands.

With all due respect Niranjan I gave you a link to an article showing Hindu's destroying a mosque because they wanted to replace it with a Hindu temple. Two wrongs do make a right.

And I wonder why the muslims engaged in offensive warfare against

Asia,Africa, Europe slaughtering, torturing and raping millions.

Your statement suggests that 'millions' are currently being slaughtered, tortured and raped - clearly a gross exaggeration and if it was true I believe the world press would have heard about it by now. This is a great example of what I was saying above, when you use a gross exaggeration of numbers you lose your argument immediately because if a flaw in your numbers is incorrect people will dismiss everything else you say (as I did when you first misquoted a verse number - a small thing I know but a really good get out clause for offenders). Have you ever heard the expression 'as soon as you start to shout you have lost your argument'?

Whos bothered about what happens on hell ? I am more bothered about what happens on earth. All these torture verses of hell was implemented on earth itself, and an example is the brutal torture of the Sikh guru Teg Bahadur and his disciples.

Niranjan, I can't understand why you are determined not to understand what I am saying here, you always come back with the same comment "not bothered what happens in hell". Just because some loonies are choosing to use these verses to commit these attrocities does not make them ordained by G-d or the Quran or make them the teachings of Islam. I am explaining to you that the verses refer to Hell, this means that the people committing these attrocities are misguided and not following the teachings of the Quran - because G-d clearly tells us He does not like or protect the trangressors. Please try to split your argument up into two parts, what are the teachings of Islam and what some Muslims are doing - they are two different things and you cannot say just because a misguided group of Mulsims does something wrong that Islam itself is wrong. In the same way, if (may the Buddists forgive me for saying this) a group of Buddists decided to start a riot I could not claim Buddism to be violent based on their actions.

The Buddhist, sikh and jain scriptures doesnt advocate such barbaric treatment and they too come from ancient times.

I am a servant of G-d and not His spokesperson, so I cannot tell you why.

My own reason tells me the Quran was revealed at a time and in a place where warfare, slavery, violence and feudal actions were perfectly normal, so to say to these people have a group hug and forgive each other would have had little effect other than to be laughed at. The only way to get through to them perhaps would have been to explain things in terms that they understood?

They could have been merely killed for such excesses. Why such barbaric sadistic torture treatment such as mutilation of limbs, branding of eyes with heated pieces of iron and stuff.

My answer would be as above really, I also cannot speak for or judge the actions of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

Again think about the times, Muslims were constantly under threat of slaughter themselves. There are many authentic examples of the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) showing his enemy mercy. Perhaps the punishment for this crime was as a deterant for Muslims not to sin against G-d (murder and theft are sins against G-d). Imagine it, if you were a Muslim at the time, would you go out after hearing about that and murder or steal? Yes there was a lot of killing at the start of Islam but that was feudal and political but a great distinction was drawn in Islam between killing in battle and murder - only the former is allowed.

And why are you comparing this to other lands. Dont you think Allah should have been compassionate to them and merely sanctioned their killing (as is done now as capital punishment) without all the torture and stuff ?

I was making the distinction between what was normal in those days, throughout the world and what is morally acceptable now. In any country or (I believe) culture in those days life was simply more feudal and violent. You only have to go back a couple of hundred years in the worlds history to find times where violence was more acceptable as the norm.

I think the above verse explains it all.

AGAIN this is verse 5:51 not 5:54 and please try to read what I wrote about it. The verse was revealed at a specific time to refer to a specific group of people that claimed to be Muslims but were actually conspiring with a certain group of Jews and Christians against the Muslims.

Please try read what I write, you don’t have to accept or agree with anything I say but if you don’t even read it then I feel I am wasting my time.

And does it strictly mean that you have to wear revealing clothes while you meet your non-muslim friends. I know of many non-muslims who wear dignified and decent clothes. It is not compulsory to wear a boob tube or miniskirt while you are out with non-muslim friends.

Sorry I was just exaggerating to get a point across, of course I can and do meet non-Muslim friends and we all dress appropriately for our beliefs.

Hindu , sikh , buddhist ladies wear very good and decent clothes as well though they don't wear a burqa.

I don’t wear a burqa either, I believe it is a terrible oppression against women who are forced to dress this way. This is based upon one single hadith and no-one can prove it’s authenticity. Unfortunately just another stupid man made practice. However, if a woman chooses to dress this way then so be it but at least it is her choice.

It doesnt seem to me to be 'purely about picking your friends carefully'. The hindu and dharmic scriptures teach us about picking good and holy company whereever they may be as it is good for spiritual progress , nothing about so-called unbelievers.

Okay now read the verse again, particularly the bit in bold:

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. (3:28)

It speaks of choosing your friends carefully, of choosing believers over non believers in order that you will not be persuaded to stray from the path Allah has set you on. Now, if I had a choice of spending time with a woman that called herself Muslim but drank alcohol, wore revealing clothes and went to disco’s or a pious Jewish lady that believes in G-d and lives a decent life – try to guess which one I should choose?

However, if I have a choice of spending time with a pious Muslim woman or a pious Hindu woman then G-d tells me I should choose to spend time with the Muslim woman, so that I would not be tempted or persuaded away from my faith. I am sorry but it makes perfect sense to me. If I spend time with the Hindu lady I would certainly find her clothes beautiful and over time I may be tempted to dress the same way and this simply is not permitted for me.

Character is the important thing, not religious faith. According to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, even an atheist who is of good character will go to heaven , while a believer in God, who has a bad character , will go to hell.

Of course character is the most important thing, as I state above it is pointless me spending time with a woman calling herself Muslim if she does not live in a modest way. I do tend to have a good laugh at the Muslims that believe they will go to heaven no matter what they do just because they are called Muslim and turn up at the mosque every now and again – so arrogant and of course misguided. I have to differ in opinion of who G-d will accept into heaven but if that is your belief then fine.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Yeah, and which as I stated before, explains why islamic fundamentalists engaged in offensive warfare against

Europe, Asia and Africa, slaughtering, torturing and raping millions.

Oh I see. So the Hindu scriptures teach violence and murder? In my last post I talked about the Hindu rally I saw on tv and the young men chanting “when Mother India calls, we will come to her with bullets”. So this must be a teaching of their scripture?

Quran-9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

Did Jesus (pbuh) not strive hard against the unbelievers? Was it not the work of any of the Prophets (pbut) to strive against the unbelievers? Or are you just making the assumption that this refers to fighting and violence? To strive, simply means to work.

