All Prophets were considered terrorists...

…according to whoever they stood up against, and whoever stood against the Prophets wasted no efforts to destroy them or extinguish the Message they brought.

Every prophet has had to stand up against one form of nation or another. Hazrat Nuh (as) had to deal with his own nation, Hazrat Lut (as) has had to deal with his own people, Musa (as) has had to deal with the Egyptians, Hazrat Eesa :as: has had to deal with with the Romans when his own follower betrayed him and our own Prophet :sawasallam: has had to deal with Arabs.

As with all the Prophets mentioned above, Allah :swt: showed miraculous signs like the flood, , destruction of the people of Lut :as:, the 7 plagues of Egypt, Hazrat Eesa :as:'s lifting and the splitting of the moon.

But unlike the religions of yore, Islam was blessed with an underlying yet key element for its survival. Some even consider it the sixth pillar of Islam. It is the Jihad.

No faith before was ever given this form of hardest yet highest form of sacrifice. The Muslims rose to the challenge of defending their fledgling faith and against all odds created the longest lasting and firmest legacy of all.

The Ashab-e-karam were not titled best of the best of all people for nothing. They were there and they truimphed and earned the noblest title of :razi:…One with whom Allah :swt: has agreed…<—
(I am a bit sketchy on the translation, so if anyone has the true meaning of :razi:, it would be so kind as to provide it, I would be grateful.)

Jihad today is a term that is just bubbling under the surface of the Ummah regarding whatever has been going on. Some view it with skepticism, some view it with disgust, some view it as prolonging it as long as possible, and some people don’t care, after all, persecution is worse than slaughter.

So let’s say OK, you believe that Jihad is fard and death for me is like buying a newspaper…

So what does it mean? Does it mean that people go around wearing a scowl everywhere they go as if to look tough? Or look at everyone as if he will devour him? Was our Prophet like that?

Our Prophet :saw: was a very simple man of very simple means. Yet he did in 23 years what Hazrat Nuh :as: couldn’t do in more than 900. People could approach him like he was one of them, according to an authentic Hadith (will provide references on demand)…A slave could lead him by the hand wherever he wanted.

Yet when the time came, he did what was necessary and those that were around him, heeded the call and today, by the blessings of Allah :swt:, we are blessed with the best. Islam.

It doesn’t state anyplace Muslim, it means that regardless of race, color, creed you are forbidden to harm or offend your neighbor.

A Muslim is a helper, trustworthy human being to all people around him, yet he should invoke terror in the hearts of those who would do mischief. A Muslim is a mercy anywhere he steps, yet he is the very wrath of Allah :swt: once someone threatens justice.

What does it mean? It means every Muslim should strike fear into the hearts of wrongdoers, mischief spreaders and tyrants. Those that oppose peace and respect to humans and human lives should quake with fear once a Muslim goes on a warpath.

A Muslim, is an educator, a spokesperson for his faith. Spokespersons are usually cheery and upbeat. However, the same person can wield death once threatened.

So it’s little value if someone labels you a terrorist. More nobler people have been considered thus so it’s of little concern. To quote a wise little Irish girl, “One man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter.”

The tree-grower must sometimes set fire to his own trees for the better good, otherwise the fire engulfs everything.

After reading your post, i am scared that people like you are online...!! godness you have issues!!!

If you set fire to your own tree chicka then the neighbouring tree also catches fire etc etc..Killing the trees.
Not only that, but you start the fire. You destroy the forest. I hope you are happy, think of the animals, chicldren and potential essays that could've been written.....
Think of the trees.

Al prophets were NOT considered terrorists. Only some terrorists pose(d) as prophets and were in due course exposed for the crooks they are / were. Nobody considered Jesus Christ terrorist. Nobody considered Gauthama Bhuddha terrorist. Nobody considered Sri Adi Shankara terrorist. yet these and many others brought nessages of peace, knowledge of the self & universe and harmony that still after hundreds and hundreds of years stand in faith of millions of people. Without Jihad and without promoting any acrimony.

So you go figure who the terrorist is and know that he/she cannot be a prophet - not of God.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TomSawyer: *
Al prophets were NOT considered terrorists. Only some terrorists pose(d) as prophets and were in due course exposed for the crooks they are / were. Nobody considered Jesus Christ terrorist. Nobody considered Gauthama Bhuddha terrorist. Nobody considered Sri Adi Shankara terrorist. yet these and many others brought nessages of peace, knowledge of the self & universe and harmony that still after hundreds and hundreds of years stand in faith of millions of people. Without Jihad and without promoting any acrimony.

