Do you the actual goal of Islam?

So you will obey Sharia law when it comes then.

 

there is no Quran verse that says it is okay to wage war for the sake of converting others to Islam, on the contrary (and contrary to some of the nationalist sources you have posted in this thread), there are Quran verses and Hadiths against waging war for the sake of converting others to Islam. No tribe that did not wage war against Islam was ever made to convert to Islam

that is completely false, the previous verse even says that the tribes who honored their treaty are excepted from their demands

that wasn't my point at all, in fact I even said the evil is not in the religion but the state (Christianity is not evil, but Christian states have done evil things)

church and state always leads to bloodshed, and war for territory

 

by definition, a war used to gain territory is not a Jihad, and that map you showed does not depict the land Muhammad conquered

That's like using the Spanish inquisition to claim the new testament says its okay to torture people for the sake of converting people to Christianity. According to the Quran, and Hadiths, it is not okay to wage war for the sake of gaining territory

edit:

it is also against Jihad rules to rape captives (as I posted earlier) and yes, the Nazis did claim to be doing gods work, but I never said it was Christian scripture

 

Salam alaikum brother.

The goal of Islam is the perpetuation of Allah's word. We must save humanity from oblivion.

Allah hu Akbar.

 

That is the Umayyad Caliphate less than 150 years after the death of Muhammad. You do not gain that much territory by fighting defensive wars.

Verse.

 

of course not, church and state always leads to wars for territory. Just like how Christian states have broke their own doctrine over and over again (Crusades, Spanish inquisition, the holocaust, ect) so do Islamic states. The evil is not in the religion, but the state

It is against Jihad rule to wage war for the sake of converting others

"Dispute not with the people of the book(Christians and Jews). We believe in what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to you; our God and your god is one" (29:46)

“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” - The prophet Muhammad (Hadith recorded by Abu Dawud)

"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing" (2:256)

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors" (2:190)

"Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might. (22:39-40)

"And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" (4:75)

"And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing" (4:75)

"Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah (persecution) and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors" (2:193)

if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). (4:90)

Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path.
You must not mutilate dead bodies.
Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man.
Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful.
Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food.
You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone (Abu Bakr)


Once again, in order for it to be a Jihad, the enemy must attack first, and they must give peace when the enemy offers peace. When negotiating a peace treaty, converting to Islam is sometimes an option for the enemy, but no one who did not wage war on Islam was made to convert to Islam in any chapter of the Quran or in any Hadith

I am speaking specifically about Islamic doctrine, no question there has been offensive wars in Islamic history, as there has been Christian history.. but again, the evil is not in the religion itself, but the state


now let me ask you, what is your opinion on taking violent actions against Muslims, do you support air strikes that kill Muslims civilians?

 

The difference is that the church was sidelined by just about every Christian ruler. The Caliphates were ruled by religious leaders.

Is that before or after he defeated the Meccans?

I know for a fact that they would never have used the term "non-Muslim minority".

Was that before or after he defeated the Meccans?

"Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might. (22:39-40)[/QUOTE]

Muhammad himself did not follow these rules.

They would never have used the phrase "men, women and children".

"Incline to peace" usually means "surrender".

Fitnah is more accurately translated as "trial".

Trial - "a formal examination of evidence before a judge, and typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings."

Therefore, that verse is telling Muslims to fight the infidels until no one questions Islam.

Islam means "submission", but Muslims often translate it as "Peace". Therefore, it is likely that the verse actually says submission, not peace.

Abu Bakr himself did not follow those rules.

The number of people killed by the Caliphates were exponentially higher than the number of people who have been killed by airstrikes.

 

not true, Queen Isabel (the Spanish queen who started the Spanish inquisition) was made official monarch of the Catholic church by Pope Alexander VI. Being awarded such a title is hardly being "sidelined" buy the church, and vice versa... quite the opposite as a matter of fact, they were working together. The Lutheran church was also involved in similar practices of persecution

and again, the Meccan tribes who honored the treaty of Hudaybiyyah were excepted from Mohammad's declaration of war. For you to say you "know for a fact" what Islamic doctrine would say is peculiar considering how consistently you have been getting your facts wrong

there are multiple translations, but a Muahid is a non-Muslim living in Muslim land with agreement, such as a non-Muslim living in an Islamic state. (not to be confused with a mujahid)

http://www.alsiraj.net/English/misc/nonmuslims/html/page27.html


and finally, one of the meanings of Fitnah is persecution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(word)#Persecution (and they even use the same exact verse quoted as an example)

Fitna as persecution appears in several of the verses commanding Muslims to fight the unbelievers (specifically referring to the Meccan polytheists who had persecuted Muhammad and his early followers, thus leading to the hijra). For example, in Qur'an 2:191, the command to fight is justified on the grounds that "persecution (al-fitnatu) is worse than slaying." Similarly, in Qur'an 2:193, Muslims are forbidden from fighting unbelievers around the Holy Mosque in Mecca unless the unbelievers attack first, in which case Muslims are to fight "until there is no persecution (fitnatun) and the religion is God's."


therefore, that verse is telling Muslims to fight until there is no more persecution.. seriously, how do you go on being so consistently wrong?

