mass shooting at a U.S. military base by moslim psycho

nostradamus A military psychological doctor who reportedly feared an impending war deployment is in custody as the sole suspect in a shooting rampage at the Army's Fort Hood that left 12 dead and at least 30 wounded, an Army official said Thursday night. The news that the suspect, "Major Malik Nadal Hasan", was alive and in stable condition, came as a sudden reversal of early reports that the gunman was among the dead. Federal law enforcement officials say Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats. Roadtester The guy just went crazy - why he didn't just leave the army i dont know? There was comments a cousin of his was gettign bullied. A lot of bullying occurs in the armed forces and its not unreasonable that he went crazy. Wether his religion is anything to do with it is unknown at this point I think. rudeboy sorry but why mention the word MUSLIM? He was and is an american when a christian goes on a killing spree in a school across USA why dont you then start a thread and declare that the killings were done by a CHristian? lol Flying Dutchman

• rudeboy wrote:
  sorry but why mention the word MUSLIM?

Because he shooted allahu akhbar during the massacre. Flying Dutchman Very peculiar how much support this guy gets on Islamic forums...it seems to be the general consensus that Muslims are commanded to terrorize the disbelievers and that the koran says so very clearly. nostradamus it seems to be the general consensus that Muslims are commanded to terrorize the disbelievers and that the koran says so very clearly.

Quote:

• 
  Very true what other group has so many murdering bastords and psychos in it ? they go to the lala land and then then the freaks turn even more psycho because it is not to their liking rudeboy
  • Flying Dutchman wrote:
    
    • rudeboy wrote:
      sorry but why mention the word MUSLIM?
    
    Because he shooted allahu akhbar during the massacre.
  
  let me guess you were there when he shouted Allahu Akhbar :D
  and hey let me guess that when a muslim goes and does his bit for the USA army, he of all a sudden becomes a "Good" American but when he kills someone he becomes a muslim over night :D
  lol why not start a thread about American "Christians" that go on a killing spree.
  and once again boys I will ask you to show me a verse in the quran that says kill disbeliever at free will and for no reason whatsoever :D event horizon
  Quote:
  
  • and once again boys I will ask you to show me a verse in the quran that says kill disbeliever at free will and for no reason whatsoever
  
  Take your pick....
  
  Quote:
  
  • 9:29 - Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.
  
  
  Quote:
  
  • 9:123 - O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that God is with the godfearing.
  dee7o
  • rudeboy wrote:
    
    • Flying Dutchman wrote:
      
      • rudeboy wrote:
        sorry but why mention the word MUSLIM?
      
      Because he shooted allahu akhbar during the massacre.
    
    let me guess you were there when he shouted Allahu Akhbar :D
    and hey let me guess that when a muslim goes and does his bit for the USA army, he of all a sudden becomes a "Good" American but when he kills someone he becomes a muslim over night :D
    lol why not start a thread about American "Christians" that go on a killing spree.
    and once again boys I will ask you to show me a verse in the quran that says kill disbeliever at free will and for no reason whatsoever :D
  
  Not when he kills "someone". When he kills an American. rudeboy
  • event horizon wrote:
    
    Quote:
    
    • and once again boys I will ask you to show me a verse in the quran that says kill disbeliever at free will and for no reason whatsoever
    
    Take your pick....
    
    Quote:
    
    • 9:29 - Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.
    
    
    Quote:
    
    • 9:123 - O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that God is with the godfearing.
  
  for verse 9:123 have a look at this link http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=123&to=129 and I hope you understand the translation.
  and for 9:29 heres a good explanation http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=25&to=29
  obviously you have made your mind up from DAY 1 that Islam is evil and you dont want to open your eyes therefore I can predict that you will continue to answer more questions and try to blame islam for whats happening in the world. Thats alrite because I am not going anywhere ;)
  By the way Jihad doesnt necessarily mean killing someone with a gun or a sword? Jihad can start even in your own home and you can even do Jihad with your words.
  There is no mention in the quran on killing disbelievers for no REASON. You qouted two verses from the Quran and if you read the whole of that chapter you would have understood what that verse says and why its there.
  Event Horizon lets forget religion for a while and imagine I enter your home start killing your family and you are the last remaining person in the home. I approach you and you know that you are next to be murdered. What will you do? Will you defend yourself? I think you will and even if you have to survive you will kill me no matter what. Wont you?
  
  1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
  event horizon
  Quote:
  
  • They should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land.
  
  Rudeboy, I totally agree with your interpretation of verse 29 of the 9th chapter of the Koran. In fact, as anyone may recall, I have been saying that this is how the passage should be clearly understood - to attack unbelievers who are not under the domain of an Islamic state.
  It's also curious that Islamic scholar, Montgomery Watt, arrives at the same conclusions as you and I have. Particularly that Muhammad had adopted this policy to wage war against unbelievers during the end of his life when he sent armies to attack independent Christian and Jewish tribes in the northern and southern portions of Arabia.
  This policy of attacking unbelievers was continued under the reign of Abu Bakr when, during the wars against the apostate tribes, armies were also sent to attack tribes that were simply non-Muslim (you can read this in Fred Donner's introduction to one of Tabari's translations which can be found online).
  During the reign of all of the 'rightly' guided caliphs, Muslim armies continued their campaign of perpetual Jihad by waging offensive warfare against non-Muslim territories. It was also during this time that invaluable libraries in Caesarea, Cathedrals/churches/monasteries in Alexandria, and priceless wonders in the Persian empire were destroyed and looted by the invading Muslim armies. In fact, the tradition of looting non-Muslims was a prophetic practice carried over from the time Muhammad looted unbelievers - which is considered a war crime by certain bodies of international law.
  Much of the wealth of the Persian empire was looted and brought back to central Arabia or the garrison towns the Muslims had established in Iraq and Egypt. In addition to gold, silver and other booty, the Muslims also took tens of thousands of slaves back with them. Women were especially vulnerable to enslavement and many were made as concubines for the Muslim soldiers or second, third or fourth wives. Indeed, by the time of Ali's assassination, he had four wives and sixteen concubines.
  Thankfully, not all Muslims follow the clear commands in their holy book to wage warfare against unbelievers and take women as concubines (or loot for that matter). It's unfortunate, however, that a majority of Muslims do support Muslim groups, such as al-Qaeda, in which the Muslim members do indeed take such commands from the Koran and examples from Muhammad and the rightly guided caliphs literally. rudeboy
  • event horizon wrote:
    
    Quote:
    
    • They should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land.
    
