Islam Must Rule the World

[Norsefire]

ok GeoffP just a history lesson, the Greeks didn't "kick the shit" out of anyone. Xerxes wasn't a tall yao ming. The immortals weren't creepy misfigured men. And the 300 didn't do back flips and take out thousands of Pesians. That is Hollywood.

Anyway, you seriously don't know how strict Israeli customs are? They DO whip people, quite often, and quite often children. Like I said before, they are NOTHING like the USA's culture, their ideas of what is right and wrong is quite different.

And forget about Iran here, I DO think what they do are crimes so let's throw that aside. Iran is also not Arab so forget about that.

Anyway, Hesbollah.....to lay down their arms? :roflmao: I wouldn't lay down my arms if I had a terrorist right next to me, threatening to bomb my people and destroy my country. Nope, I'd keep on fighting if I were Nasrallah. You are making the assumption that Israel is right, which it is not. So long as it is on occupied land, it will get resistance. The solution? Get out of Palestine.

Um, just a quick fact. Palestine is Arab land not jew land.

Therefore, wouldn't Israeal be the criminal for simply being on the land? They chose to, and because of US support, they managed to beat their neighbors. Israel would be NOTHING without US technological aid/funding.

You make no sense. You call Hesbollah evil for wanting to drive Israel out of their lands, but Israel is not evil for merely being on the land?.....

Israel chose to steal that land, so she pays the price. Simple, and she will not be strong forever. She is only strong because of US aid, without that she would be a shithole (oh wait, she already is) anyway, yea....
And what will happen when her neighbors become stronger and stronger? Oops....I feel bad for Israel

 

[Michael]

300 bullshit? Are you upset about the Greek epic? Hey, tell it to Leonidas. Not American TV's fault that Xerxes and his Immortals got their asses kicked.

Actaully I went to the IMAX just because I really love this story and yes it's based on a comic so Xerxes is grosly misrepresented (typical comic book vilian) BUT the acting was crap. CRAP.

Listen here mister HollyWood People - actors can NOT put in a good performance in front of only a huge big blue screen. It's simply impossible. StarWars I,II,III almost killed us - so stop it!

Up until 1948, the Jews only purchased 12.5% of the land they had turned into their own state of Israel. From that point on, they expanded their territory through the 1967 six-day war. This was in direct violation of the Geneva Convention wherein land cannot be confiscated through the aftermath of war.

I agree.

BUT O notice all most all Muslims back Mohammad when he went to war against the Arabs. One Muslim even said it was perfectly fine because they were polytheistic:bugeye:. Many Muslims back the Islamic conquest of Persia, Syria, Egypt .. .. .. Spain. I've yet heard a Muslim seriously suggest Turkey should return Istanbul to Greece. Actually many Muslims think quite highly of all these conquests. Good stuff.

Many Muslims live Australia and the USA and Canada etc.. I don't see them rallying for the return of land to the natives.. Many of whom live on reservations or in State funded camps.

To me it seems hypocritical - doesn't it?

Also, do non-Jewish living in Israel have equal protection under the Law? I'm wondering if Democracy could even work in a country where the tribe and the Religion is more important that the State? Can it?

I think it'd be best to accept Israel as country and let the "Palestinian" territories merge with Lebanon Egypt and Syria.

RE: Greater Syria.
I would not at all be surprised if, in the future, there isn't a Greater Israel that included Baghdad. Sounds funny now, but in the future when there is no more serious need of the small deposits of oil in the ME perhaps Israel will take it all. Maybe not, but maybe.


Michael

Well anyway at least they might be able to use some of these WMD on Irans Nuclear Program, even though the IAEA havent find any proof the iranians are building a bomb..

I bloody hope they don't.

About the proof. Who knows. But, I will say this, all of the Iranians I know (and I know quite a few) HATE two things Islam and their government. They all AGREE to two things too. (1) Iran is building an atom bomb and (2) they damn well have a Right to do so - especially as Israel did.

But who knows?

I was wondering, when the Jewish settlers were immigrating - did they have to go through some sort of customs, get a passport of sorts or ID papers and who was the governments in charge? They didn't just walk in? I assume there was a legal entry process?

 

[Kadark]

I agree.

BUT O notice all most all Muslims back Mohammad when he went to war against the Arabs. One Muslim even said it was perfectly fine because they were polytheistic:bugeye:. Many Muslims back the Islamic conquest of Persia, Syria, Egypt .. .. .. Spain. I've yet heard a Muslim seriously suggest Turkey should return Istanbul to Greece. Actually many Muslims think quite highly of all these conquests. Good stuff.