Forgive me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that G-d has told us in all the Abrahamic scriptures that a belief in the one true G-d is the first requirement to be entered into heaven and a non believer will not be admitted but will be persecuted in Hell.

This 'difficulty' is not only with these young people, but also with Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists since the 7th century A.D. who have engaged in offensive warfare against

Asia, Africa and Europe and slaughtered, raped and tortured millions. In Asia itself, the Zoroastrians, the Bahais, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Buddhists, the Assyrians were the victims of Islamic terrorism.

I said and I quote “ONE of the difficulties”.

None of this sort is in the Bible. And Joan fought a defensive warfare against the english and not at all an offensive warfare.

Remember I used to be a Christian so here you go:

Deuteronomy 20:4
For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory."

So do you think the Bible is referring to tickling people with feathers until they surrender?

You haven’t quite understood the concept of the 100 year war but it is a difficult one to grasp, try this:

It is important to note that the Hundred Years War was not a national conflict between England and France in the modern sense. In the 15th century, the current notion of the nation state did not exist. The entities we refer to as England and France were nominally under the suzerainty of a king but, especially in the case of France, were in reality a loose knit union of principalities ruled by princes often more powerful than the king. The Hundred Years War was a French dynastic struggle in which English soldiery formed the infantry core of the armies assembled by the Norman French rulers of England who were also claimants to the throne of France. (this is by John Egan)

Just out of interest this is my favourite quote by Joan of Arc:

“One life is all we have and we live it as we believe in living it. But to sacrifice what you are and to live without belief, that is a fate more terrible than dying.”

12.Sura

9:29-31 "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

This refers to groups of people exempt from defensive warfare but they had to pay tax for the defences of the state. If they refused to pay then the monies would be obtained forceably.

I pay tax now to the government, a part of which goes toward paying for the military defence of the country. If I refuse to pay this tax then I go to prison. So not much has changed there then.

The issue of subduing sections of the population is still an issue today in order to maintain peace.

9:123: “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.”

Hey nice misquote Niranjan, now here is the real translation (by 3 different translators so you can be in no doubt). Can you see the word murder anywhere?:

9:123
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

2:191- “Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out.

Here is the context for this verse:

The first to be addressed is verse 191from Chapter, Baqarah, 2:191. This verse is misunderstood to command Muslims to kill disbelievers, Christians and Jews. In order for us to study this verse within its historical and subject matter context, we need to consider verse 190 as well. Verses 190-191 say:​

“And fight in the cause of God those who have (initially) waged war against you, but do not transgress limits (by causing more damage to your enemy than the damage they initially caused you, thereby expanding the circle of war). Indeed, Allah loves not transgressors [190]. And slay them wherever you overtake them and expel them from where they have expelled you (a reference to Quraysh who for 14 years had been expelling the Muslims from Mecca), for tumult and oppression (that Quraysh heavily incurred on you) are worse than killing; but fight them not at the Inviolable House of Worship, unless they (first) fight you there. If they were to fight you, then do not be reluctant to kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (in the sanctity of the Holy Shrine of Ka’ba). [191]” ​

Considering the history surrounding these verses, we learn that they were revealed after the peace treaty of Hudaybiyah signed between the Idolaters of Quraysh and the Muslims in the year six after emigration, and prior to the performing of one of the treaty’s condition that calls for Muslims to visit Mecca and perform the Pilgrimage. Some Muslims were concerned that Quraysh may not fulfill its promise in allowing the Muslims to enter Mecca and conversely attack them while performing the Pilgrimage rituals. This legitimate concern was indeed answered by God in the above verses.

In case Quraysh broke the Hudaybiyah peace agreement by attacking the Muslims during the pilgrimage, only then Muslims were commanded to defend themselves and were given the details of how to act in the battlefield. Muslims were told to kill the Idolaters wherever they may come upon them and to drive them away from wherever they initially drove them away. Muslims also were commanded to preserve the old sanctity of the Shrine of Ka’ba by not fighting in it (But fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they [first] fight you there.) ​

Note in verse 190 the subject of the verb “fight” is the clause (those who have [initially] waged war against you). This descriptive clause is making direct reference to Quraysh and could not be mistaken by any other than the Idolaters of Quraysh. Similarly, the first part of verse 191, the subject of the verbs “slay,” “overtake,” and “expel” is Quraysh, who earlier had expelled the Muslims from Mecca. The second part of verse 191, however, a new descriptive word, kafireen, is given to the subject to-be-killed for fighting in the Sacred Mosque. The word kafireen, disbelievers, can take two possible meanings: a) Quraysh who is the reference in the previous verse and who is also the guardian of the Holy Shrine, and b) specific people of Quraysh who disbelieved in the age-old sanctity of the Ka’ba and incurred violence within it. If Quraysh or those who disbelieved in the age-old sanctity of the Ka’ba fight you, only then do not be reluctant to kill them. ​

When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, antisemitism would surface, often with devastating results: On

December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.
Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.(6)

If you are going to start quoting history like this then we will have to get into a very big discussion about the Crusades, where Christians slaughtered Muslims and Jews. Or how about 1258 when the Mongols raised Baghdad to the ground and slaughtered every Muslim in the city, including the whole Abbasid Caliphate?

There is right and wrong on both sides, throughout history.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

Check out some more verses of the quran.

I like the way you phrase this, like I've never seen the Quran before

Quran-3:85, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).”

What would you like me to do Niranjan, call G-d on my mobile and tell Him He must accept people who do not believe in Him? Submission to G-d is a requirement by G-d.

Quran-9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.”

Oh I can give you loads more verses than that which tell Muslims it is their duty to fight to protect Islam, their people, land and possessions. Now put it into context, the Quran ONLY allows us to fight defensive wars. So are you saying if your country or people were attacked you would not fight for them?

Quran-9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

You must have got these from a different anti Islamic site because we already this verse in the post above.

Quran-4:89

— “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades (change to other religions), seize them and kill them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-” (Punishment for the apostates).

Now read the verses before and after this:

4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them

This verse also only commands Muslims to fight those who practice oppression or persecution, or attack the Muslims. And in the event of a battle, the same laws of war are in place and a Muslim who transgresses limits should prepare for the punishment of God.

In response to a question on verses 4:88-89, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi quotes the verses in their full context and then asks the following:

Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized.



The Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder, (…Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.) (Al-An`am 6: 151) and Allah says in the Qur’an, (Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law)) (Al-Israa’ 17: 33). According to the Qur’an, killing any person without a just cause is as big a sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good deed as saving the whole humanity. (See Al-Ma’idah 5: 32)

 

[niranjan]

I hope and pray you continue to fight, in a peaceful way, against the injustice to these victims. I hope everyone in the world will fight against injustice, to all peoples by all peoples, and insh'allah one day the world see's a time where no injustice is committed against anyone (religious, political, cultural, class, etc)..

And that includes you as well. Our scriptures teaches us that every woman is the manifestation of the Divine mother of the universe , and they are the source of all power and strength.

With 500 men the conquest of India can be complete in 50 years. But with the same number of women , only a few weeks are suffice.
--Swami Vivekananda.

If one does not allow one to become a lion, he will become a fox. Women are a power, only now it is more for evil because man oppresses woman; she is the fox, but when she is no longer oppressed, she will become the lion.
-- Swami Vivekananda

Remember Niranjan that Muslims believe wholeheartedly that if we knowingly go against the word of G-d we will be punished (and you can see from the Quran the sort of punishments we all face). So use this as your argument, show these misguided people they are chosing to be selective in their understanding of the Quran and going against G-d, they will be much more afraid of what G-d will do to them than anything mankind can threaten them with.

And why this emphasis on fear again . Why not emhasize on love for the sake of love , and doing good for the sake of good alone, and not because of love for heaven or fear of hell ? This is what the Buddha has taught.

Because of our discussions I watched a documentary yesterday about India and the changing political situation there, I wanted a better undertanding of what people there (of all religions) are currently facing. It showed a Hindu rally, the former Prime Minister was there, and young men were singing "when Mother India calls, we will come to her with bullets". I understand the anger at what these so called Muslims are doing there but rather than bullets why not make them publicly accountable..

The political situation in India is definetely not changing or anything. Advani , the RSS and BJP and hindu nationalist supremo, has clearly stated publicly that while India is a hindu nation because of its overwhelming hindu majority, it is and will remain a secular state.

Our current president, A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, was elected to power by the Hindu nationalist party BJP, while they were in power and ruling India. And our president A.P.J.Abdul Kalam is the First Citizen in India, and the supreme commander of the armed forces of India, which is the third largest in the world, and boasts of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, which makes him one of the most powerful men on earth, and the most powerful muslim on earth.

We had also two other muslim presidents before him. And currently we have a muslim president, a sikh prime minister, and a christian lady who is the leader of the governing and ruling party in India. All this in India, which has an overwhelming Hindu majority. This in itself speaks of our secular credentials.

Can any islamic state has the guts to say the stuff which Advani has stated. Can any one of these states appoint a minority as the head of their states? And minority who dare suggest the idea will be tortured and killed.

By that I mean recruit the help of Islamic scholars (we do have some wonderful scholars) to prove to these people what they are doing is anti-Islamic.

And where were all these 'wonderful scholars' when the assyrians , zoroastrians, bahais, buddhists, jains, sikhs, hindus in Asia were slaughtered. What were they doing all this time ?

Aurangzeb was a learned authority on the quran, and he had numerous learned islamic clerics and scholars in his court. Where were all this learning and islamic scholars when the sikh guru teg bahadur and his disciples were brutally tortured and slaughtered . And where were they when numerous hindus and sikhs were tortured and slaughtered by Aurangzeb ?

When the world had enough of islamic terrorism and started giving them a taste of their own medicine and overcoming them with force and pointing out these violent verses in the Quran, they conveniently changed their stand, and started emphasizing the peaceful and kind verses in the quran. If Aurangzeb was alive, he would also have done the same thing.

All this smacks of hypocrisy, cowardice and fox like cunning, which is obvious to any intelligent mind.

This is what I say above Niranjan, these people must be made to see their actions are wrong and that just because G-d allows the Angels to do this does not mean that man may follow.

I don't understand you. In a previous post, you defended the chopping of fingers of the unbeliever saying that Joan and her soldiers would have done the same thing in war. Now you are saying that the angels are supposed to do this torture stuff and not the so-called believers.

The verse clearly points out that the angels are supposed to convey the message that the so-called believers are supposed to chop off the fingers and necks of the so-called unbelievers. And there are many other verses as well about the same stuff.

1. (Koran 8:12) "Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

With all due respect Niranjan I gave you a link to an article showing Hindu's destroying a mosque because they wanted to replace it with a Hindu temple. Two wrongs do make a right..

And I have also clearly stated with links that this particular mosque was built upon a hindu temple of Rama , demolished by Babar in the 15th century. The hindu nationalists only destroyed this mosque, ( which was dilapidated and not used for worship) and not other mosques, though they are perfectly capable of doing it.

And this destroyed mosque is nothing compared to the destruction of thousands of hindu temples in India by Islamic terrorists. And hindu temples were destroyed in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well.

Also numerous buddhist, jain temples and the golden temple of the sikhs were destroyed by islamic terrorists. The Golden Temple of the sikhs was rebuilt after demolition by the sikhs.

And not only in India, but also all over the world, the Bahai, zoroastrian ,buddhist temples, synagogues and churches were destroyed by islamic terrorists.

Your statement suggests that 'millions' are currently being slaughtered, tortured and raped - clearly a gross exaggeration and if it was true I believe the world press would have heard about it by now. ..

How convenient for you to dismiss the 'millions' slaughtered all over the world by islamic terrorists as gross exaggeration.

Do you think the offensive warfare against Asia , Africa and Europe by Islamic terrorists was very peaceful !!!!!!!!

In this century alone, 2.5 million hindus were killed in Bangladesh by Islamic terrorists in the 1971 Bangladesh genocide.

1971 Bangladesh atrocities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Niranjan, I can't understand why you are determined not to understand what I am saying here, you always come back with the same comment "not bothered what happens in hell". ..

Our scriptures speak of heaven and hell, but to tell the truth I am not bothered by it. Our prophet Vivekananda stated that one should be ready to go to a 100000 hells if needed to help even one person. It is glorious to help even one man.

 

[niranjan]

I hope and pray you continue to fight, in a peaceful way, against the injustice to these victims. I hope everyone in the world will fight against injustice, to all peoples by all peoples, and insh'allah one day the world see's a time where no injustice is committed against anyone (religious, political, cultural, class, etc)..

And that includes you as well. Our scriptures teaches us that every woman is the manifestation of the Divine mother of the universe , and they are the source of all power and strength.

