Does Islam Promote Violence?

[YamiB.]

I didn't want to shift to this topic, but it's already happened.

The main reason that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified was because it prevented an invasion. This prevented many deaths on both sides. Really the damage done by the bombs is overestimated. Each city suffered less deaths than when Tokyo was attacked using convential bombs. The leaders of Japan were too stuck in their samurai mentality and needed to be woken up. Even after the Emperor decided to surrender due to the bombing some of his generals saw surrender as unacceptable and tried to overthrow him. Ironically he was saved due to an American bombing.

 

[vandervalley]

I wonder what will happen to the sons/daughters of a muslim family in a muslim country such as Saudi Arabia/Iran when they decided to convert to Christanity or other religions in Far East.

The answer to the above question should pretty well show whether 'Islam promotes violence or not'

Another thing is that many muslims and christians criticise religions in Far East as cults that worship idols. To those muslims and christians (NOTE that i said SOME muslims and christians, NOT ALL muslims and christians): look at the holy cities of yours. they are the biggest idols humans have ever created. So if those muslims and christians who criticises other religions worship idols; then they should also stop worship their holy city idols 5 times a day.

I am not against any religion but please look at yourself before criticising others.

 

[gnostic]

Excuse me. But the situation is totally different. Japan and the US were already at war.

The situation to 9/11 is different. I supported Bush going after bin Laden into Afghanistan, and getting rid of the Talibans was a bonus. But they should have stayed in Afghanistan and complete the objective. He should have put more pressure upon Pakistan, because that's where bin Laden and the Talibans fled to. There is justification in this war, but regretfully civilians got hurt. However, the invasion in Iraq was an illegal war with absolute no justification whatsoever. I am not defending Saddam, but it was a wrong war to get involve in.

I can see justification of Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. But you should know that I have been anti-Bush from before he was elected as president. I especially don't support his strategy and policies in both wars. His father should have finished off Saddam, but all these damn Arab nations would not let go further, but that's a different point.

What happened in WW2 and 9/11 are 2 different things. And can't really be compared.

Afghanistan alone had suffered loss of lives far higher than Both Twin Towers, combined together. And those who lived, suffered more from rape at the hands of the Americans.
(Not to be the bearer of bad news, but believe it or not, there are many reports of rape by American Soldiers)

Sorry, but don't expect me to have pity on the Americans throught 9/11.

Your argument is absurd, peace4all. I don't argue that more people died from the bombings of Afghanistan; I agreed with that.

However, those victims in the Twin Towers were not soldiers, didn't fight war against Afghanistan or bombed them. The dead victims and the survivors certainly didn't rape anyone. This is where your argument is absurd and pointless. There were alot of Muslims who worked there too. Did they rape anyone?

You can play Devil's Advocate all you want, but you're the ones who brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so you're bringing up the wrong points in the wrong topic, and a topic which you began.

I argue with you what the Japaneses did to the other Asian countries was worse compared to what happen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because you were the one who brought it up. You can't even begin to understand the level of devastation and untold sufferings that the Japaneses had brought with them.

If you want to play this game of Devil's Advocate, then let me remind you what the Muslims did in India. Did India ask to be invaded by the Arab Muslims, and then by Ottoman Muslims? Did the Indian women asked to be converted, and forced to become wives and concubines to Muslims?

Did any of the kingdoms, like Spain, in Africa, Egypt and Persia, invite any Islamic empires to come and conquer them and be converted to Islam?

Muslims are proud when they conquered nations, whether they like or not, but whine loudly about religious persecution when they are conquered. Islam came with the swords just like any empire. So unless people are forced to "submit", then that to my mind that Islam doesn't equal to "peace" at all.

 

[Islam]

gnostic u speak about Muslims forcing people to convert yet thats not even allowed in Islam. U claim that Islam was spread by the sword yet its the fastest growing relegion in your own country which Muslim army is occupying your country?

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

There are always going to be violence because there are always people who will stop at nothing to oppress others. Stealing there God given rights, everyone has the right to live in a land based solely on the laws of Allah for he is the Just and his laws are just. Allah says in the Quran in Surah Hajj verses 39 on when Allah tells you he sends the creation to check one another if not all the mosques, churches, and synogogues where Allahs name is mentioned will be destroyed. Some people are so corrupt that if they are not destroyed they will reap havoc on the earth. But the essence is it comes from Allah. The victory of the oppressed and the defeat of the oppressors. Why because some people are forced out of their homes unjustly who will defend them. The soldiers of Allah those who fight to bring Allah's justice and his way to the earth. For Allah has given us all the tools and the responsibility to look after the earth and each other. Some did it right like the messengers and their followers others do it wrong. Like the Mongols, or Roman, or current day U.S. and Israel and even some corrupt Arab kings. They are not excused for they do not rule under the laws of Allah. It will come and sooner than people really think. Peace.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Excuse me. But the situation is totally different. Japan and the US were already at war.

