DiamondHearts said:
I understand your opinion. The modern application of 'Shariah' is not Shariah, because Shariah is a system of law which obtains its rulings and political structure from the Quran, Sunnah, and the great scholars of Islam. Some states have some laws which they call 'Shariah laws', however they are not because Shariah is a complete and pure structure which is not based on western political structures, unlike modern Islamic governments.
So the tiny nod to human rights paid by modern governments of islamic countries would - what, then - vanish under "real" shariah? Religious minorities could expect more horrors? They certainly had them under the
last caliphate. Why exactly would such a system be better in any way? You rant to the moon about about how real sharia would be "complete and pure" - how exactly would it differ in any way from the present system of almost uncontrolled, unmitigated authoritarianism? There'd be
more of it? Oh, joy.
Please, save the polemics and give some details. One might well opine that a "true" Christian state would be "complete and pure", but that doesn't make me want to go out and vote for Pat Robertson. I rather suspect your version of perfection is rather like the "glory" of islamic history - relative to the perspective of those experiencing it.
Armenia alleges that the Young Turks, in 1915 the dominant party in the Ottoman Empire, systematically arranged the deportation and killing of 1.5 million Armenians.
Those sorts of attacks had been going on
long before 1908, and thus long before the "Young Turks" had gained power. They were the reflection of long-standing hatred of Turkish muslims towards the Christian minorities within Turkey. Your thesis, therefore, fails. The reports of Westerners in Turkey prior to the Armenian Genocide illustrates handily the feeling of muslim Turks towards their 'kufr' conationals.
You see, these people were responsible for the destruction of the Islamic State in Turkey itself. I don't know how this can be used to put Islam on defensive, since these people themselves abolished Islamic rule in Turkey, making it a secular nation.
They exploited ancient and islamic hatreds; or worse, simply allowed them to finally be expressed as the masses wished.
Some "protected" people. Indeed, all scorn be to Allah.
Originally Posted by Carcano
Islam upholds the use of force to convert the heathen - early Christianty did not, although St.Augustine later condoned the idea of a 'just war'.
DiamondHearts said:
The sura cited by Diamond is an early one created by Mohammed during the Meccan period, when he still preached peace. Sura 9 (the second to last to be revealed) abrogates Sura 109 "for if we take a verse away, do we not give the like or a better to replace it?" [Mohammed] Sura 9 preaches the murder and forcible conversion of kufr.
Q 2: 256 is, of course, not cited in full by Diamond, for obvious reasons. Here it is in full:
"
Q 2: 256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right hand is henceforth distinct from error. And he who hath rejected false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
Q2: 257 Allah is the Protecting Friend of all those who believe. He bringeth them out of light into darkness. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein."
It's the "for the right hand is henceforth distinct from error" that kills the message, you see. There is no compulsion in islam specifically because "the right way is without error", the argument then being: how can anyone be
forced into taking the 'right way' (islam, in their view)? Only a lunatic or an obstinate (liar) would refuse the right way, of course: and this is precisely how the issue is viewed in islamic countries such as Afghanistan, as we've all seen this last week. The only issue for the islamic court about the conversion of the man in that case is whether or not he's insane. That's sufficient proof of my point, frankly. I also note that many muslims make no bones
whatsoever about interpreting this ayah in
exactly this manner, and deriving the same position as myself from Sura 9.
From "Islam Q&A":
*********************************************************************************
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=34770&dgn=4
Question :
Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become believers”
[Yoonus 10:99]
“There is no compulsion in religion”
[al-Baqarah 2:256]
What is your opinion concerning that?.
Answer :
The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as
Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.
Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, but was
subsequently abrogated by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad.
So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The
kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken,
[Those of other religions - Hindus, Bhuddists, atheists - are then not to given the above choice. Their lot is then death or conversion. - Geoff]
because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so
forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice:
they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.
Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, but
the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”.
The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”
[al-Tawbah 9:29]
And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.
The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”
[al-Anfaal 8:39]
“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).
These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.
*********************************************************************************
There you have it.
Forced conversion for anyone other than "People of the Book"; jizya or death for Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians.
And if this alone is not a major to you, the invasion in Iraq has killed more than 100,000 civilians. Who knows the real number.
I do not disagree in any way that the embargo was a bad thing (although it certainly wasn't bombing that killed those people, as you misunderstand); but the latter figure has been utterly discredited. The confidence interval of the estimate ranges from 3000-170000; it is therefore useful, at a maximum, to say that the estimate is greater than zero. Beyond that, it has no value. More to the point, the estimate of other sources is around 3000 people as I recall. Again, no propaganda, please.
In answer to your question, the Taliban did not destroy the statues for religious reasons. They had been ruling for a few years, why wouldn't they have destroyed the statues when they first came into rule of the area?
Lassitude and ineffectuality. The article itself states they did it for religious reasons. Are you a liar, or merely hugely ignorant?
Yet, when some CIA agents bombed the WTC, this prompted rape, murder, and abuse for Muslims in America.
Hmm...jury's still out on the liar/ignorant thing. I'm leaning more towards liar.
If another CIA terrorist attack happens in the US, the Muslim minority will be in concentration camps.
Damn, the ignorant thing keeps popping up. It's a hard call. In a related issue, do you or do you not agree that if Iran has an obligation to execute citizens who leave islam to protect the "islamic integrity" of the nation, that the US then has a similar obligation with respect to its non-secular, non-Christian, non-Judaic members? Should the US shoot such people or imprison them? Your post above suggest you would disagree with such an action; yet you approve of such in an islamic nation.
Is islam then so weak, so febrile that it requires such protection? A house of cards falls in any kind of stiff wind; is that related to your hypocritical position?
“America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world,” Bush said
Forgive me: isn't most of the oil the US uses imported from South America and Canada?
Geoff