With 500 men the conquest of India can be complete in 50 years. But with the same number of women , only a few weeks are suffice.
--Swami Vivekananda.

If one does not allow one to become a lion, he will become a fox. Women are a power, only now it is more for evil because man oppresses woman; she is the fox, but when she is no longer oppressed, she will become the lion.
-- Swami Vivekananda

Remember Niranjan that Muslims believe wholeheartedly that if we knowingly go against the word of G-d we will be punished (and you can see from the Quran the sort of punishments we all face). So use this as your argument, show these misguided people they are chosing to be selective in their understanding of the Quran and going against G-d, they will be much more afraid of what G-d will do to them than anything mankind can threaten them with.

And why this emphasis on fear again . Why not emhasize on love for the sake of love , and doing good for the sake of good alone, and not because of love for heaven or fear of hell ? This is what the Buddha has taught.

Because of our discussions I watched a documentary yesterday about India and the changing political situation there, I wanted a better undertanding of what people there (of all religions) are currently facing. It showed a Hindu rally, the former Prime Minister was there, and young men were singing "when Mother India calls, we will come to her with bullets". I understand the anger at what these so called Muslims are doing there but rather than bullets why not make them publicly accountable..

The political situation in India is definetely not changing or anything. Advani , the RSS and BJP and hindu nationalist supremo, has clearly stated publicly that while India is a hindu nation because of its overwhelming hindu majority, it is and will remain a secular state.

Our current president, A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, was elected to power by the Hindu nationalist party BJP, while they were in power and ruling India. And our president A.P.J.Abdul Kalam is the First Citizen in India, and the supreme commander of the armed forces of India, which is the third largest in the world, and boasts of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, which makes him one of the most powerful men on earth, and the most powerful muslim on earth.

We had also two other muslim presidents before him. And currently we have a muslim president, a sikh prime minister, and a christian lady who is the leader of the governing and ruling party in India. All this in India, which has an overwhelming Hindu majority. This in itself speaks of our secular credentials.

Can any islamic state has the guts to say the stuff which Advani has stated. Can any one of these states appoint a minority as the head of their states? And minority who dare suggest the idea will be tortured and killed.

By that I mean recruit the help of Islamic scholars (we do have some wonderful scholars) to prove to these people what they are doing is anti-Islamic.

And where were all these 'wonderful scholars' when the assyrians , zoroastrians, bahais, buddhists, jains, sikhs, hindus in Asia were slaughtered. What were they doing all this time ?

Aurangzeb was a learned authority on the quran, and he had numerous learned islamic clerics and scholars in his court. Where were all this learning and islamic scholars when the sikh guru teg bahadur and his disciples were brutally tortured and slaughtered . And where were they when numerous hindus and sikhs were tortured and slaughtered by Aurangzeb ?

When the world had enough of islamic terrorism and started giving them a taste of their own medicine and overcoming them with force and pointing out these violent verses in the Quran, they conveniently changed their stand, and started emphasizing the peaceful and kind verses in the quran. If Aurangzeb was alive, he would also have done the same thing.

All this smacks of hypocrisy, cowardice and fox like cunning, which is obvious to any intelligent mind.

This is what I say above Niranjan, these people must be made to see their actions are wrong and that just because G-d allows the Angels to do this does not mean that man may follow.

I don't understand you. In a previous post, you defended the chopping of fingers of the unbeliever saying that Joan and her soldiers would have done the same thing in war. Now you are saying that the angels are supposed to do this torture stuff and not the so-called believers.

The verse clearly points out that the angels are supposed to convey the message that the so-called believers are supposed to chop off the fingers and necks of the so-called unbelievers. And there are many other verses as well about the same stuff.

1. (Koran 8:12) "Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

With all due respect Niranjan I gave you a link to an article showing Hindu's destroying a mosque because they wanted to replace it with a Hindu temple. Two wrongs do make a right..

And I have also clearly stated with links that this particular mosque was built upon a hindu temple of Rama , demolished by Babar in the 15th century. The hindu nationalists only destroyed this mosque, ( which was dilapidated and not used for worship) and not other mosques, though they are perfectly capable of doing it.

And this destroyed mosque is nothing compared to the destruction of thousands of hindu temples in India by Islamic terrorists. And hindu temples were destroyed in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well.

Also numerous buddhist, jain temples and the golden temple of the sikhs were destroyed by islamic terrorists. The Golden Temple of the sikhs was rebuilt after demolition by the sikhs.

And not only in India, but also all over the world, the Bahai, zoroastrian ,buddhist temples, synagogues and churches were destroyed by islamic terrorists.

Your statement suggests that 'millions' are currently being slaughtered, tortured and raped - clearly a gross exaggeration and if it was true I believe the world press would have heard about it by now. ..

How convenient for you to dismiss the 'millions' slaughtered all over the world by islamic terrorists as gross exaggeration.

Do you think the offensive warfare against Asia , Africa and Europe by Islamic terrorists was very peaceful !!!!!!!!

In this century alone, 2.5 million hindus were killed in Bangladesh by Islamic terrorists in the 1971 Bangladesh genocide.

1971 Bangladesh atrocities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Niranjan, I can't understand why you are determined not to understand what I am saying here, you always come back with the same comment "not bothered what happens in hell". ..

Our scriptures speak of heaven and hell, but to tell the truth I am not bothered by it. Our prophet Vivekananda stated that one should be ready to go to a 100000 hells if needed to help even one person. It is glorious to help even one man.

. In the same way, if (may the Buddists forgive me for saying this) a group of Buddists decided to start a riot I could not claim Buddism to be violent based on their actions. ..

There are no scriptures in Buddhism which teaches us to kill unbelievers and torture them and mutilate them. There is no sex slavery of female captives as well in Buddhism.

Buddha has clearly stated ," Not by hatred can hatred be destroyed, but by love. This is the eternal law. "

Buddha has sanctioned in a story , war for the sake of self-defence, but nothing more than that.
Buddha has emphasized non-violence, including against animals , and this is why the majority of buddhists and hindus are vegetarian.

Buddhism spread through out asia through gentleness, and not through the sword or violence.

I am a servant of G-d and not His spokesperson, so I cannot tell you why.
..

Well, I believe that the Divine has given the faculty of rational and logical thinking for a reason, and I believe it is our duty to employ it.