    Rudeboy, I totally agree with your interpretation of verse 29 of the 9th chapter of the Koran. In fact, as anyone may recall, I have been saying that this is how the passage should be clearly understood - to attack unbelievers who are not under the domain of an Islamic state.
    It's also curious that Islamic scholar, Montgomery Watt, arrives at the same conclusions as you and I have. Particularly that Muhammad had adopted this policy to wage war against unbelievers during the end of his life when he sent armies to attack independent Christian and Jewish tribes in the northern and southern portions of Arabia.
    This policy of attacking unbelievers was continued under the reign of Abu Bakr when, during the wars against the apostate tribes, armies were also sent to attack tribes that were simply non-Muslim (you can read this in Fred Donner's introduction to one of Tabari's translations which can be found online).
    During the reign of all of the 'rightly' guided caliphs, Muslim armies continued their campaign of perpetual Jihad by waging offensive warfare against non-Muslim territories. It was also during this time that invaluable libraries in Caesarea, Cathedrals/churches/monasteries in Alexandria, and priceless wonders in the Persian empire were destroyed and looted by the invading Muslim armies. In fact, the tradition of looting non-Muslims was a prophetic practice carried over from the time Muhammad looted unbelievers - which is considered a war crime by certain bodies of international law.
    Much of the wealth of the Persian empire was looted and brought back to central Arabia or the garrison towns the Muslims had established in Iraq and Egypt. In addition to gold, silver and other booty, the Muslims also took tens of thousands of slaves back with them. Women were especially vulnerable to enslavement and many were made as concubines for the Muslim soldiers or second, third or fourth wives. Indeed, by the time of Ali's assassination, he had four wives and sixteen concubines.
    Thankfully, not all Muslims follow the clear commands in their holy book to wage warfare against unbelievers and take women as concubines (or loot for that matter). It's unfortunate, however, that a majority of Muslims do support Muslim groups, such as al-Qaeda, in which the Muslim members do indeed take such commands from the Koran and examples from Muhammad and the rightly guided caliphs literally.
  
  man i dont know what your problem is with ISLAM but can you PLEASE STOP pasting bits from here and there and coming up with your own Quran :D
  you forgot to mention WHY they should pay the jizah. here is the FULL passage.
  "This is the aim of Jihad with the Jews and the Christians and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the `Islamic Way of Life.' They should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way, while they should become their subjects and pay jizyah. jizyah is paid by those non-Muslims who live as Zimmis (proteges) in an Islamic State, in exchange for the security and protection granted to them by it".
  As for the rest mate you are anti muslim and anti islam you know it and we all know it. You first wanted to discuss about muslims killing non-muslims for no reason, you get cornered and now you want to discuss about taxation forced on non-muslims???? come on mate what is your problem??
  look at the middle east why are there so many christians alive today??? they could have been wiped out by the muslims but they werent? Why they werent because Islam is all about PEACE.
  lets look at Pakistan. Mate yes some churches etc etc got looted but trust me mate there are christians in Pakistan and they still practise their religion in churches which still exist today. Do you want pics of the churces?
  and these examples can go on and on into malayasia, indonesia and even parts of China and Russia.
  You got a problem with Islam and muslims. I dont know what it is and I hope god opens you eyes one day. DD is right dont feed trolls and i certainly wont anymore. Red Chief Very interesting explanation, Horizon. Rudy proved one more time that he cannot hold coherent debates but he is right in one thing. Why is it so interesting for you to critisize Islam with strong argumentation and big knowledge? For instance I can understand Melika (hope my spelling is right now) who fed up with her government and their ideological doctrine. But what is the sence for you? Life is so short. rudeboy
  • Red Chief wrote:
    Very interesting explanation, Horizon. Rudy proved one more time that he cannot hold coherent debates but he is right in one thing.
    Why is it so interesting for you to critisize Islam with strong argumentation and big knowledge? For instance I can understand Melika (hope my spelling is right now) who fed up with her government and their ideological doctrine. But what is the sence for you? Life is so short.
  
  what do you mean i cant hold coherent debates, i showed him why jiyaz was there, he gets cornered and he goes on talking about how the muslims looted churches etc etc in the Islamic world :S
  I think hes from Iran as well just like Melika or something and what they dont understand is there is a HUGE difference between Shia islam and sunni islam etc etc. Berrin No worries r.boy, I am happy over what the ummah of our prophet and early muslims had achieved to grace the name of islam "peace" . It is obvious that they did conquest to construct mercy and justice amongst the land of nations where there was nothing other than thyranny.
  Read the history of mediaval christianty and others in Europe and middleeast, and see what triggered Renaissance and European revelaution...All thanks to what they had seen and learned from muslims hence Islam..
  Now still some people can turn around shamlessly and arrogantly to talk against earyl muslims and Islam. Ignorance is indeed the enemy of humanity and progression...
  And in the early history of islam, It's even more eye opening when you read the stories of even popes invoking muslims to come and help them..
  
  Quote:
  