Many Muslims live Australia and the USA and Canada etc.. I don't see them rallying for the return of land to the natives.. Many of whom live on reservations or in State funded camps.

To me it seems hypocritical - doesn't it?

Also, do non-Jewish living in Israel have equal protection under the Law? I'm wondering if Democracy could even work in a country where the tribe and the Religion is more important that the State? Can it?

I think it'd be best to accept Israel as country and let the "Palestinian" territories merge with Lebanon Egypt and Syria.

RE: Greater Syria.
I would not at all be surprised if, in the future, there isn't a Greater Israel that included Baghdad. Sounds funny now, but in the future when there is no more serious need of the small deposits of oil in the ME perhaps Israel will take it all. Maybe not, but maybe.


Michael

Back then during the conquests, there were no international laws that nations or empires had to conduct themselves under. You could legally wage war, acquire land, etc, and face no repercussions for your actions. However, nowadays (and during Israel's establishment and growth) you do have such laws, and everyone is forced to follow them. That's the difference.

 

[Michael]

Was it morally wrong back then?

 

[Kadark]

Was it morally wrong back then?

Morals and laws are two different things. Besides, what is moral to me may be immoral to you. You'd have to expand on your definition.

 

[GeoffP]

ok GeoffP just a history lesson, the Greeks didn't "kick the shit" out of anyone. Xerxes wasn't a tall yao ming. The immortals weren't creepy misfigured men. And the 300 didn't do back flips and take out thousands of Pesians. That is Hollywood.

The Greeks beat the Persians down like a red-haired stepchild. They spanked them. They gave the Persians so many rights they were begging for a left. Kicked them around like dogs. Oh my God, what a slaughter. Kicked the shit out of the Immortals and killed two of Xerxes brothers while being outnumbered - what? 1000 to 1? Man, what a beating. I don't think there's ever been anything like it.

Anyway, you seriously don't know how strict Israeli customs are? They DO whip people, quite often, and quite often children. Like I said before, they are NOTHING like the USA's culture, their ideas of what is right and wrong is quite different.

This is a very, very strange accusation on your part. I know numerous Israelis and strangely it failed to come up in the general conversation. I think you're sitting too close to the microwave.

And forget about Iran here, I DO think what they do are crimes so let's throw that aside. Iran is also not Arab so forget about that.

?? It matters if they're Arab? Who cares? I'm concerned with islamic interpretations of law, not ethnicity.

Anyway, Hesbollah.....to lay down their arms? :roflmao: I wouldn't lay down my arms if I had a terrorist right next to me, threatening to bomb my people and destroy my country.

...oh. So you see the Israelis' point then? Ok, good.

Nope, I'd keep on fighting if I were Nasrallah. You are making the assumption that Israel is right, which it is not. So long as it is on occupied land, it will get resistance. The solution? Get out of Palestine.

Um, just a quick fact. Palestine is Arab land not jew land..

See, now I thought you were being reasonable and now you're back to this again. The Israelis bought it fair and square, and won the rest defending themselves against genocide. That's a fair deal in anyone's book. Maybe if their neighbours had been a bit less, I dunno, supremacist about their religion, everything would have been ok. But they figured that the incoming Jews would be just like the "regular" Occidental Jews; nice and suppressed and quiet. They weren't. They pushed back. Hey, tough.

Therefore, wouldn't Israeal be the criminal for simply being on the land? They chose to, and because of US support, they managed to beat their neighbors. Israel would be NOTHING without US technological aid/funding.

Actually, they beat the snot out of the invading Arab armies almost entirely on their own in 1948. In contrast...how many Arab armies was it that invaded them in the first place? Four? The Israelis had no tanks, nine obsolete airplanes, no artillery except some crappy little mortars, and they still beat the invaders - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, not to mention the local guerillas - so bad that they had them running in - what? about two months. US support had little to do with the survival of Israel in 1948. Later on they did get US arms, of course. Although I wonder what the Syrian and Jordanian and Egyptian armies would be without Soviet (and now Russian) support? Is it possible to be less than nothing?? :shrug:

You make no sense. You call Hesbollah evil for wanting to drive Israel out of their lands, but Israel is not evil for merely being on the land?.....

No, Hezbollah is evil because they won't make peace and because they want a genocide of the Jewish inhabitants of Israel. I don't agree with more settler expansion, but the history of Israel is of a people doing what they had to do to survive and overcoming incredible odds to do so. Things would have been simpler if the Arab religious establishment had just decided to be a little more humanitarian. "Hardening hearts". Hmm. Makes you wonder whose side God is on, eh?