Believe nothing, merely because you have been told it, or because it is traditional or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for your teacher. But whatever after due consideration and analysis you find to be conducive to the good , the benefit, the welfare of all beings, that doctrine , believe and cling to and take it as your guide.
- Buddha

My own reason tells me the Quran was revealed at a time and in a place where warfare, slavery, violence and feudal actions were perfectly normal, so to say to these people have a group hug and forgive each other would have had little effect other than to be laughed at. The only way to get through to them perhaps would have been to explain things in terms that they understood?..

I understand the conditions were very uncivilized and uncultured in those regions, but I don't think these stuff , ( the torture stuff and slavery of female captives especially) is not needed now.

My answer would be as above really, I also cannot speak for or judge the actions of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

And my answer is the same as above, including the quote of the Buddha.

 

[niranjan]

Again think about the times, Muslims were constantly under threat of slaughter themselves. There are many authentic examples of the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) showing his enemy mercy. Perhaps the punishment for this crime was as a deterant for Muslims not to sin against G-d (murder and theft are sins against G-d). Imagine it, if you were a Muslim at the time, would you go out after hearing about that and murder or steal? Yes there was a lot of killing at the start of Islam but that was feudal and political but a great distinction was drawn in Islam between killing in battle and murder - only the former is allowed.).

We too have scriptures that sanctions war in self-defence, but slaughter of civilians and sex slavery of women captives are forbidden.

You only have to go back a couple of hundred years in the worlds history to find times where violence was more acceptable as the norm.

It was the norm in uncivilized and uncultured times in those regions.

But I don't think torture and violence and other disgusting stuff has to be the norm now.

AGAIN this is verse 5:51 not 5:54 and please try to read what I wrote about it. The verse was revealed at a specific time to refer to a specific group of people that claimed to be Muslims but were actually conspiring with a certain group of Jews and Christians against the Muslims..

Wish God could have been a bit more specific, when He said those stuff. It sure could have saved the lives of many innocent christians and jews in the later centuries .

Sorry I was just exaggerating to get a point across, of course I can and do meet non-Muslim friends and we all dress appropriately for our beliefs...

And you are complaining that I am exaggerating !!!

I don’t wear a burqa either, I believe it is a terrible oppression against women who are forced to dress this way. This is based upon one single hadith and no-one can prove it’s authenticity. Unfortunately just another stupid man made practice. However, if a woman chooses to dress this way then so be it but at least it is her choice....

Yeah I know . Many muslim men wear flashy clothes and tight jeans and other fashionable clothes , but impose the burqa and scarf on their women. These guys are very insecure dudes.

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. (3:28)

It speaks of choosing your friends carefully, of choosing believers over non believers in order that you will not be persuaded to stray from the path Allah has set you on. Now, if I had a choice of spending time with a woman that called herself Muslim but drank alcohol, wore revealing clothes and went to disco’s or a pious Jewish lady that believes in G-d and lives a decent life – try to guess which one I should choose?

But isn't the muslim woman who do such naughty stuff, still believes in God,and hence a believer ?

And isnt the pious jewish woman , since she is not a believer of Islam, an unbeliever? That is what those verses seems to say logically, if you ask me.

However, if I have a choice of spending time with a pious Muslim woman or a pious Hindu woman then G-d tells me I should choose to spend time with the Muslim woman, so that I would not be tempted or persuaded away from my faith. I am sorry but it makes perfect sense to me. If I spend time with the Hindu lady I would certainly find her clothes beautiful and over time I may be tempted to dress the same way and this simply is not permitted for me.

As I said before, our scriptures emphasize character and universality rather than religious belief or inclinations.

I have no hesitation whatsoever to spend time with people of character of other religions, or atheists who have a good character, even aliens( if they have a good character as well.)

We will be exposed to different viewpoints, and sources of wisdom, which our scriptures emphasize is there in all paths, and hence enrich ourselves with them and become better people.

. I have to differ in opinion of who G-d will accept into heaven but if that is your belief then fine.

Our scriptures do say that character is more important for begetting heaven.I am a believer in God myself. And if Buddha( who emphasized self-reliance and nothing else) and Mahavira and other noble agnostics and atheists are put into hell, I would humbly request God to put me in hell as well. The Buddhas sheer nobility itself will turn hell into heaven and eclipse Gods heaven.

 

[niranjan]

Oh I see. So the Hindu scriptures teach violence and murder? In my last post I talked about the Hindu rally I saw on tv and the young men chanting “when Mother India calls, we will come to her with bullets”. So this must be a teaching of their scripture?

Well, for starters , you can't get guns in India , without a licence , and for that too, there are many procedures, like checking your history and criminal record and stuff. It is not there for every Tom,Dick and Harry.

Our scriptures emphasize war for the sake of selfdefence and righteousness, but only after all the options have been exhausted, and this has been stated by Krishna and Guru Govind Singh and others.

And what these guys above were chanting is against islamic terrorists, who are indeed committing violence against India. We certainly have not forgotten what they have done to us in the medieval ages and the present era.

Did Jesus (pbuh) not strive hard against the unbelievers? Was it not the work of any of the Prophets (pbut) to strive against the unbelievers? Or are you just making the assumption that this refers to fighting and violence? To strive, simply means to work.

Well excuse me if I am wrong, but Jesus clearly abhors all violence. He has never said that we should impose stuff on others by force, and if anyone rejects his teachings, his disciples are supposed to leave that place, and get rid of the dust of their sandals.

Even when the romans came to arrest him, he clearly tells Peter to sheath his sword.

Deuteronomy 20:4
For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory."

So do you think the Bible is referring to tickling people with feathers until they surrender?

Again I emphasize , jesus strictly emphasizes non-violence, and figting against enemies implies fighting against them in the form of non-violence, just as Gandhi had done.

It is important to note that the Hundred Years War was not a national conflict between England and France in the modern sense. In the 15th century, the current notion of the nation state did not exist. The entities we refer to as England and France were nominally under the suzerainty of a king but, especially in the case of France, were in reality a loose knit union of principalities ruled by princes often more powerful than the king. The Hundred Years War was a French dynastic struggle in which English soldiery formed the infantry core of the armies assembled by the Norman French rulers of England who were also claimants to the throne of France. (this is by John Egan)

And how is this related to christianity . It is a war for political and dynastic reasons, not at all related to christianity.


This refers to groups of people exempt from defensive warfare but they had to pay tax for the defences of the state. If they refused to pay then the monies would be obtained forceably.

I pay tax now to the government, a part of which goes toward paying for the military defence of the country. If I refuse to pay this tax then I go to prison. So not much has changed there then.