The situation to 9/11 is different. I supported Bush going after bin Laden into Afghanistan, and getting rid of the Talibans was a bonus.

That war was not about the Taliban or Osama bin Laden it was about the heroin and the oil pipeline. That is why we went to Afghanistan.

I can see justification of Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. But you should know that I have been anti-Bush from before he was elected as president. I especially don't support his strategy and policies in both wars. His father should have finished off Saddam, but all these damn Arab nations would not let go further, but that's a different point.

AMERICA PUT SADDAM IN POWER AND GAVE HIM THE WEAPONS. WE START THE FIRE AND GET MAD WHEN IT GETS OUT OF CONTROL.

What happened in WW2 and 9/11 are 2 different things. And can't really be compared.

No it is the same. Certain groups of people are profiting HUGE off wars. Follow the money trail it leads to the same groups or institutions.

Your argument is absurd, peace4all. I don't argue that more people died from the bombings of Afghanistan; I agreed with that.

Wow

However, those victims in the Twin Towers were not soldiers, didn't fight war against Afghanistan or bombed them. The dead victims and the survivors certainly didn't rape anyone. This is where your argument is absurd and pointless. There were alot of Muslims who worked there too. Did they rape anyone?

Neither are the million Iraqii children who have died due to the occupation and sanctions.

You can play Devil's Advocate all you want, but you're the ones who brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so you're bringing up the wrong points in the wrong topic, and a topic which you began.

If anyone supports any of the oppressors in any of these wars then they are playing the role.

I argue with you what the Japaneses did to the other Asian countries was worse compared to what happen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because you were the one who brought it up. You can't even begin to understand the level of devastation and untold sufferings that the Japaneses had brought with them.

And who was it that bombed them. America we sure talk about weapons of mass destruction yet the US is the only country to use them. We can use them and have them and others cannot. Why is that fair. You have big bombs to drop on me and I do not.

If you want to play this game of Devil's Advocate, then let me remind you what the Muslims did in India. Did India ask to be invaded by the Arab Muslims, and then by Ottoman Muslims? Did the Indian women asked to be converted, and forced to become wives and concubines to Muslims?

Were they doing what the messenger did and what the Quran says. If the answer is no then of course it is not justified.

Did any of the kingdoms, like Spain, in Africa, Egypt and Persia, invite any Islamic empires to come and conquer them and be converted to Islam?

You see many say conquer them but in Islam you do not have to connvert if a muslim army comes. And many accepted it long before they came because many dealt with the muslims in trade and were aware of their customs and practices and many times some of these governments you mentioned oppressed their own people and many of the people were willing to accept.

Muslims are proud when they conquered nations, whether they like or not, but whine loudly about religious persecution when they are conquered. Islam came with the swords just like any empire. So unless people are forced to "submit", then that to my mind that Islam doesn't equal to "peace" at all.

True muslim do not care about conquered lands we only care that people will accept the message. Secular triumphs mean nothing on the day of Judgment. It is not how much land you took is what you will be asked but how many people did you give the message especially if you are a muslim ruler. Then it is your job to spread the message and if people accept it fine if they reject it fine. But the law of Allah will rule so if they want to fight they will. Many times the armies of the muslims were much smaller and they still one. But this was in the time of the messenger and the four caliphs and the two succeeding generations. Now the muslims nations have degressed and left the Quran and Sunnah. Islam is no longer a government. True Islam is not spread by the sword but many have done it and were successful so some corrupt muslim leaders may have adopted this philosophy but in the beginning no. People cannot submit. You should study the Fiqh on how the muslims dealt with the coveted people and what is the ruling. Read the letter of Omar to Jerusalem and tell me if they are all to be killed unless they convert. When you ruler is righteous and doing it according to Islam it is easy to see. Islam does equal peace but it is the peace one recieves from worshipping Allah. Islam is based on a principle of Justice. If a man murders and is killed would he say the system is just. No. But the family of the one who he stole rights from would say yes. And this is what is happening. Were the persians, Roman, Spain etc. just nations. Look at the genocides they are all guilty of is this peace they project. Look at the evidence.