Israel chose to steal that land, so she pays the price. Simple, and she will not be strong forever. She is only strong because of US aid, without that she would be a shithole (oh wait, she already is) anyway, yea....
And what will happen when her neighbors become stronger and stronger? Oops....I feel bad for Israel

It would probably be better if the Arab countries around them learned to live in peace. Israel doesn't have nukes for nothing, you know.

 

[Michael]

Morals and laws are two different things. Besides, what is moral to me may be immoral to you. You'd have to expand on your definition.

I'd say if morals over murdering people can be gray then it's more than possible to find similar graynesses in the law.

If we can not agree that murdering innocent people is evil - then really now, what does it matter?

 

[Kadark]

I'd say if morals over murdering people can be gray then it's more than possible to find similar graynesses in the law.

If we can not agree that murdering innocent people is evil - then really now, what does it matter?

Yeah, and ask some hardcore right-wingers on these forums, and they'll say that the estimated 600,000-1,000,000 deaths of innocent Iraqis isn't evil - it is collateral damage. Nowadays, innocent human deaths doesn't equal evil; apparently, dog fighting does.

 

[Michael]

We'll I'm not a rightwingnut.
More social liberal really.

I once had this poll on morals. I'll post the story and question here and you tell me what you think. Then, once you've done that, think about the Americans that say the deaths of innocent Iraqi's is collateral damage. Morals are funny like that.

Morality.

I am specifically interested in the morality on display in a popular folk-tale. I first read the story on an Islamic Arabic News website. It was considered by the presenters a virtuous tale and morally apt. It's not uncommon for people to use tales to teach morality. Take Aesop's Fables for instance. We've all heard the phrase ".. and the moral of the story is..."

Therefor the folk-lore or tale or fable needn't be true itself or have anything to do with historic accuracy or even reality but only to do with morality.

Here is the tale as I originally heard it:
Arab News
"Abdullah ibn Khatal used to be a Muslim. The Prophet once sent him to collect zakah from people who lived far away. He traveled with another man and a servant of his who was a Muslim. At one stage on the way they stopped. He gave the servant orders to slaughter a big goat and prepare food for him while he himself went to sleep. When he woke up, he discovered that the servant had not done anything. He killed his servant and, fearing the Prophet’s punishment, reverted to idolatry. He also had two slave girls who used to sing for him and for his companions songs full of abuse of the Prophet. The Prophet’s instructions specified that the two slave girls should also be killed. The man was killed as he was actually holding on to the coverings of the Kaaba. Abu Barzah Al-Aslami and Saeed ibn Hurayth Al-Makhzumi killed him along with one of his slave girls. The other managed to flee until someone sought a special pardon for her from the Prophet, which he granted."

Here is an English Translation by
Alfred Guillaume of the original Historical work of Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar who himself was (and is) considered a scholar and historian and whom many credit with witting the oldest Biograph of Mohammad.

Another was Abdullah Khatal of B. Taym b. Ghalib. He had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (He was a Muslim.) When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked and killed him and apostatized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed with him.


The Question:

Only going on what information you have read, was the order to have the two singing-girls put to death (Fartana and her friend) moral or immoral?

Why or why not?

 

[Kadark]

First of all, I have mentioned countless times the unreliability and contradictory characteristics of most hadiths. Tens of thousands were fabricated and added to the collection of what hadiths were already available. Eventually, you had a huge mess of reliable hadiths (narrated by the Prophets' actual companions), and unreliable hadiths (ones that were created to tarnish Islam's image). The people who falsely fabricated hadiths were later put to death.

That being said, every hadith is scaled on some sort of a reliability factor. Some have appropriate sources and date to reasonable times (i.e., recorded soonafter the Prophet's death). Accordingly, there are unreliable hadiths of questionable timing and sometimes undeterminable composers. This concluded in a hodgepodge of hadiths which included ones that were authentic, and ones that were of the contrary. As said previously, hadiths are shaky guidelines that should be followed only upon situations where the Qur'an's teachings are not very specific and need be expanded.

Finally, this particular hadith you have posted yourself must ritually fall under one of five (I believe) categories; extremely reliable to extremely unreliable, if memory serves me correct. Which category this particular hadith in inserted into is unknown to me, although I will most definitely make a concerted effort to find out. In any case, insulting of the Prophet is not tolerated and results in severe repercussions.

I hope this was of help.

P.S.: Can you give me the number/volume/book of this particular hadith? I'd like to commit myself to a bit of research. Thanks.

 

[Michael]

I'm not sure why it matters? I stated at the onset it is a matter of what you think morally correct. The tale is a common one read for over one thousands years. Surely it's relevant?

So? Moral or Immoral?