  • A 7th Century War On Terror - By Adnan Rashid - Hittin Institute
    'What is there now, I ask of delight in this world? Everywhere we observe strife; fields are depopulated, the land has returned to solitude…And yet the blows of Divine justice have no end, because among the blows those guilty of evil acts are not corrected…’ [1]
    These are the words of Pope Gregory the Great (c. 594) who was a contemporary of the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). He was clearly wishing for divine justice to emerge in order to correct the evildoers i.e. the Lombard tyrants in this case. The Divine intervention was at hand:
    “And We have sent you (O Muhammad [SA]) not but as a mercy to mankind”[2]
    And mercy he was. The Messenger of Allah received the above revelation not long after the disturbing plea of the Pope and this revelation was a signal for the Prophet to initiate a war against terror and tyranny. Islam emerged as a power and in a very short period of time took over large portions of land from the surrounding establishments. Prophet Muhammad died in 632 CE and exactly a century later in 732 CE the Muslims had reached as far as Southern France and Northern China. This was the largest and the fastest expansion the world had ever known and it was made possible only by the justice and mercy the Muslims had to offer, as will be amply demonstrated in the following paragraphs.
    It may be puzzling to some who may question how the Muslims were able to conquer such a large portion of land so rapidly without much difficulty? A Muslim believer would give an easy and simple answer to this question by quoting the Qur’an:
    “Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that he will certainly grant them succession (to the present rulers) in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them authority to practise their religion which he has chosen for them(Islam).”[3]
    History testifies that this is precisely what occurred and here one must note that the Arabs, at the time, were the least able people to achieve this, primarily, due to the lack of military equipment and resources. Carole Hillenbrand, a leading Arabist/historian from the University of Edinburgh, confirms this:
    ‘Much ink has been spilt on the phenomenon of the Islamic conquest, but few firm conclusions can be drawn…It seems unlikely that the Arabs possessed military superiority over their opponents. Certainly, they had no secret weapon, no new techniques. Indeed, in some military spheres they were inexperienced; they allegedly learned siege warfare, for example, from the Persians. They were also unfamiliar with how to fight naval engagements.’[4]
    Even the contemporary Christian writers could not offer a reasonable explanation and attributed this rapid expansion of the Islamic governance to Divine intervention. John Bar Penkaye (690 CE), a contemporary of the early Islamic conquest, had this to say:
    ‘We should not think of the advent (of the children of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working. Before calling them, (God) had prepared them beforehand to hold Christians in honour; thus they also had a special commandment from God concerning our monastic station, that they should hold it in honour. Now when these people came, at God’s command, and took over as it were both kingdoms, not with any war or battle, but in a menial fashion, such as when a brand is rescued out of the fire, not using weapons of war or human means, God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written them might be fulfilled, namely, “One man chased a thousand and two routed ten thousand.” How otherwise, could naked men, riding without armour or shield, have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy, by them “a sinful kingdom” and to bring low, through them, the proud spirit of the Persians.’[5]
    Byzantines and the Persians were utterly uprooted by these ill-equipped nomads. European scholarship is still perplexed about the causes that led to the early Islamic conquest. To a sceptical historian or a conditioned rationalist, Divine intervention could never be entertained as a logical or even a scientific hypothesis. Such people require a historical justification, which is based upon political and socio-economic factors.
    Tolerance or Terror:
    In light of this there is a very reasonable explanation: The Muslims, when expanding, treated the non-Muslim inhabitants of vanquished nations with a previously uncharted level of tolerance, which in consequence encouraged the non-Muslim societies to embrace the approaching armies with open arms. Professor Thomas Walker Arnold gives an interesting account of such an occurrence. He states:
    ‘When the Muslim army reached the valley of the Jordan and Abu Ubaydah pitched his camp at Fihl, the Christian inhabitants of the country wrote to the Arabs, saying: “O Muslims, we prefer you to the Byzantines, though they are of our own faith, because you keep better faith with us and are more merciful to us and refrain from doing us injustice and your rule over us is better than theirs, for they have robbed us of our goods and our homes.” The people of Emessa closed the gates of their city against the army of Heraclius and told the Muslims that they preferred their government and justice to the injustice and oppression of the Greeks…The fear of religious compulsion on the part of the heretical emperor made the promise of Muslim toleration appear more attractive than the connection with the Roman Empire and a Christian government…’[6]
    Perhaps, it was these facts, which persuaded Thomas Arnold to conclude:
    ‘Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing. Indeed, it was probably in a great measure their tolerant attitude towards the Christian religion that facilitated their rapid acquisition of the country.’[7]
    So the Muslims were in fact seen as liberators from the Roman/Byzantine tyranny. As far as the Syrian Christians were concerned, the Muslims were carrying out a noble war on terror.
    Syria rescued from the Byzantine terror:
    Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, a Jacobite (or a Syrian Orthodox Christian) patriarch from 818 to 845 CE, also gave some reasons of this preference of the Muslims over Romans by the people of Syria. He stated in his chronicle, which covers the period from 582 to 842 CE, that Heraclius mustered 300,000 troops from Armenia, Syria and the Roman heartlands to expel the Muslims out of Syria. Muslims decided to withdraw to reform their war strategy. However, whilst withdrawing, the Muslims decided, out of fairness, to refund the money, which they had taken as tribute from the Syrian Christians to protect them from any form of oppression:
    ‘Abu Ubaydah, whom Umar had put in command of the Arabs, ordered Habib b. Maslama to return to the Emesenes the tribute which he had exacted from them with this message: “We are both bound by our mutual oaths. Now we are going to do battle with the Romans. If we return, this tribute is ours; but if we are defeated and do not return, we are absolved of our oaths.” So they left Emessa for Damascus; and the emir Abu Ubaydah ordered Saeed b. Kulthum to return the tribute to the Damascenes likewise…To them he said: “ If we return victorious we shall take it back. But if we are defeated and prove powerless to save you from the Romans, here is your tribute, keep it. We for our part shall be absolved of the oaths which we have sworn to you.”’[8]
    One must note that this was taking place in 7th century Syria where plunder, robbery and injustice were a common occurrence and what is mentioned above is quoted from a mid 9th century Christian source (which testifies that the Muslims did not abuse power and they did not betray the trust Christians bestowed upon them). Thomas Arnold adds, from an Islamic source (Abu Yusuf, Kitabul Khiraj [The Book of Taxes]), that
    ‘In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury, and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, “May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us”’[9]
    It would be fair to assert here that those Muslims acted in accordance with the teachings of the Qur’an:
    ‘Verily, Allah commands that you should render back the trusts to those, to whom they are due; and that when you judge between men, you judge with justice. Verily, how excellent is the teaching, which He gives you! Truly, Allah is ever all- Hearer, all-Seer.’[10]
    Dionysius of Tel-Mahre confirms the accuracy of Abu Yusuf:
    ‘So the Arabs left Damascus and pitched camp by the river Yarmuk. As the Romans marched towards the Arab camp every city and village on their way which had surrendered to the Arabs shouted threats at them. As for crimes the Romans committed on their passage, they are unspeakable, and their unseemliness ought not even to be brought to mind…The Arabs returned, elated with their great victory, to Damascus; and the Damascenes greeted them outside the city and welcomed them joyfully in, and all treaties and assurances were reaffirmed. ’[11]