The issue of subduing sections of the population is still an issue today in order to maintain peace.

Hey nice misquote Niranjan, now here is the real translation (by 3 different translators so you can be in no doubt). Can you see the word murder anywhere?:

9:123
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

To tell the truth honestly , I got this from a muslim in a muslim forum.

If you are going to start quoting history like this then we will have to get into a very big discussion about the Crusades, where Christians slaughtered Muslims and Jews. Or how about 1258 when the Mongols raised Baghdad to the ground and slaughtered every Muslim in the city, including the whole Abbasid Caliphate?

And why do you think the crusades started in the first place. Do you think the european christian would sit there like statues when islamic terrorists are invading christian lands and persecuting christian pilgrims to Jerusalem.

(From the wikipedia)
Another turning point attributed to the change in western attitudes towards the east came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid caliph, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed. In 1039 his successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it. [6] Pilgrimages were allowed to the Holy Lands before and after the Sepulchre was rebuilt but for a time pilgrims were captured and some of the clergy were killed. The conquerers however eventually realized that the wealth of Jerusalem came from the pilgrims. After they realized this the persecution of pilgrims stopped.[7] However the damage was already done, the violence of the Seljuk Turks became part of the propaganda that spread the passion for the crusades.


Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[niranjan]

I like the way you phrase this, like I've never seen the Quran before

And you needed me to put all these violent verses in perspective, when all over the world islamic terrorists are using these verses to justify their slaughter, torture and rape.
Your sincerity is remarkable.

What would you like me to do Niranjan, call G-d on my mobile and tell Him He must accept people who do not believe in Him? Submission to G-d is a requirement by G-d.

And as we stated, character is emphasized more in the dharmic scriptures.Submission to God is important and emphasized as well, but not as much as character.

Oh I can give you loads more verses than that which tell Muslims it is their duty to fight to protect Islam, their people, land and possessions. Now put it into context, the Quran ONLY allows us to fight defensive wars. So are you saying if your country or people were attacked you would not fight for them?

I have clearly stated our perspective on this. Our scriptures sanctions war in the name of self-defence and righteousness when all options have been exhausted.

But where is the self-defence, when the islamic terrorists engaged in offensive warfare against Europe, Asia and Africa.

You say that you will go to the west, after divorcing your husband, if he has sex with his second wife and other wives. If the islamic terrorists was not defeated and repulsed by the europeans with equal ruthlessness and viciousness , there would have been no west for you to go.

Now read the verses before and after this:

4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them

This verse also only commands Muslims to fight those who practice oppression or persecution, or attack the Muslims. And in the event of a battle, the same laws of war are in place and a Muslim who transgresses limits should prepare for the punishment of God.

In response to a question on verses 4:88-89, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi quotes the verses in their full context and then asks the following:

Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized.



The Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder, (…Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.) (Al-An`am 6: 151) and Allah says in the Qur’an, (Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law)) (Al-Israa’ 17: 33). According to the Qur’an, killing any person without a just cause is as big a sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good deed as saving the whole humanity. (See Al-Ma’idah 5: 32)

This verse in itself explains it all.

Quran-3:85, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).”

Compare this to the dharmic scriptures which states that all paths are divine and leads to the same goal .

And this is the reason why Islamic terrorists terrorized the whole world since the 7th century A.D. to convert them to Islam with torture, rape and slaughter, which they felt was a very compassionate thing to do to the unbelievers.

 

[niranjan]

Hi Niranjan

This goes rather off topic and should really be in the Islam and slavery thread - perhaps someone could move it and you can read it there?

Well, you are the one who asked where there is rape and slavery in the quran, and I gave you the answer for that. And this was done and is being done by islamic terrorists,as my posts and links show. Hence I believe this is important to be in this thread. This is part and parcel of the topic of this thread.

Please can you take time to read this about slaves and intercourse with them, during the time of the Prophet and beyond, actually I found it really interesting and learnt a couple of things myself.?

Imagine you are a so-called unbeliever living in Asia , Europe and Africa. Would you like it if some idiot comes and murders your husband , son and brothers and father, makes you his slave and captive and has sex with you !!!!!!!!!!

Before you 'rant' at me about slavery please remember that slavery was the norm at the time all over the world, so Islam cannot be blamed for slavery.

Slavery is not the norm in Buddhism , jainism or sikhism.

And if slavery was the norm in those parts, does it mean that islam or a benevolent God should accept it and condone it as well.

Sex with slaves and women's rights
Wa `alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh:

Q
I came across tafseer of the beginning verses of Surat-Al-Mu'minoon (Al-Mawdudi), [The Yusuf Ali translation reads, "who abstain from sex, except with those joined in the marriage bond [spouses], or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,-for (in their case) they are free of blame."] and I was kind of shocked and surprised that he states it is permissable for a man to have sexual intercourse with female slaves in his possession, in addition to his legal wives (v.5-6).

You should be , if you have any respect for womens dignity.

Slavery is unlawful (1) in the absence of the Caliph of the Muslims AND (2) unless it results from captives following a lawful war. Even so, there was always the alternative to {let the captives go free, either with or without any ransom} (47:4). Furthermore, the Ottoman Caliphate had declared - long before the US Abolition - that it prohibited slavery in its realm.

Only the ottomans , none else. And even then they had no problems in forcing assyrian women and little girls to their harems during the assyrian genocide.


(From the wikipedia)
Proclamations of emancipation and repudiations of participation in slave trafficking did not occur in Muslim lands until after the Christian-European Colonial era - as late as 1962 in Saudi Arabia, 1970 in Oman and Yemen, and 1981 in Mauritania.
Islamic slavery in the fashion multigenerational hereditary slavery (in Mauritania) is still evident today. In Chad, child enslavement with the aspect of forced conversion to Islam has been documented.

Further preliminary remarks before addressing the questions: It should be clear that Islam raised the status of slaves higher than that of free men in unislamic societies even by modern standards.

But they still were slaves ,owned by their muslim masters and who have to obey them. And God knows what these perverts have done to them.

I have heard of the turks inducting even little boys into their harem , without any problems whatsoever. The perverts .

. Thus, Islam is the first and only religion that has prescribed liberation of slaves as a virtue and a condition of genuine faith.

And as I stated before, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism , all from ancient times, do not condone slavery itself, what to say about liberation of slaves.