 

There have been hundreds, if not thousands of Christian kings and queens throughout history.

1) Verse.

2) It is impossible to tell what parts of the Qu'ran are factual and what parts were subject to historical revisionism.

"Non-Muslim minority" would have been an extremely unusual term for them to have used. It had never been used before, and it was never used afterwards.

 

Understanding Islam

What is the true nature of Islam?

There are two distinct answers to this question. The popular message is that Islam is one of the great world religions, a peaceful religion, a foundation of world civilization. The alternative message is that Islam is a brutal, backward, woman abusing, violent, intellectually narrow ideology that is out to annihilate civilization.

Which side is right? How do we resolve this issue? Can it even be resolved? If we turn to the “experts” of any of the opinions, they will tell you that their view is correct. What then is the ultimate authority that will give us a firm foundation for reasoning and judgment about Islam? Is it possible to use critical thought or must we just accept the authority of experts?

Up until now, the answers have been unsatisfactory. We can’t understand Islamic doctrine without understanding its sacred foundations - the three texts that inform and direct virtually every thought and act in the Muslim world.

Through a new, simpler and more complete system, the Center for the Study of Political Islam offers these sacred texts to the general reader. You want answers. You want understanding. Here they are.

The CSPI Method:

All of Islam’s political doctrine is found in three sacred texts, the Trilogy:

• The Koran - the words of the Islamic god Allah, as reported by Mohammed
• The Sira - the life of Mohammed
• The Hadith - the traditions of Mohammed, governing every aspect of daily life, great and small

By seeing through the eyes of Mohammed, your view of Islam will be transformed:

• Media accounts of Islam will be seen in a new light
• The history of Islam will make sense
• The very words you use to discuss Islam will be new and more accurate
• You will become your own expert, able to discuss political Islam with anyone

For the first time all of these books are easily understood

Simple

The reading level is that of a weekly news magazine. If there is a technical word, it is defined.

Authoritative

Each paragraph is referenced to the source text. You see exactly what Mohammed did and said, and if you desire corroboration or more information, you can easily look it up.

Complete

Islam can only be truly known by understanding all three texts, which for the general reader has not been previously possible.

Why these books are so unique?

Up to now, the knowledge of the Trilogy has been available only to a few scholars and Islamic imams, in a form virtually impossible for the general public to access. Scholars at CSPI have made these texts understandable for the first time.

Now you can learn about political Islam from the only source that counts -- Mohammed himself.

http://www.cspipublishing.com/index.html#Mission

 

oh, and how many of them were made Monarchs of the Catholic church?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Monarchs

answer, Isabella and her husband

in 1974 the church gave Isabella the title "Servant of God"

 

Please get back on topic.

 

uh, excuse me? I'm addressing the posts that were made by you.. they're inaccurate, all of them, and you never acknowledge that, you just keep posting inaccurate post after inaccurate post

I'll make a response showing your post is inaccurate, and instead of admitting you were wrong, you add another inaccurate post, and then another. Then when I stop and say, "hey wait a minute, you're post is inaccurate" you revert to (no pun intended) "hey stay on topic!"

going back to verse 9:5

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_95_commentary

as I have explained before, verses 9:4, 9:6, and 9:7 excepts those who did not break their treaty, and orders them to protect the idolaters who seek asylum

[video=youtube;kQOIXuw1gFw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQOIXuw1gFw[/video]

 

I didn't even mention Isabella.

Back at you.

News flash: Isabella was not the only Christian monarch in history.

You can't go back to something we weren't discussing in the first place.

 

actually, I was referring to your post "The difference is that the church was sidelined by just about every Christian ruler. The Caliphates were ruled by religious leaders."

this was your post in response to my post about the horrible things Christians did, where I included the inquisition in my post

when I say Queen Isabela was made the monarch of the catholic church, I do not mean she was a monarch who happened to be catholic, I mean the head of the catholic church (Pope Alexander VI) gave Queen Isabela (the monarch responsible for the inquisition) and her husband the honors of being the official monarch of the church. They are the only two monarchs in history to be given this honor... then in 1974, the church again honored her with the title "defender of god"

and finally you made reference to Muhammad's war with the Meccans, my response to you was Muhammad only waged war on the Meccans who broke their treaty with Muhammad's people. Verse 9:5 is referencing said war with Meccans, but apparently you did not know that... which isn't surprising

you also continue to get your Arabic words wrong, but again without acknowledging your mistake

 

It means "submission to the One God." Arabic words can have many meanings, so yes, it can also mean peace.