    It is very clear from Dionysius’ testimony that the Romans were extremely oppressive towards the non-Chalcedonian Christian population of Syria, which caused this population to prefer the Muslim tolerance over the Byzantine terror. Muslims, in most, cases treated the minor Christian sects of Syria with maximum justice and sympathy, which enabled all parties to live in peace for the first time for a long time. For most of the Jacobite and Nestorian Christians in Syria, Muslim arrival was a God sent retribution against the Byzantine terrorist establishment.
    Egypt saved from the Chalcedonian persecution:
    The same seems to have taken place in Egypt where, according to Dionysius, the Coptic Patriarch submitted Egypt voluntarily to the Muslims:
    ‘We have found in the tales and stories of Egyptians that Benjamin, the Patriarch of the Orthodox in Egypt at the time, delivered the country to the Arab general Amr b. al-As out of antipathy, that is enmity, towards Cyrus, the Chalcedonian (Byzantine) Patriarch in Egypt.’[12]
    This enmity, however, was due to the persecution of the Orthodox Church in Egypt at the hands of the Byzantine Church. John of Nikiou (690 CE), who was a Coptic bishop in Nikiu (Egypt), confirmed the testimony of Dionysius:
    ‘When Muslims saw the weakness of the Romans and the hostility of the people to the emperor Heraclius because of the persecution wherewith he had visited all the land of Egypt in regard to the orthodox faith at the instigation of Cyrus the Chalcedonian Patriarch [in office 631/2-41], they became bolder and stronger in the war…And people began to help the Muslims.’[13]
    And in some cases the Egyptians refused to fight the Muslims at all [14]. One must keep in mind that these are contemporary Christian sources testifying that the Muslims were actually being helped by the Egyptian Orthodox Coptic Christians to put the Chalcedonian Byzantine Christian persecution to rest. Alfred J. Butler, a leading authority on the history of Egypt, believed that the Muslim arrival benefited both Christian factions by enabling them to live in peace together under the Islamic protection:
    ‘After all that the Copts had suffered at the hands of the Romans and the Patriarch Cyrus, it would not have been unnatural if they had desired to retaliate upon the Melkites [the Romans]. But any such design, if they cherished it, was sternly discountenanced by ‘Amr, [the Muslim conqueror of Egypt] whose government was wisely tolerant but perfectly impartial between the two forms of religion. Many facts might be cited in proof of this contention…So that the two forms of Christianity must be imagined as subsisting side by side under the equal protection of the conquerors.’[15]
    It is evident from the testimonies cited above that the Muslims came as a mercy for the wider Egyptian population. The Coptic Christians in Egypt were also a target for the Byzantine terror and it was this terror which caused the Copts to join the Muslims against their co-religionists. ‘Amr bin al-‘Aas (may Allah be pleased with him) had established a peaceful abode for all parties and this he did by implementing the Shariah Law in Egypt. Thus the real operation “Enduring Freedom” was accomplished successfully in the land of Pharaohs.
    Spain liberated from the Visigothic tyranny:
    Muslims landed in Spain in 711 CE and many sources testify that they were welcomed by the population, as their reputation preceded them. This was due to the severe persecution afflicted upon certain communities by the Visigothic Kings. Under these kings’ rule (following their conversion to Catholicism from Arianism), the Jewish community, in particular, was severely oppressed. The Catholic hierarchy in Spain held many ecumenical councils to solve political and religious disputes and in these councils (many held in Toledo), severe edicts were issued against the Jews of Spain. One of the clauses in the text of the proceedings of the 4th Council of Toledo (633 CE) states,
    ‘We decree that the sons and daughters of the Jews should be separated from the company of their parents in order that they should not become further entangled in their deviation, and entrusted either to monasteries or to Christian, God fearing men and women, in order that they should learn from their way of life to venerate the faith and, educated on better things, progress in their morals as well as their faith.’ [16]
    Zion Zohar, an American Jewish historian, confirms the Jewish appreciation of the Muslim arrival in this way:
    ‘Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution’. [17]
    And what did this liberty bring for the Jews in the subsequent centuries? Was this liberty similar to the one the U.S government has delivered to the Iraqis, resulting in mass murder and abuse of prisoners, or was it a freedom that was deeply ingrained in Islamic values such as justice and tolerance? Zion Zohar has an answer:
    ‘Born during this era of Islamic rule, the famous Golden Age of Spanish Jewry (circa 900-1200) produced such luminaries as: statesman and diplomat Hasdai ibn Shaprut, vizier and army commander Shmuel ha-Nagid, poet-philosophers Solomon Ibn Gabriol and Judah Halevi, and at the apex of them all, Moses Ben Maimon, also known among the Spaniards as Maimonides [who is Known as the second Moses among the Jews].’[18]
    Thus the Jews were treated with fairness and Justice in Islamic Spain unlike the rest of Europe and it was this fair treatment which produced the famous Golden Age for the House of Jacob, which they appreciate to this day.
    Heinrich Graetz, a 19th century Jewish historian expressed similar sentiments regarding Muslims in Spain:
    ‘It was in these favourable circumstances that the Spanish Jews came under the rule of Mahometans, as whose allies they esteemed themselves the equals of their co-religionists in Babylonia and Persia. They were kindly treated, obtained religious liberty, of which they had so long been deprived, were permitted to exercise jurisdiction over their co-religionists, and were only obliged, like the conquered Christians, to pay poll tax (Dsimma)’[19]…Jewish Spain became “the place of civilization and of spiritual activity- a garden of fragrant, joyous, and happy poetry, as well as the seat of earnest research and clear thought.” Like the Arabian Christians (the Christians who lived amongst the Mahometans) the Jews made themselves acquainted with the language and literature of their conquerors, and often got precedence over them. But whilst Arabian Christians gave up their own individuality, forgot their own language- Gothic Latin- and could not even read the creeds, and were ashamed of Christianity, the Jews of Spain were so little affected through this contact with Arabs, that it only served to increase their love and enthusiasm for their mother tongue, their holy law, and their religion. Through favourable circumstances Jewish Spain was in a position at first to rival Babylonia, then to supersede it, and finally to maintain its superiority for nearly five hundred years.’[20]
    In Islamic Spain, even the Christians preferred Islamic government (based upon Shariah Law) over that of the Franks. This assertion appears to be quite reasonable when the views of Reinhart Dozy, an authority on the early Islamic Spain, are taken into consideration:
    ‘The unbounded tolerance of the Arabs must also be taken into account. In religious matters they put pressure on no man…Christians preferred their rule to that of the Franks.’[21]
    Ulick R. Burke, a prominent historian specializing in the history of Spain, reached a similar conclusion:
    ‘Christians did not suffer in any way, on account of their religion, at the hands of Moors…not only perfect toleration but nominal equality was the rule of the Arabs in Spain.’[22]
    This tolerance had an immense impact on the Christian population of Spain, many of them converted to Islam and those who did not adopted the Islamic culture in regards to literature and lifestyle. This is emphatically substantiated by the 9th century Spanish Christian writer, Paul Alvarus (who was writing in the 850’s at Cordova):
    ‘The Christians love to read the poems and romances of the Arabs; they study the Arab theologians and philosophers, not to refute them but to form a correct and elegant Arabic. Where is the layman who now reads the Latin commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, or who studies the Gospels, prophets or apostles? Alas! All talented young Christians read and study with enthusiasm the Arab books; they gather immense libraries at great expense; they despise the Christian literature as unworthy of attention. They have forgotten their own language. For every one who can write a letter in Latin to a friend, there are a thousand who can express themselves in Arabic with elegance, and write better poems in his language then the Arabs themselves.’[23]
    Most of the aforementioned opinions indicate that the Muslim arrival in Spain liberated the masses from a deep slumber of ignorance and oppression. Prior to the Islamic emergence, the Catholic Spanish establishment was known for persecuting the Jews and minor Christian sects. The Muslims changed all of that and what followed was the appearance of a true renaissance that enabled Jews, Muslims and Christians to live in peace for centuries. Maria Rosa Menocal, one of the authorities on medieval European literature, decided to title her work (which describes how the Abrahamic faiths co-existed peacefully during the Islamic era) the “Ornament of the world”[24]; the phrase was used by Hroswitha (a 10th century German nun) to describe Islamic Spain[25]. Thus, Islam came as a mercy for the people of Iberian Peninsula, who welcomed the new rulers as liberators for the tyranny of the Visigoths.