 

[Snowbear]

Neither are the million Iraqii children who have died due to the occupation and sanctions.

You are talking about the Saddam Hussein occupation, right? Are you saying the sanctions constituted oppression?

If anyone supports any of the oppressors in any of these wars then they are playing the role.

What criteria are used to determine oppression? Who decides which 'supporters' of perceived oppressors get blown up?

Were they doing what the messenger did and what the Quran says. If the answer is no then of course it is not justified.

So - since Muhammed raided non-aggressive caravans and cities, it's OK for his followers to raid whoever they want to now? It seems that it doesn't take much to come up with a so-called 'valid' reason to cry "OPPRESSION" and use it as justification to attack.

You see many say conquer them but in Islam you do not have to connvert if a muslim army comes. And many accepted it long before they came because many dealt with the muslims in trade and were aware of their customs and practices and many times some of these governments you mentioned oppressed their own people and many of the people were willing to accept.

No, you don't have to convert do you.... you may opt to pay the poll tax and live under the laws of dhimmi or be killed rather than convert. Those are the choices, right?

True muslim do not care about conquered lands we only care that people will accept the message.

And of they don't? They are then considered infidels and unless they live under the rules of Islam, which include the poll tax and dhimmi, the justification has been made to attack them and kill them.

In most Islam-ruled societies, people who convert from Islam are executed.

Living under either of these threats is most certainly considered compulsion in religion by anyone with the mental capacity to reason.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Snowbear, what is the shariah ruling on how muslims are to treat non-muslims living in a land ruled by shariah? I want the shariah ruling not your opinion. Do you even know how these people are to be treated according to Islam? Or do you only know what you think you know, or whta th emedia would have you believe?

 

[Islam]

Do you even know what rights the Dhimis have? Do u even know the meaning of the Arabic word dhimi? Its a good thing, not a bad thing. Its to protect the Non Muslims from opression. Search for it urself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you even know what rights the Dhimis have?

Why don't you tell us what rights they don't have?

 

[gnostic]

gnostic u speak about Muslims forcing people to convert yet thats not even allowed in Islam. U claim that Islam was spread by the sword yet its the fastest growing relegion in your own country which Muslim army is occupying your country?

I was referring to past empires of Muslims.

Peace4all was speaking of Japan in WW2, particularly with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was unrelated to 9/11 and the current situation with terrorism. He ignored that Japan had invaded other Asian countries, and the death and suffering they had inflicted on those they conquered.

Islam was spread via empires (from Arabs, Persians and Ottoman Turks). Former Muslim empires are no different to other empires.

Conversion of non-Muslim women when they were turned into slaves, concubines and wives of rulers and their governors in the kingdoms they had conquered, just as any empires would.

 

[gnostic]

You can play Devil's Advocate all you want, but you're the ones who brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so you're bringing up the wrong points in the wrong topic, and a topic which you began.

If anyone supports any of the oppressors in any of these wars then they are playing the role.

And that's my whole point with peace4all.

I said that the Japaneses were the oppressors in WW2, but all the Muslims here seemed to blindly ignore what the Japaneses did. The Muslims all here only see Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they are ignoring the brutality of Japanese rule in eastern and southeastern Asia.

Muslims seemed to ignore the plight of oppressions too. Such as Dafur in Sudan, Saddam's brutal treatments of both Kurds and Shiite Iraqis. What have the Muslim/Arab nations done about it. Nothing. The Sunni Iraqis had Saddam's backing, and now that they are no longer a majority, they have butchered, bombed and assassinate people.

Don't tell me that all Muslims are righteous and uncorrupted. That the sort of thing I have from Christians, who ignored their own history. And don't tell me Islam have not been corrupted by powers. The fact is that Muslims like mixing religion with politics and military, they have corrupted their religion. Like or not, Islam have been tainted just as much as Christianity have been tainted.

That war was not about the Taliban or Osama bin Laden it was about the heroin and the oil pipeline. That is why we went to Afghanistan.

Sorry, MM, but you've got that wrong. Iraq was the one with the oil. Afghanistan had no oil or any useful natural resources.

 

[TashaN]

And that's my whole point with peace4all.

I said that the Japaneses were the oppressors in WW2, but all the Muslims here seemed to blindly ignore what the Japaneses did. The Muslims all here only see Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they are ignoring the brutality of Japanese rule in eastern and southeastern Asia.