Michael

PS: The Arab News it states:
Anas ibn Malik reports: “The Prophet entered Makkah on the day when it was taken over, wearing a helmet. When he took it off, a man came and said: ‘Ibn Khatal is holding to the covering of the Kaaba.’ The Prophet ordered him to be killed. He was not in the state of consecration on that day.” (Related by Al-Bukhari, Abu Dawood, Al-Nassaie and Ibn Majah.) The relevant point in this Hadith is... bla bla bla

 

[Kadark]

I'm not sure why it matters? I stated at the onset it is a matter of what you think morally correct. The tale is a common one read for over one thousands years. Surely it's relevant?

What matters is whether the hadith is generally reliable or put on the "caution" list, so to speak.

So? Moral or Immoral?

I have no sympathy for those who insult the Prophet. Those who criticize are perfectly okay in my book, because I can answer criticism. Insulting is an entirely different story. Anyway, whether or not the hadith is fabricated is still up in the air.

 

[Michael]

I have no sympathy for those who insult the Prophet.

Fair enough - I've not said anything directly about Mohammad. I've only asked some questions.

Anyway, whether or not the hadith is fabricated is still up in the air.

As is your answer. So? What do you say?

 

[Kadark]

I told you my answer....

I have no sympathy for those who insult the Prophet. Those who criticize are perfectly okay in my book, because I can answer criticism. Insulting is an entirely different story.

It isn't entirely moral or immoral.

 

[Michael]

What?

Please explain how ordering the death of the two singing slave girls isn't entirely moral or immoral?

 

[Michael]

Anyway, why the aversion? It's simply a question - just answer it and we can move forward.

 

[Kadark]

Not everything can boil down to a simple 'yes' or 'no', Michael. I've told you twice already my position, and if you disagree, that's fine. Finally, morality is what you make of it; everyone's perspective variates on this subject. There is not one thing that every human can unanimously say, "this is (im)moral".

 

[Michael]

Well then, I suppose you wouldn't think a wall separating Israel from Palestine is immoral or moral? Nor the actions of the people living in Palestinian-family homes, while the Palestinians who used to live there, live in a Camp and can not even return to their family-home. I mean these don't even involve death. Or at least not it's outright order of death. So its all just too up in the air to say if it's immoral or moral. As for the 1 million Iraqi-dead, well who can really say this is immoral or moral either - right? I mean those rightwingnuts have a point, Muslims came and bombed New York* and Saddam was a bad person and hey collateral-damage is just a part of liberation.

It's funny that you could think a One World Islamic Government would be a better system than secular and democratic? Have you considered your beleif already has you worried to think. You first said you needed to look up and see if the Hadith were correct and now you are saying well who really knows what moral. The fact is you mentally can not write that ordering the death is immoral because you are worried there is a God, or even Mohammad himself, looking down and weighting your actions right as we speak. You wouldn't want to say it was moral because then you appear to support the death of an innocent slave girl who had the misfortunate of being owned by a Muslim who became apostate and for this was ordered to death. Yet, you also can not say it was immoral because then you "insult" the actions of Mohammad.

You really think living in such an environment is better than living in a secular one?

Ever wonder why there are little to almost no human forms in the classic Islamic arts? Oh the same thing happened within the Germanic/Holy Roman Empire. That's monotheism for you.


Interesting things to think about, huh?

Michael

 

[Kadark]

No Michael, your logic is flawed. We don't dictate the outcome of hostile, controversial legal affairs by using morals. We try and solve problems and prevent them from happening by using universal law; law that everyone is forced to abide by. These laws are in direct opposition to ample Israeli wrongdoings, primarily including colonizing of land and oppression of its civilians. Of course I would like one world government under which a theocracy of Islam stood, but rationally speaking I have formulated the thought that it will not happen. Do I go about my opinions and beliefs and try to force them onto others? No. Do I condone such actions on behalf of any individual or party? Likewise, no. My point is, Islam should be the universal religion that we define our lives by, but that is merely because it correlates with my perspective. Accordingly, everyone wants others to agree with them and see what they see through the same eyes; it is simply the tendencies of human nature. The integral thing to look at is, should Islam be forced upon people without their consent or approval, or should it assume that dominate stance by preaching and knowledge? I believe the latter, so I hope you can rest easy tonight.

 

[Michael]

Oh Kadark,

Law must involve discussion of moral concept. How else are we to formulate law that is just?

I'm not surprised that you didn't want to answer question on the moral dilemma. Sam does a nice scoot around it as well. Rationalization is interesting like that.

You wrote:
These laws are in direct opposition to ample Israeli wrongdoings, primarily including colonizing of land and oppression of its civilians.

The Persian, Syrian, Egyptian, etc... occupations are coming to mind.