    A 7th century War on Terror:
    One may question as to why was it that the Muslims were invading these lands and removing the already existing governments from power? It must be recognized that most of the 7th/8th century powers were guilty of oppression against their own subjects. The Qur’an provides one of the reasons, which caused the early Muslims to intervene:
    ‘And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will help”’[26]
    The Muslims were thus charged to carry out a war on terror in order to liberate the weak and oppressed and they duly fulfilled the Qur’anic injunction (it has been substantiated above that the populations of some of the countries Muslims took were severely oppressed by their rulers and it was due to this reason that they welcomed the Muslims as liberators). However, in this 7th century war against terror there was no oil or re-construction/destruction contracts involved. An objective approach to the subject will lead to similar findings. Perhaps the views of the Nestorian Patriarch of Khurasan in the 7th century, Ishoyabh III, will help elucidate upon this more. He addressed a letter to Simeon, the Primate of Persia, where he wrote:
    ‘and the Arabs, to whom God at this time has given the empire of the world, behold, they are among you, as ye know well: and yet they attack not the Christian faith, but, on the contrary, they favour our religion, do honour to our priests and the saints of the Lord, and confer benefits on churches and monasteries.’[27]
    Usually exploitation and plunder of resources follows an invasion, as can clearly be seen in the case of the colonial period and modern day Iraq (Iraq’s most precious Baghdad museum was plundered following the US invasion (2003) and the 7000 years history of Mesopotamian civilisation was lost). Did Muslims follow the same precedence? Adam Smith, the 18th century founding father of modern capitalism (whose portrait is illustrated on the back of the current £20 note), did not think so:
    ‘The ruin of the empire of the Romans, and, along with it the subversion of all law and order, which happened a few centuries afterwards, produced the entire neglect of that study of the connecting principles of nature, to which leisure and security can alone give occasion. After the fall of those great conquerors and the civilisers of mankind, the empire of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state under which the world enjoyed that degree of tranquillity, which the cultivation of the sciences requires. It was under the protection of those generous and magnificent princes, that the ancient philosophy and astronomy of the Greeks were restored and established in the East; that tranquillity, which their mild, just and religious government diffused over their vast empire, revived the curiosity of mankind, to inquire into the connecting principles of nature.’[28]
    Adam Smith (1723-1790) was one of the most outstandingly intelligent economists of his time. His works such as “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” and “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” are thought to be among the cornerstones of Western literature. The latter work (which is the most popular work in the field of economics to this day) seems to be very much concerned with an inquiry into how certain nations acquire prosperity. Some of the ways of acquiring prosperity and scientific advancement, which he expressed in the aforementioned quote, are security, the sense of tranquillity and justice; and Adam Smith believed that the mild, just and religious government of the Muslim Caliphs (who governed with Shariah Law) revived the curiosity of mankind to attain all kind of benefits from nature. The critics and the so called modern reformers of Islam need to pay heed to Adam Smith’s words and see whether he was reasonable in his conclusion in this regard. If Islam enabled mankind to achieve a high level of prosperity in those days, it still contains the potential to repeat the same today. One has to observe, in the light of history and contemporary reports, whether the present war on terror really is a war on terror or the 7th century Islamic war on terror better qualifies to be called “a war on terror”. If one was to examine objectively, one will find the 7th century war on terror to be a better choice, as today we do not see any positive outcome of the so called “21st century war on terror” but in the 7th century Muslims weakened the Byzantine, Persian and Visigothic terror to replace it by what, in the case of Spain, Adam Smith describes as scientific enlightenment for Europe:
    “The victorious arms of the Saracens [Latin synonym for a Muslim] carried into Spain the learning as well as the gallantry, of the East; and along with it, the tables of Almamon, and the Arabian translations of Ptolemy and Aristotle; and thus Europe received a second time, from Babylon, the rudiments of the sciences of the heavens. The writings of Ptolemy were translated from Arabic into Latin; and the Peripatetic philosophy was studied in Averroes [Ibn Rushd] and Avicenna [Ibn Sina] with as much eagerness and as much submission to its doctrines in the West, as it had been in the East.”[29]
    References
    [1] Pope Gregory I quoted by Mohammad Farooq Kemal, The Crescent vs The Cross, Lahore, 1997, P. 7.
    [2] The Quran, Surah AL-Anbiya 21, verse 107.
    [3] The Quran, Surah an-Noor 24, verse 55.
    [4] Carole Hillenbrand, Muhammad and the rise of Islam, The New Cambridge Medieval History, 2005, vol 1, p. 340.
    [5] John Bar Penkaye, quoted by Walter E. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquest, Cambirdge, 2000, p. 216.
    [6] T. W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, London, 1913, p. 55.
    [7] Ibid, p. 132-4.
    [8] Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, tr by Palmer, Liverpool, 1993, p. 156-7.
    [9] T. W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, London, 1913, p. 61.
    [10] The Quran, Surah 4 An-Nisa, Verse 58.
    [11] Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, tr by Palmer, Liverpool, 1993, p. 157.
    [12] Ibid, p. 158
    [13] John of Nikiou, quoted by Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Egypt in the Byzantine World, Cambridge, 2007, p. 442.
    [14] Ibid, see footnote 28.
    [15] Alfred J. Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of the Roman Dominion, 1902, Oxford, p. 447-8.
    [16] The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages, edited by Amnon Linder, New York, 1997, p.488.
    [17] Zion Zohar, Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry, New York, 2005, p. 8-9.
    [18] Ibid, p. 9.
    [19] H. Graetz, History of the Jews, London, 1892, Vol 3, p. 112.
    [20] Ibid, p. 220.
    [21] Reinhart Dozy, A History of Muslims in Spain, 1861 (reprinted 1913, 2002), Delhi, p.235.
    [22] Ulick R. Burke, A History of Spain, London, 1900, vol I, p. 129.
    [23] Paul Alvarus quoted by Maria Rosa Menocal, Ornament of the world, New York, 2003, p.66.
    [24] Maria Rosa Menocal, Ornament of the world, New York, 2003.
    [25] Stanley Lane-Poole, The Moors in Spain, London, 1920, p. 144.
    [26] The Quran, Surah An-Nisa 4, verse 75.
    [27] Ishoyabh III quoted by T. W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, London, 1913, p. 81-82.
    [28] The Essays of Adam Smith, London, 1869, p. 353.
    [29] Ibid, p. 354.
  event horizon Well, wars of conquests...I mean, liberation aren't free. I guess that's why the early Muslims needed to take so much in terms of spoils of war back with them from the people they were 'liberating'. Berrin well unlike the Christian Romans and Byzantine emperors looting everyone including their citizens under their tyranny, Islam actually did not allow Muslims and their rulers behave like wise, in the same manner. A whole chapter of Quran is dedicated to the spoils of war (Al-Anfal) http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=8 Dynamics of Islamic Jidah” where spoils of war explained. I suggest you to read to educate yourself.. shafique Steady on - eh will probably blame the fourth crusade looting of Constantinople on the Muslims! Cheers, Shafique Red Chief Yes, it was the most disgusting deed of the West :twisted: but that way they knew Plato, Aristotle and our native language. :wink:
  event horizon
  • Berrin wrote:
    well unlike the Christian Romans and Byzantine emperors looting everyone including their citizens under their tyranny, Islam actually did not allow Muslims and their rulers behave like wise, in the same manner.
    A whole chapter of Quran is dedicated to the spoils of war (Al-Anfal)
    http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=8
    Dynamics of Islamic Jidah” where spoils of war explained.
    I suggest you to read to educate yourself..
  