Do you compare what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with what the japanese did? are you serious?

Muslims seemed to ignore the plight of oppressions too. Such as Dafur in Sudan, Saddam's brutal treatments of both Kurds and Shiite Iraqis. What have the Muslim/Arab nations done about it. Nothing. The Sunni Iraqis had Saddam's backing, and now that they are no longer a majority, they have butchered, bombed and assassinate people.

Oh, you started painting the whole religion now without bothering yourself to look into the details of each event. What you posted in here as facts as nothing more than what the media is insisting to enforce in your mind without going into details.

Don't tell me that all Muslims are righteous and uncorrupted.

Who did?

Sorry, MM, but you've got that wrong. Iraq was the one with the oil. Afghanistan had no oil or any useful natural resources.

You better read more about it.

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html

http://members.localnet.com/~jeflan/jfafghanpipe.htm

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/afghan.htm

 

[TashaN]

Why don't you tell us what rights they don't have?

dhimmi: A non-Muslim citizen of an Islamic state. Dhimmis are exempt from military service and zakah (an Islamic alms due) but instead pay a tax called jizyah. Their life and property is protected by the Islamic state.

 

[TashaN]

So - since Muhammed raided non-aggressive caravans and cities, it's OK for his followers to raid whoever they want to now? It seems that it doesn't take much to come up with a so-called 'valid' reason to cry "OPPRESSION" and use it as justification to attack.

Muslims attack whom?

No, you don't have to convert do you.... you may opt to pay the poll tax and live under the laws of dhimmi or be killed rather than convert. Those are the choices, right?

From where did you collect these stuff?

Please don't bash islam and muslims because of some misconceptions in your mind. I don't blame you ok! just ask before you come and bash others beliefs.

And of they don't? They are then considered infidels and unless they live under the rules of Islam, which include the poll tax and dhimmi, the justification has been made to attack them and kill them.

What the? :areyoucra

In most Islam-ruled societies, people who convert from Islam are executed.

Prove it.

the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was reported to have said, “He who unfairly treats a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with Muslims, or undermines his rights, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his consent; then I am his opponent on the Day of Judgment” (Abu Dawud and Al-Bayhaqi).

He (peace and blessings be upon him) is also reported to have said, “He who harms a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with Muslims has harmed me, and he who harms me has harmed Allah” (At-Tabarani in Al-Awsat with a good chain of transmission).

For more information about please check this link.

The Rights of Non-Muslims in Society
http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2005/12/article01.shtml

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/article.php?lang=E&id=11530


Peace and blessing,

The Truth

 

[vandervalley]

He (peace and blessings be upon him) is also reported to have said, “He who harms a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with Muslims has harmed me, and he who harms me has harmed Allah” (At-Tabarani in Al-Awsat with a good chain of transmission).

Wow this "At-Tabarani in Al-Awsat with a good chain of transmission). dude"
actually said that if any1 harms him then it's equal to harm ur god. So does this mean he is equal to ur god?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why don't you tell us what rights they don't have?

dhimmi: A non-Muslim citizen of an Islamic state. Dhimmis are exempt from military service and zakah (an Islamic alms due) but instead pay a tax called jizyah. Their life and property is protected by the Islamic state.

This exemplifies evasion and deceit, Truth.

 

[gnostic]

Do you compare what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with what the japanese did? are you serious?

Oh, I forgot you Muslims like keeping slaves of women, turning them into concubines or forcibly marrying them. I forgot that Muslims had great affinity with WW2 Japanese soldiers.

You would still prefer the old days of old empires where you were masters and everyone else are slaves. Better be slaves of Japaneses or of Muslims than being dead. Right?

You seriously need to read the histories of what the Japaneses did Chineses, Koreans, Malaysians and Indonesians, The Truth, because you don't have any idea what they did. You are whitewashing the truth about the war, and you have belittle all those who died at the hands of Japaneses, or those who were tortured and maimed many who had opposed them. And the Japanese scientists did similar things to the Chineses and Koreans that the Nazi scientists did the Jews.

Even the Germans today (except the Neo-Nazi) admitted the their past mistakes that the Germans had experimented on the Jews, and killed hundreds of thousands of Jews in the gas chambers. But the Japaneses tried to deny this part of their history, trying to re-write history.

Oh, I forgot. Your leading Islamic historians have also being trying to deny the Holocaust had ever happened too. Your historians are similarly trying to whitewash the Holocaust, and claimed it was all Jewish propaganda, while you sprout your own propaganda.