How is intercourse permissable without a marriage contract binding them?
Because the contract in place is that of property which includes the right to sexual enjoyment

I see, so non-muslim women captives are the property of their muslim captives , who as the quran states, " which your right hand possess" .

And I think you believe that non-muslim women ,who have witnessed the slaughter of their husbands, brothers, sons, father, at the hands of these right hand of their captors, will have no problems whatsoever in having sex with these captors.

And you call yourself a woman. Shame on you!

Perhaps there is something you need to understand about Islam. A husband has the right to have intercourse with his wife when the urge takes him. So you could imagine, he throws her to the ground and does it whether she likes it or not - basically rape of the wife. Now look at the bit above about azl, the husband has to have the wifes permission to use this form of contraception. When you put the two together they just don't fit becasue you are still imagining this poor oppressed woman being raped by her husband. You need to have an understanding of the rights of Muslim wives to understand how this all fits together. I would imagine the same would go for slaves, you have to understand how all the pieces fit together before you mke judgements about Islam.

Yeah , I understand all right. How muslim men , after capturing non-muslim women after slaughtering their men, made them their slaves and raped them, as is shown by the way the islamic terrorists raped non-muslim women "which their right hand possess" , all over the world from the 7th century A.D. to the present era.

I understand you say we should stop it and believe me, I am a woman, if I could stop another woman in the world being badly treated, no matter the religion of her or her attacker, I would do it right now.

Yeah I understand that very well, after reading your above comments.

 

[niranjan]

On Vivekananda




He is undoubtedly the greatest figure in the Parliament of Religions. After hearing him we feel how foolish it is to send missionaries to this learned nation.
---- The New York Herald.







A striking figure, clad in yellow and orange, shining like the sun of India in the midst of the heavy atmosphere of Chicago, a lion head, piercing eyes, mobile lips, movements swift and abrupt - such was my first impression of Swami Vivekananda , as I met him in one of the rooms set apart for the use of the delegates to the Parliament of Religion.

Enraptured , the huge multitude hung upon his words; not a syllable must be lost, not a cadence missed! " That man a heathen ! " said one, as he came out of the great hall, " and we send missionaries to his people! It would be more fitting that they send missionaries to us."

--Dr. Annie Besant.






In his deep voice, he began, 'Sisters and Brothers of America ' -- and the entire audience , many hundred people, clapped and cheered wildly for two minutes....No doubt the vast majority of those present hardly knew why they had been so powerfully moved. The appearance, even the voice, of Vivekananda cannot fully explain it. A large gathering has its own strange kind of subconscious telepathy, and this one must have been somehow aware that it was in the presence of that most unusual of beings, a man whose words express exactly what he is. When Vivekananda said, 'Sisters and Brothers ' he actually meant that he regarded the American women and men before him as sisters and brothers ; the well-known orational phrase became simple truth.

----Christopher Isherwood









"To ask you, Swami, for your credentials is like asking the sun about its right to shine."

----Professor John Henry Wright of Harvard University









Vivekananda's address before the Parliament was broad as the heaven above us, embracing the best in all religions, as the ultimate universal religion-- charity to all mankind and good works for the love of God, not for fear of punishment or hope of reward. He is a great favourite of the Parliament....If he merely crosses the platform he is applauded........ At the Parliament of Religions they used to keep Vivekananda until the end of the programme to make people stay till the end of the session......The four thousand fanning people in the Hall of Columbus would sit smiling and expectant waiting for an hour or two to listen to Vivekananda for fifteen minutes.The Chairman knew the old rule of keeping the best until the last.

---Boston Evening Transcript








The paragon of all Unity systems is the Vedanta philosophy of India , and the paragon of Vedantist missionaries was the late Swami Vivekananda who visited our land some years ago.I have just been reading some of Vivekananda's address in England ,which I had not seen. The man is simply a wonder for oratorical power... the Swami is an honor to humanity.

---- William James, ( Harvard professor, philosopher,psychologist and author.)









Aurobindo , the greatest Indian philosopher of the 20th century :


The going forth of Vivekananda as the heroic soul destined to take the world between his two hands and change it was the first visible sign that India was awake.

---Aurobindo






Vivekananda was a soul of puissance if ever there was one, a very lion among men, but the definitive work he has left behind is quite incommensurate with our impression of his creative might and energy. We perceive his influence still working gigantically, we know not well how, we know not well where, in something that is not yet formed, something leonine, grand, intuitive, upheaving that has entered the soul of India and we say, "Behold, Vivekananda still lives in the soul of his Mother and in the souls of her children.

--Sri Aurobindo--1915 in Vedic Magazine.











Romain Rolland, the French savant,novelist, essayist and Nobel Prize winner :


Vivekananda's words are great music, phrases in the style of Beethoven, stirring rhythms like the march of Handel Choruses. The present leaders of India: Gandhi , Aurobindo, and Tagore, have grown, flowered, and born fruit under the double constellation of the Swan ( Ramakrishna) and the Eagle( Vivekananda) -- a fact publicly acknowledged by Gandhi and Aurobindo.

--- Romain Rolland




I cannot touch these sayings of his, scattered as they are through the pages of this book at thirty years' distance, without receiving a thrill through my body like an electric shock. And what shock, what transport, must have been produced when, in burning words, they issued from the lips of the hero!

--- Romain Rolland






"Swami Vivekananda's writings need no introduction from anybody. They make their own irresistible appeal."
---Mahatma Gandhi



I have gone through his works very carefully, and after having gone through them, the love that I had for my country became a thousand-fold.
---Mahatma Gandhi






I cannot write about Vivekananda without going into raptures. Few indeed could comprehend or fathom him even among those who had the privilege of becoming intimate with him. His personality was rich, profound and complex... Reckless in his sacrifice, unceasing in his activity, boundless in his love, profound and versatile in his wisdom, exuberant in his emotions, merciless in his attacks but yet simple as a child, he was a rare personality in this world of ours. I can go for hours and yet fail to do the slightest justice to that great man . He was so great, so profound , so complex. He was a Yogi of the highest spiritual level in direct communion with the truth , who consecrated his whole life to the moral and spiritual uplift of humanity.

---Subhash Chandra Bose (architect along with Gandhi of India's freedom movement).









The qualities I most admire in Vivekananda are his activity,manliness and courage ... He spoke up and acted. For this, all must honor him , who, whatever be their own religious beliefs , value sincerity, truth and courage, which are the badges of every noble character.

---Sir John Woodroffe.