  Cool - so we agree that the wars of conquest waged by the early Muslims included mass pillaging/enslavement - which blows the theory of the early Muslims launching wars of aggression to 'liberate' unbelievers right out of the water.
  It's always good to reach consensus. shafique Ahh, isn't the boy cute with his antiquated orientalist ideas about bloodthirsty muslims? Isn't it endearing that he wants to persuade us that military historians such as Hugh Kennedy (whose book 'Great Arab Conquests' he has only partially read), are wrong to disagree with the quaint orientalist notions of Islam being spread by the sword. Perhaps one day someone will be convinced by eh's arguments. But isn't it interesting that he skips over the more recent Fourth Crusade where Christians massacred Christians and looted Constantinople (the loot is still on display in Venice) - and doesn't acknowledge that this carnage was done in the name of Christ? He skips over this and goes back to an imagined time when supposedly early Muslims were committing massacres (and even then, these alleged massacres pale in comparison to the Fourth Crusade or even the European pogroms against Jews). But again, he also refuses to acknowledge that the prior massacres described in the OT, were also done in the name of God - eg where Moses' troops massacre men, women, babies and even animals of towns which they have captured. No condemnation of the Bible for this- just as there is silence over condemning modern day white Jewish relgious terrorists. Fascinating stuff. I can see why Fox News is popular amongst some impressionable types now. Cheers, Shafique Berrin Oh so cool event horizon that you are reading, learning and understanding but rather in utter dissapointment, isn't it? and that what you're learning is against what your quaint incoherent perception of islam was so far.. But hey Yes you’re right..the objective of the early muslims conquest was to save the people from tyrants in the way of Creator upon his urge and call for justice, mercy and protection of all mankind. And you are right, they were trying hard to spread the last message of the creator amongst the nations where there was mankind… and yes, you’re right, the creator has given permission to people whom accepted the message to confiscate the thresaure of the tyrants, to spend in the way of God and his Messenger, Near of kin, The orphans, The needy, The wayfarer or travelers and as gifts for non-muslims and non-muslim soldiers. event horizon
  Quote:
  
