The real cause of Islamic terrorism - the yogic perspective

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Thankyou Niranjan, this demonstrates perfectly how the lies about Islam are spread.

So if you know they are not in the Quran why did you post something you know is a lie? Does your religion not tell you that lying is wrong? Or were you hoping that people that have not read the Quran would read your post and believe it? Shame on you.

Heres what I wrote......

The types of crimes committed were perfectly in accordance with the Koran. Robert E. Burns, the author of Wrath of Allah states, "The mutilation was disgusting—eyes gouged out, pregnant women disemboweled, male genitals cut off, women’s breasts cut off….."


I do not state that Robert E. Burns himself stated this"The types of crimes committed were perfectly in accordance with the Koran. "

It is not Burns statement so there is no need to blame him. There are definetely very violent torture verses in the quran but these particular torture methods are indeed not mentioned.And I apologize for the error, and will not make it again.

And again, it does not in any way underestimate the violence of the torture verses there are in the quran, which sanctions chopping off the fingers,limbs, crucifixion and killing of the unbeliever , and harshness and imposition of the jizya tax on him.

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Go back and read your posts, you included Christians..

I have stated this..........

<<Well, if you read my earlier posts , you can see some verses from the quran where killing, physical torture, crucifixion,mutilation is sanctioned.

I have never read about Jesus or any other prophet, talking about physical torture(chopping off ones fingers, hands and legs) and mutilation.

True, the Christians did indulge in murder and other heinous activities, but unlike the quran, this has not been sanctioned by Jesus, who clearly abhorred all violence.

I am not a Christian, but this is my objective observation.>>>>

And I stand by what I have said.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

So you complain if nothing is done and you complain if something is done.
..

As I said, the monarchy in saudi arabia is threatened by alqaeda and hence its orders to the police and armed forces to target it. Also orders from Bush is also there.

It is not because Saudi arabian monarchy is concerned about islamic terrorism( otherwise they would not have aided the taliban. ).Their only concern is their own survival and when it comes to it, they are ruthless in ensuring it.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

So it is okay to behave badly if you are drunk. ..

Definetely not, and that is why he was arrested and prosecuted. We don't believe in sparing anyone, high or low , who have committed crimes.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What I find so interesting is that I accept Islamic terrorism as a fact and I condemn it yet this man killed over 25,000 people and he is a hero of yours.
..

You will find stuff like he killed 25,000 people only in propaganda machinery like sikh wiki encyclopedia, which is run by sikh extremist propagandists.

He definetely have not killed civilians except sikh terrorists. And as I mentioned , these sikh terrorists, trained and equipped by islamic pakistan, themselves killed thousands of innocent sikhs and hindus in punjab. And if it wasn't for the sikh K.P.S.Gill and other valiant and heroic sikhs , the death toll would have been much more higher. Gill crushed sikh terrorism in Punjab with an iron hand, as a result of which violence in Punjab is non-existent at the moment. All these sikh extremist cowards , who were thrashed by Gill even in spite of the fact that these extremists possessed sophisticated weapons in comparison to the not so sophisticated police weapons, is now intent on maligning Gill through propaganda, when all people in India know the truth about Gill. Gill was indeed a tough and ruthless and machiavellian man when it comes to terrorism, and perhaps some excesses were indeed committed by him, but we are very grateful to him for bringing justice to the thousands of sikhs and hindus killed by sikh terrorists, for crushing sikh terrorism permanently in punjab and bringing peace over there, and for preventing the deaths of numerous other potential victims, which could have happened had he not been there.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I knew you would get around to blaming the Muslims for your own attrocities as well as ours...

What I have stated is facts. The sikh terrorists indeed were trained by the ISI of islamic pakistan, which neighbours Punjab, and their sophisticated weapons are indeed easily obtained in Pakistan and Afghanistan, unlike in Punjab or India. And captured sikh terrorists themselves during interrogation have confirmed this.This is shown by my links as well. It is all very logical.

If you want to deny this in spite of this, it all casts light on your state of mind.

I wish to emphasize again. Sikh terrorism would not have taken place in such a way, if Pakistan had not trained and armed sikh terrorists. Islamic pakistan clearly has the blood of thousands of sikh and hindu victims of sikh militancy on their head.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Look at the date, it was in 1999, long after the caste system was banned, and I only posted 2 of a huge list of such awful things. Perhaps you should read more about what is happening to your own people before you start on at the rest of the world. I am not defending any rapist, all rapists should be given a death sentence but please don't go on about rape when it is common place in your own country (by non Muslims)..

We definetely have strong laws in our country against sexual abuse and rape against anyone. Many idiotic uppercaste hindus who have committed discrimination against others , even for trivial reasons, have been arrested and prosecuted and made an example of . Our newspapers are quick to pounce on any upper-caste discrimination and bring it to the attention of the public.

Just recently , an upper -caste person, who discriminated against some dalit hindu students in Maharashtra , was immediately arrested and prosecuted. He lost his job as well.

The Indian government and hindu spiritual organisations have done a very good job of uplifting the shudra and the dalits.
The lions share of jobs in the public sector , seats in medical and engineering and other colleges, are reserved for the dalits and shudras.
This is not there for the upper-castes. The government has also introduced many measures to empower the dalits and shudras in rural areas.As a result of all of these the shudras have come up very rapidly in Indian society in terms of affluence and education and influence. We have had a dalit president , chief ministers, ministers, MPs, MlAs, and other leaders.