If you think my words are heated and I'm angry, then you are damned well right that I angry and offended. You speak of oppressions that your Muslim people have suffered, and yet you and peace4all and islam deny that the Japaneses during WW2 had oppressed other Asian countries makes me angry.

You speak of American or Jewish propaganda, but I hearing a lot from you and other Muslims sprouting your own disgusting propaganda. I know that you are directing your comments about Americans, but at the same time, you have ripped away the real history of what happened to the other Asian countries.

If you want me to calm down and you still want to talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then don't ignore the plights and death that Chineses, Koreans and other Asians have gone through.

 

[gnostic]

Oh, you started painting the whole religion now without bothering yourself to look into the details of each event. What you posted in here as facts as nothing more than what the media is insisting to enforce in your mind without going into details.

Well, you Muslims do exactly the same thing. When you see Americans or Europeans do something that are bad, do you or other Muslims do not blame it all on Christianity, or even on the Jews? Or when Americans go to war, like in Iraq, do you not blame the whole of US? Do you take into account that half of the Americans do not support the war in Iraq?

The Muslims have been making the same generalisation. Muslims here have blame the decision of American policies from White House on all Americans citizens, instead of blaming the president's administration.

So don't speak to me about generalisation when Muslims have been doing exactly the same thing here and elsewhere.

Look what happened to the Danish cartoon or the nun that was murdered in regarding to the pope's speech. Do you think the action of destroying churches, embassy or murdering nun were justified? Did they not do more than generalise?

So don't give me no crap that you or other Muslims don't generalise about issues that they don't like.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

From Shariah:The islamic Law compiled by Abdur-Rahman I. Doi
Ch. 24 pg 426-429

Non-Muslims and Islamic Nationality

The non-muslims who live in an Islamic state and enjoy all their human rights which are enshrined in the shariah are called Dhimmis-the covenanted people. The dhimmis living in an Islamic state are guaranteed the protection of their life, property and honor exactly like that of a muslim. The rights diven to a dhimmis are of an irrevocable nature. It becomes every muslim's religious duty to protect life property, and honor of a non-muslim since it forms a part and parcel of iman.

The word dhimmah literally means pledged, safety, and guarantee. The non-muslims are called dhimmis because they are under the pledge of Allah, the Messenger of Allah (saw), and the pledge of the muslim community so that they can live under the protection of Islam. The pledge of security given to the non-muslims is like the political nationality given in the modern times on the basis of which people acquire all their rights as the nationals of a certain country and become liabvle to resposibility. The dhimmis from this point of view are "the people the abode of Islam" and hence the possessors of Islamic nationality.

Non-muslims under the Jurisdiction of a Muslim State

The muslim Jurists have classified the non-muslim citizens under different categories. There are usually five different kinds of non-muslims who may be found in any Islamic state:

1)Dhimmis- These are those who accept the hagemony of the muslim state whose matters are to be decided with the terms of the appropriate treaty. The Muslim state is duty-bound to abide by all the terms of the treaty.
2)The conquered people- These are those who have fought against the muslims and been defeated. They automatically become dhimmah. However, they will pay a fixed amount of tax called jizyah. Thier lives, property, honor, and places of worship will be protected in lieu thereof.
3) Those non-muslims who happen to reside in the state as its citizens.
4) Those who are temporarily in the muslim state i.e., tourists and temporary passers through.
5) Resident aliens who have adopted voluntarily to live within the muslim state.

It is essential to remove some misconceptions about the difference between the muslims and non-muslim dhimmis. Some scholars tend to give the misleading analogy of this distinction and compare it with Jus Civile or the Roman Pax Romana. It should be remembered that non-muslims are not outside the jurisdiction as is the case with Jus Civile. Likewise, muslims are not to consider themselves "Lords of the population of the globe" as they are not arbis Romanus, but merely the servants of Allah. Even as rulers muslims are merely the custodians of Allah's property and not the absolute owner, because everything existing in the heavens and the earth belong to Allah. The non-muslims therefore are equal before the law in all respects. The distinction between 'muslims' and 'dhimmis' remains one of political administration and not of human rights.

Since the dhimmis are under dhimmat-Allah, they enjoy complete religious, administrative and political freedom - a right guaranteed to them in return for their loyalty and/or payment of the jizyah which will be utilized in the defence and administration of the state.


Part two either later or tomorrow as I must prepare a meal to break my fast with.......enjoy the read.....