  • he has only partially read
  
  What portion of the book have you read? Just curious.
  
  Quote:
  
  • and doesn't acknowledge that this carnage was done in the name of Christ?
  
  Pray tell, which do you think is worse, theologically speaking - Christians who carried out massacres 12 centuries after the founding of Christianity, or Muslims who carried out massacres less than a few years after the founding of Islam?
  To me, bringing up the crusades is about as relevant to Christianity as Timur is for Islam. It should speak volumes that you must drop the same tired massacres. The only difference, Christianity/Western culture has accepted these historical events and moved on. It would seem that most Muslims do their best to deny that massacres by the early Muslims ever occurred and pretend the wars of conquests the Muslims waged were for 'liberation'.
  
  Quote:
  
  • He skips over this and goes back to an imagined time when supposedly early Muslims were committing massacres (and even then, these alleged massacres pale in comparison to the Fourth Crusade or even the European pogroms against Jews).
  
  What evidence do you base your assertion on that the early Muslim massacres pale in comparison to the one carried out against Constantinople?
  Anyways, it's interesting that you justify war crimes based on whether you believe they are large enough for you to consider them a war crime (it's also interesting that you would justify Muslim war crimes based on distant historical events, I believe that is a tu quoque fallacy, but I'll let you explain what your reasoning behind it is yourself). It would be interesting to count the number of civilians the state of Israel has killed and compare that figure with the number of civilians the early Muslims killed. Then, we can see who is the real terrorist - Israel or the 'rightly' guided caliphs.
  Currently, I know of a Muslim massacre in which 40.000 non-Muslims were killed when a Muslim invasion army sacked a foreign city and razed the entire city via catapult. According to Kennedy, Muslims also targeted the families of some of the nobles of the city as well.
  We'll see if 40.000 murdered in one massacre does indeed pale in comparison to the 25.000 inhabitants the crusaders killed when they took Jerusalem. Then you can find out how many civilians Israel has killed and see if your tally comes anywhere close to the casualties the Muslims inflicted in one massacre.
  I won't bother mentioning the tens of thousands of civilians enslaved by the Muslims. I think that would just unfair for you. shafique eh you really should stop living in the past and get with the 21st century. I understand that you feel aggrieved that your selective quotes and superficial scholarship has been exposed and want to project your failings onto others, but it is not dignified. I applaud your candidness in admitting you do not actually read all the references you quote - and I suspect you'll not admit to this in future and rather will just ignore questions (just like you have done for Baruch Goldstein, contradictions in NT and other quaint views that you have). Where I haven't read a whole book, I will quote the views of people who actually have or give verbatim quotes in context. Perhaps that is something you too could think about doing. ;) Cheers, Shafique Berrin
  Quote:
  
  • eh you really should stop living in the past and get with the 21st century.
  
  so he did indeed listen to you! on the next thread :shock: ....dear ohhhh dear..
  God he must have felt better now..I wonder if it's some sort of jewish custom...Israelies do the same, when they get pissed off they start shedding down the bombs on muslims/christians just like he does it here without needing the context... Flying Dutchman
  • Berrin wrote:
    I wonder if it's some sort of jewish custom...
  
  It is always so predictable. People like you say they promote peace and respect, while in the end you are all full of hate. Declaring their love for Hitler, denying the holocaust and giving the nazi salute so now and then. Antisemitism is just a way of life in the Muslims world.
  Jealousy in its ugliest form! Berrin I don't I was making a comperative judegement in respect of his attitude, we all know what happens when politics or like wise thinking gets into the way of human self/nature. If I were you I would not listen to the fox news so often, we know what is and who are behind their news policies and how they get financed and promoted for the purpose to neglect certain nations/leaders for their self downfall,..as a result we do know what they get in return… Instead do yourself a good and find out the truth from proper sources.. There is no reason for me to hate another human being when I am not their creator and when we are given equal chance to be born and to live side by side in the same world. This is regardless of their religion or race and this is what we learn in islam... There is no reason for me to humiliate any human when I am myself will be judged upon justice, if not here, at least in the hereafter. But yes, I do have the right to critise and hate and condemn the foreign policies of certain nations regardless of their religious background name it jew, christian, muslim, any race whatever.. And there is no reason for any humans (which make up of a nation) to cause such hatred policies to stir up other humans in other part of the world. And yes I do have the right to know if a certain behaviour or resistant mindset is a part of customs, traditions of a particular culture or else if based on solely political propaganda, this is also what the experts do in the sience of socialogy. Jealousy...you are a joke... as in the context you put it…true jealousy can only florish, and compete between two equal sides/nations (this is something long lost and forgotten in this world) how can the muslims compete and get jeoulous when the policies of the tyrants are still in place to treat them as the “green perils” of the world. Is that because they would develop nuclear energy or bombs!? I know another Muslim country that wants to build nuclear energy plant, but noone goes in to bid for the tender other than Russia. Is that because they would develop bombs and technology and become prize winners…I wonder now how you would describe jealousy in this respect? I also know one recent Muslim noble prize winner whom wasn’t gonna given the prize if he didn’t condemn his own country policies, in the way of the politics of thyrants. The whole world is still paying they tribute and duties to the jews since the halocoust.. but I wonder when they will start the same for the muslim halocoust in Europe and middleast. In my life I have never seen such worship to any race so much so that any American or European could be jailed for speaking against them. I guess freedom of speach is only there to serve them right for their rights… and yes at last I found something…this can indeed be my jeoulousy!… There is no end to this… so mate you better give yourself a break and start working and helping muslims establish themselves to progress and prosper just as the urge comes from "event horizon"…and while you are doing this, don’t forget I warn you that muslims also have the potential to turn up in utter arrogance and fool themselves to show who is good and who is bad and who can be jeloused of.. They will accomplish, thanks to the “maturity” of big brothers of whom they have tendency to immitate…but unfortunatly we woun’t live long enough to see the mockery… event horizon
  • shafique wrote:
    eh you really should stop living in the past and get with the 21st century.
    I understand that you feel aggrieved that your selective quotes and superficial scholarship has been exposed and want to project your failings onto others, but it is not dignified.
    I applaud your candidness in admitting you do not actually read all the references you quote - and I suspect you'll not admit to this in future and rather will just ignore questions (just like you have done for Baruch Goldstein, contradictions in NT and other quaint views that you have).
    Where I haven't read a whole book, I will quote the views of people who actually have or give verbatim quotes in context. Perhaps that is something you too could think about doing. ;)
    Cheers,
    Shafique
  
  Cool - so we agree that the early Muslims were the terrorists and the state of Israel, because they have not killed as many civilians as the Rashidun kalifa, are not. Flying Dutchman
  • Berrin wrote:
    If I were you I would not listen to the fox news so often, we know what is and who are behind
  
  Who and what is behing Fox? Don't keep us hanging...let it all out!
  
  Quote:
  
  • But yes, I do have the right to critise and hate and condemn the foreign policies of certain nations regardless of their religious background name it jew, christian, muslim, any race whatever..
  
  Yeah right, you fall into the category "no jew, no view". When Muslims are slaughtering other Muslims you donot care or blame it on the evul djoos anyways!
  
  Quote:
  
  • And there is no reason for any humans (which make up of a nation) to cause such hatred policies to stir up other humans in other part of the world.
  
  What nation are you talking about?
  
  Quote:
  
  • And yes I do have the right to know if a certain behaviour or resistant mindset is a part of customs, traditions of a particular culture or else if based on solely political propaganda, this is also what the experts do in the sience of socialogy.
  