Swami Vivekananda will be remembered as one of the most significant figures in the whole history of Indian religion, comparable in importance to such great teachers as Shankara and Ramanuja.Since the days of the Indian missionaries who travelled in south-east Asia and China preaching Buddhism and Hinduism more than a thousand years earlier, he was the first Indian religious teacher to make such an impression outside India.

---Arthur Llewellyn Basham








Where can you find a man like him ? Study what he wrote, and learn from his teachings, for if you do , you will gain immense strength. Take advantage of the fountain of wisdom,of Spirit , and of fire that flowed through Vivekananda!

--- Jawaharlal Nehru







Men like Sri Ramakrishna, men like Swami Vivekananda and men like Mahatma Gandhi are great unifying forces , great constructive geniuses of the world not only in regard to the particular teachings that they taught, but their approach to the world and their conscious and unconscious influence on it is vitally important to us.

---- Jawaharlal Nehru ( first Indian prime minister and co-founder of the non-aligned movement)









A great yogi, a spiritual teacher,a religious leader,a writer, an orator and , above all, the most selfless worker for humanity---that was Swami Vivekananda. I had the honor of living with this great Swami in India, in England, and in America. I lived and travelled with day after day and night after night and watched his character for nearly twenty years, and I stand here to assure you that I have not found another like him in these three continents. As a man ,his character was pure and spotless ; as a philosopher , he was the greatest of all Eastern and Western philosophers .In him I found the ideal of Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga and Jnana Yoga ; he was like the living example of Vedanta in all its living branches.

---Swami Abhedananda







" It may be said that when he began to speak it was of 'the religious ideas of the Hindus' ,but when he ended ,Hinduism had been created. "
---Margaret Noble







The truths he preaches would have been as true,had he never been born. Nay more, they would have been equally authentic.The difference would have lain in their difficulty of access , in their want of modern clearness and incisiveness of statement, and in their loss of modern coherence and unity.Had he not lived,texts that today will carry the bread of life to thousands might have remained the obscure disputes of scholars.He taught with authority , and not as one of the Pundits. For he himself had plunged to the depths of the realisation which he preached , and he came back like Ramanuja only to tell its secrets to the pariah, the outcast and the foreigner.

---Margaret Noble



( wikipedia )

Vivekananda left a body of philosophical works (see Vivekananda's complete works) which Vedic scholar Frank Parlato has called, "the greatest comprehensive work in philosophy ever published."






'Narendra(Vivekananda) belongs to a very high plane — the realm of the Absolute. He has a manly nature. So many devotees come here, but there is no one like him.

--Sri Ramakrishna







He ( Vivekananda) has eighteen extraordinary powers, one or two of which is sufficient to make a man famous in the world.


--Sri Ramakrishna.







"Behold! Here is Naren (Vivekananda). See! See! Oh what power of insight he has! It is like the shoreless sea of radiant knowledge ! The Mother , Mahamaya Herself ,cannot approach within ten feet of him ! She is barred by the very glory which She has imparted to him !"

--Sri Ramakrishna








“Narendra (Swami Vivekananda) will teach others ….. Very soon he will shake the world by his intellectual and spiritual powers.”

---Sri Ramakrishna

 

[Muslimwoman]

We too have scriptures that sanctions war in self-defence, but slaughter of civilians and sex slavery of women captives are forbidden.

I keep telling you that it is forbidden to kill civilians in Islam as well. DONT say so why this and post loads of attrocities, they are the doing of sick men not of Islam.

These guys are very insecure dudes.

Amen to that.

But isn't the muslim woman who do such naughty stuff, still believes in God,and hence a believer ?

And isnt the pious jewish woman , since she is not a believer of Islam, an unbeliever? That is what those verses seems to say logically, if you ask me..

No it is the other way around. A Muslim woman that sins will be punished for her sins (it says so in the Quran) and I believe a pious Jewish woman will be accepted by G-d.

Niranjan my husband has asked me to stop discussing this, not because I am unable but because it really is depressing me. I cannot answer for G-d and I cannot answer for sick, twisted men that use our religion to hurt people. I have tried hard to show you that these people are not following our religion look at the example of killing civilians being forbidden, so why do people still do it? I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps you should have this discussion with a Muslim that believes violence and rape is advocated by the Quran but there is not a Muslim in the world that can say killing of civilians is allowed - it is strictly forbidden.

If I read your scriptures then found people of your faith going against the scriptures I would blame the people not the scriptures.

In the drawer by my bed I keep the Dalai Lama's Little Book of Wisdom. I am a peaceful person and whilst I accept attrocities happen I do not wish to be made to feel responsible for them or for answering for them.

Salaam

 

[Muslimwoman]

And you call yourself a woman. Shame on you

If you ever actually bothered to read what I post you would know that you were reading a quoted article, not written by me. I have never agreed with rape or slavery, I will never agree with rape or slavery and I am getting sick of you putting words in my mouth that do not belong there. So you know what you can do with your shame.

 

[niranjan]

I keep telling you that it is forbidden to kill civilians in Islam as well. DONT say so why this and post loads of attrocities, they are the doing of sick men not of Islam.

And I wonder why there are lots of sick men in Islam ever since the 7th century A.D. And I will put accounts of atrocities by these guys all over the world.

No it is the other way around. A Muslim woman that sins will be punished for her sins (it says so in the Quran) and I believe a pious Jewish woman will be accepted by G-d..

And how is that possible. The muslim woman still is a impious believer, compared to the pious Jewish woman who is a pious unbeliever according to Islam.

That is what the verse says, and you are putting additional meanings to it, which is clearly not there.

Niranjan my husband has asked me to stop discussing this,..

I understand why.

not because I am unable but because it really is depressing me.

So what , you are not getting tortured , slaughtered or sexually abused like the millions of victims of Islamic terrorism and fundamentalism ever since the 7th century A.D. You are a free woman , and nothing will harm you.

Perhaps you should have this discussion with a Muslim that believes violence and rape is advocated by the Quran but there is not a Muslim in the world that can say killing of civilians is allowed - it is strictly forbidden..

Wonder where all these Muslims were when non-muslims were slaughtered ever since the 7th century A.D. to the present era?

Not only sinning, but tolerating and ignoring sinning is a major sin.

If I read your scriptures then found people of your faith going against the scriptures I would blame the people not the scriptures.

And if there are scriptures that condone immorality , you should criticize it as well, in any religion. Swami Vivekananda has stated that only those scriptures that agrees with reason should be accepted and the rest should be rejected.