You need to first know the basics.

 

and as Muhammad said about the people of the book (the Christians and the Jews) "our god and your god is one"

The unfortunate thing is when Christians see the word god in the old testament, they think of their god, but when they see the word god in the Quran, they think of someone else.

 

In response to the OP: I do the actual goal of Islam. Or perhaps I don't. I'm not sure how to verbalize it.

 

You said that the problem was not the religion, but rather the state. I pointed out that most Christian rulers sidelined the church, while the Caliphs were the church (for lack of a better term).

Before the war, Muhammad tolerated dissident. After the war, not so much.

That assumes that the Qu'ran is telling the truth. If they lied about being attacked, then your argument collapses, since that would not change the teachings of the Qu'ran.

 

It's definitely not an impossibility for the Quran to lie, but that is not what Muslims believe. What Muslims believe, and what the Quran tells says is that Muhammad never waged war for the purpose of gaining territory or converting others to Islam, that he only went to war with those who attacked first. It is very possible that he and his men attacked first, but then wrote it down that the other army attacked first, but again that is not what the Quran tells, nor is it what Muslims believe in

also note that the rules of Jihad, and holy war are based on Islamic scripture such as the Quran (also note that holy war is one of three meanings for Jihad) The rules of holy war say that the Islamic state cannot attack first, nor can they declare war for the sole sake of converting others to Islam or gaining territory

where you are wrong is you state that the Christian nations who waged offensive wars were violating their doctrine, where the Muslims nations were not. They both violated their doctrine

Also, when I mentioned the atrocities of Christian nations, (which I named the Spanish inquisition as one of my examples), your response was that the difference was that the Christian leaders sidelined the church, which is also not true. In modern sense it is true (as I stated earlier, most western civilizations have relinquished their theocracies), but during the medieval times (which is when the caliphates you mentioned took place) all Catholic rulers had to be approved by the pope himself, and this includes Vlad The Impaler, he was also in coalition with the Catholic church. You could even argue that the Christian nations of the medieval times were in even greater coalition with their church than the Muslim countries. The Muslims had a different church leader for every country, where as the Catholic nations had a head to their church as a whole, and this head even called on all Christian nations to wage war

I do agree with you in part though, as I stated earlier the big difference between the west and the middle east is that the western countries gave up their theocracy a long time ago.. but to use Medieval military campaigns as an example of how Christian and Muslim leaders differ is off base. The only real difference between the two is the Christian's major churches were more centralized

 

The Bible says that the world was created in six days. There is no evidence for that, and there is significant evidence against it, which has forced Christians to reinterpret that part of the Bible.

The Qu'ran says that the Meccans attacked first. If that did not happen, then the entire "defensive war" argument collapses and all of the verses must be reinterpreted.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Not even the people who wrote those rules obeyed them.

I never said that the Christians violated their doctrine.

A vast majority of them did sideline the church.

Many of them went on to have tense relations with the Pope.

Vlad the Impaler was put on the throne by the Ottoman Empire.

 

You're getting your history confused, Vlad was a Romanian Catholic who went to war against the Ottoman empire, which in part is why he had the pope's full approval, because he was fighting against the church's enemy . He in part was put on the throne through inheritance, and approved by the Catholic church. It's inaccurate to claim the majority of the Christian leaders sidelined the church, the church was the lead authority of Europe during that time

again, in modern sense it is true, but during the medieval times (which is when the caliphates you mentioned took place) that is far from the truth, the majority were in a coalition with the church

 

Vlad's father was overthrown by the Hungarians in 1442. The Ottomans invaded Wallachia and put his father back on the throne, but his father was forced to give Vlad and his brother, Radu, to the Ottomans as hostages.

When Vlad's father was killed by the Boyars, the Ottomans invaded Wallachia (again) and put Vlad on the throne.

The church had sustainable influence over the peasants. They did not have the same influence over the nobility.

What the hell is a "coalition with the church"?

 

I think it's because Westerners don't like the fact that the final Prophet was an Arab.

 

who says that Mohammad was the final prophet? there's been Joseph the Morman and the Reverand Moon, ya know. All have just as much "legitamacy" as Jesus or Abraham or Mohammad. They're all a bunch of bsers.