  What?
  
  Quote:
  
  • The whole world is still paying they tribute and duties to the jews since the halocoust..
    In my life I have never seen such worship to any race so much so that any American or European could be jailed for speaking against them.
    
  
  Yep, spoken as a true out of the closet!
  
  Quote:
  
  • but I wonder when they will start the same for the muslim halocoust in Europe and middleast.
  
  Which Muslim holocaust are you talking about?
  
  Quote:
  
  • There is no end to this… so mate you better give yourself a break and start working and helping muslims establish themselves to progress and prosper just as the urge comes from "event horizon"…and while you are doing this, don’t forget I warn you that muslims also have the potential to turn up in utter arrogance and fool themselves to show who is good and who is bad and who can be jeloused of..
  
  Are you drunk (serious question)? shafique It appears I'm getting through to eh-oh. I totally agree that the fantastical views of Orientalists about imagined war crimes of early Muslims are indeed worthy of condemnation and do indeed mirror those of current day Israel. Therefore I'd expect eh-oh to have no hesitation in joining me in condemning the state terrorism and war crimes of Israel - I have no hesitation in condemning the acts he thinks occured in early Muslim history (which are less severe than the 'war crimes' Moses is described to have committed in the Bible). I presume that all the Israelis that are also against Israeli state terrorism and crimes against humanity are considered as holding anti-semitic views by some :roll: Anyway, good to see another Israeli fanboi re-appear, eh-oh was getting so lonely he was having to invent imaginary friends! :lol: Cheers, Shafique Berrin Seriously FD, are you one of those sarcastic hypocrites in complete failure of contemplation.… Some of the characteristics of them is that they have their senses reduced to menial and often deprived of conscience, sympathy, and compassion. And when they lose their edge for good reasoning they turn away, fiddling inept questions like why? Who? Where? Which? What?. stuff and nonsense!… So don’t worry about my drinking mate and get back onto your doping whenever you can... event horizon
  Quote:
  
  • I totally agree that the fantastical views of Orientalists about imagined war crimes of early Muslims are indeed worthy of condemnation and do indeed mirror those of current day Israel.
  
  Cool - so we're getting somewhere. I see that you are now saying imaginary war crimes as opposed to imaginary massacres ( I suppose that would require you to do some actual research to maintain that claim).
  That makes a lot of sense though. Many Muslims do not view the large scale massacres the early Muslims carried out as war crimes. They seem, as you do, to justify the massacres carried out against infidels as a 'good' or 'righteous' act.
  I now understand why you were so unwilling in past threads to actually condemn war crimes - because war crimes are only committed if non-Muslims are the ones behind a massacre.
  It should also speak volumes that you have not stood by your claim that the mass killings carried out by the early Muslims 'pale in comparison' to the ones carried out by the crusaders.
  I spose getting pwned in the other thread (the one about Islam=peace) is enough for one day. Flying Dutchman
  • Berrin wrote:
    Seriously FD, are you one of those sarcastic hypocrites in complete failure of contemplation.… Some of the characteristics of them is that they have their senses reduced to menial and often deprived of conscience, sympathy, and compassion. And when they lose their edge for good reasoning they turn away, fiddling inept questions like why? Who? Where? Which? What?. stuff and nonsense!…
    So don’t worry about my drinking mate and get back onto your doping whenever you can...
  
  Huh? What? Are you using the google translator or something? Flying Dutchman
  • shafique wrote:
    imaginary friends! :lol:
  
  That reminds me, how is your imaginary cousin in Lebanon, who's house was bombed by the IAF and got the money back from Hezbollah?
  ROFLMAO Berrin
  Quote:
  
  • Huh? What?
  
  Go back shootin more dope...it'll help you forget the pain for few hours.. Berrin
  Quote:
  
  • They seem, as you do, to justify the massacres carried out against infidels as a 'good' or 'righteous' act.
  
  I am convienced you are someone with the brains of a gnat as you continue a bad case of idiocity. So come close to the screen, get your eyes wide open and continue reading…
  
  Quote:
  
  • Islam is against killing of a single soul without justice; it completely detests killing innocent people whether they be Muslims or otherwise. Quran has addressed this thus,
    ... مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا ...
    ... whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew entire mankind; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept entire mankind alive; ... (Quran 5:32)
    With respect to infidels, my belief is that this word is a synonym for the word 'Kaafir' in Quran with respect to the question under discussion. If that is the case, it needs to be said that non-believers who live in the age of messengers of God are a different class and category than non-believers otherwise. It is for this reason that in the history of mankind, whenever a messenger of God came to a nation, he proved his messenger ship clearly and plainly to his nation so much so that they had no confusion about him being a bearer of truth.
    As a result, those people who, after having known the truth, still denied the messenger were passed on a judgment in this world by the Almighty. In case of polytheists, this judgment was in form of their annihilation, for example the great flood on Noah (pbuh)'s nation when those who rejected his message were drowned. A similar fate was decided by the Almighty on the people of Lot (pbuh), Abraham (pbuh), Salih (pbuh) and other messengers.
    It needs to be understood in this context that at the end of the mission of Muhammad (pbuh) when God, in his absolute Knowledge, knew that those who were rejecting faith were not rejecting because they had any confusion with regards to it, rather they were rejecting out of mere arrogance and pride, He commanded Muslims to slay down those 'infidels' from amongst the polytheists. The Jews and Christians, on the other hand, because they belonged to monotheistic faith, were to be fought against until they became politically subservient to Muslims. This was done after providing both the idolaters and the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) sufficient time to understand whether Muhammad (pbuh) was a real messenger of God and the message he brought forward was actually the message from God.
    This is God's law specific to messengers as I have explained above. Since a messenger of God is not living with us anymore, and we do not know that which is in the hearts of people, we cannot call them 'infidels' and commit such acts. In a time such as today, every soul must continue to strive to find the truth and live by it.
  shafique
  • Flying Dutchman wrote:
    
    • shafique wrote:
      imaginary friends! :lol:
    
    That reminds me, how is your imaginary cousin in Lebanon, who's house was bombed by the IAF and got the money back from Hezbollah?
    ROFLMAO
  
  My metaphorical friend/cousin is doing well and still celebrating the fact they beat Israel in that war!
  ;)
  Cheers,
  Shafique