Numerous hindu organisations are also working for the upliftment of the dalits.
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has stated that 80% of the students in the educational institutions he has created , are dalits.

We also have a dalit enlightened female master in Mata Amritanandamayi, who is amazingly popular in India and all over the world. It is a common sight to see upper caste men and women lowering themselves at her feet in humility and reverence and implementing her teachings of helping others in need.
Life and Philosophy of the Mata Amritanandamayi, Affectionately called Amma by Her Followers

Mata Amritanandamayi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

It is also not sanctioned by the Quran and is illegal in all countries but does that stop it? ..

Yeah sure, and what about rape of the women captives of the unbelievers ?

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Terrorism is not sanctioned by the Quran but does that stop it?..

And what about the chopping of the fingers , limbs , crucifixion, harshness to the unbeliever and imposition of the jizya tax on him.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Show me one verse in the Quran that sanctions rape - in fact just show me one line of one verse that sanctions rape in the Quran. Go on post one I dare you. I will wait here for a year until you have to come back and admit there is no such verse. Stop spreading lies about the Quran. Say all you like about Muslims and terrorism but if you are going to say such awful things about the Quran you had better be able to back it up.

With pleasure ( and disgust).

Check this out......

The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).



After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.
Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.


Jihad Watch: Spencer on rape and jihad



“Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).

"Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. (The Noble Quran, 4:23-24)"



FROM THE QURAN - 70:22-30

"Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..."


This verse shows that Muslim men were allowed to have sex with their wives (of course) and their slave girls.



FROM THE QURAN - 23:5,6
"...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them..."

Again, Muslim men were allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls.



FROM THE QURAN - 4:24
"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. (Muhammad Pickthall's English translation of the Quran).


This verse is one verse out of a long passage dealing with who Muslim men can marry or have sexual relations with. The phrase "captives whom your right hand possess", means the slave girls Muslim men own.
Note also that this passage deals with more than just marriage. In Sahih Muslim volume 2, #3432, the background context for this Quranic verse is given. It relates to the events at Autus, and it permitted the Muslim men to have sex with their female slaves.



FROM THE QURAN - 33:50
"Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;..."


<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS Mincho'"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">

And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts). Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hand possess,--for (then) they are not to be blamed.” Surah 70:29-30

[niranjan]

<<<“Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).>>>>

This and the other verses I have pointed out shows that Islamic terrorists could enlslave and rape their female captives of the so-called unbelievers, even if they were unmarried or are married to the so-called unbelievers.

And this is the reason why Jewish, Christian, Bahai, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Assyrian, Zoroastrian ladies were enslaved and raped by their muslim terrorist captors, as after all , their scriptures allow it.

There are many films in India about how Islamic terrorists raped sikh and hindu women during the direct action day riots, the moplah riots and the partition riots . Rape was prevalent by islamic terrorists ever since they arrived in India during the medieval ages.

And rape by Islamic terrorists is happening now as well.

Check this out......


Pan-European Arab Muslim Gang Rape Epidemic - IRIS Blog


Beslan ...hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rapes in Beslan: in Muhammed's Footsteps


TheReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World


NonParty Politics: Freedom and Equality is non-negotiable: Muslims justify rape

[niranjan]

Also check these out......

Sultan Knish From NY to IsraelThe Sultan Reveals the Story Behind the Story

Eye On The World: Australia: Muslim woman raped for reading the Bible


Dhimmi Watch: Fitzgerald: Pirates, hooligans, and self-immolation

FrontPage magazine.com :: Muslim Rape? They Were Asking for It by Robert Spencer

TheReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World


Fjordman: Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?


Atheist Girl: Top Muslim leader in Australia compares women to meat.



Islamic Evil: Muslim Rape

[niranjan]

And this as well.....



Western Resistance: Australia: Muslim Rape Gang Leader Smiles As He Is Sentenced


Fjordman: Muslim Rape Epidemic in Sweden and Norway - Authorities Look the Other Way


Jihad Watch: Spencer on rape and jihad ( Rape by islamic terrorists in Sudan)


ANTI-DHIMMI



Islam Watch - "Islam Permits Muslim Men to Rape Non-Muslim Female Captives - Part 1" by Archemedez


http://pre-eurabia-english.blogspot....1_archive.html( Rape of chinese non-muslims, swedish , norwegian,french, pakistani christian ladies and girls by islamic terrorists )


Amkha Yisrael

FactsOfIsrael.com: Brave Palestinian rejects Islamic terrorism and Jihad (holy war)

[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.

Originally Posted by niranjan

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.

Originally Posted by niranjan

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.

Originally Posted by niranjan

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.

Originally Posted by niranjan

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.

Originally Posted by niranjan

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?

Originally Posted by niranjan

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.

Originally Posted by niranjan

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.

Originally Posted by niranjan

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.

Originally Posted by niranjan

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]

Originally Posted by niranjan

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.

Originally Posted by niranjan

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

Originally Posted by niranjan

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?

Originally Posted by niranjan

12.Sura

Originally Posted by niranjan

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.

Originally Posted by niranjan

13.Sura

Originally Posted by niranjan

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]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

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