So you go figure who the terrorist is and know that he/she cannot be a prophet - not of God.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree that some of the people you mentioned were always considered peaceful. Even now you will find newer documentaries stating the more "violent/unpeaceful" side to some of the ones you mentioned above. Its engligtening, you should read and see some of the stuff. The truth always reveals itself. Trying to mask history is ... never a good idea. smile

^ Really? I mentioned three great souls. Which one or ones of these were considered to be violent, by whom and when?

Tom,
Hazrat Eesa :as: was a terrorist to his own people…They thought that by his actions and teachings, he would destroy them or their positions, so the rabbis plotted against him and one of his own followers betrayed him to the Romans…Sold him…He was betrayed by the very one who should have been willing to die for our Prophet Hazrat Eesa :as:… Jews, what can you say…:rolleyes:

Isn’t that the pattern always? Do you know Mir Jafar and Mir Sadiq and their treachery?

I can post a link if you want, but except for hazrat Eesa :as:, none of the names you mention were prophets.

There's a difference between being non-conformist and terroist. A terrorist creates violent terror. By Eesa I guess you're referring to Jesus Christ - he preached and practiced non-violence. His preachings of a different philosophy and religion may have terrified the establishment but he did not do that by inciting violence and therefore is not a terrorist.

Adi Shankara brought a message of Advaitha philosophy - the onness of the individual and the whole (to oversimplify the concept). He is first a philosopher, a rationalist, debator, teacher. Aren't these what a prophet does?

Gautham Bhuddha brought a message of peace and harmony for all being of the world. What else do you want from a prophet?

These greater prophets did not preach violence.

Of course they were prophets, maybe not yours, but prophets to others. And they were peaceful prophets, not terrorists.

First of all, from a Muslim perspective, Buddha, Lao-Tze, Confucius e.t.c were not prophets. They were not sent by Allah :swt: and they never claimed to be either.

Apart from our nation, every nation before us the fight took directly against Allah :swt: as in the case of the Prophets I mentioned. It was only our nation, the Ummah that was also given the task of preserving the Word, and how we preserved it…Nowadays it’s constantly under attack from mod-Muslim reformists…(yeah yeah):)…

As before, the truly docile Buddhists whose life was dedicated to worship, what happened to them? Today they don’t even have a land of their own…

Only those bred on the National Enquirer and tabloid papers believe that Islam spread by the sword…Ask any middle eastern history professor and he will tell you how truly Islam spread…The concept of Akhis, the practice of Devshirme, the culture, the achievements…Why do you think the Academia of the States was against the war?

Jihad is a defensive ideology. But then you say, if it is defensive, then how did the Muslims grow and prosper at such an incredible speed?

The answer lies in the Quran,

In response to those who invade Muslim countries and territories for whatever, their answer is an eye for an eye. The Muslim is to march into their territory and give them a taste of their own medicine. This is a clear message to everyone that unless you are willing to bear pain, do not impose pain upon others.

Unless there is no punishment fitting the crime, there is no justice and there is no peace.

Also if a hand of friendship is given, the hostilities are to cease immediately. That includes suspicion of deceit. The friendship is to resume immediately.

The Quran states:

How do you know they weren’t sent by Allah? Why are you sure that they can be prophets only if Allah sends them? Thay happen to be prophets and your definition of Allah did not send them because there’s no such mention in Koran, right? So are you going to argue that Koran got it wrong?

As someone said, circular logic is naive.

^^Islam never mentioned each and every Prophet that were sent…From Hazrat Adam :as: to our Holy Prophet :saw: there have been thousands…Each and every nation, and some even received multiple Prophets…Aren’t Hindus a nation? Or Buddhists for that matter…But, if not mentioned in the Quran or Hadith, then who knows, they might have been, then again not…It’s too hard to say

Here’s my belief…Or question rather…You’ll know what I mean…

http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=118289

Here’s another…Much more in detail…

http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=110725&highlight=mythology

You said,

"So it's little value if someone labels you a terrorist. More nobler people have been considered thus so it's of little concern."

This is not exactly true. In case of prophets, they have been called by the Kuffar as mad, possessed, and other things, but on record, you cannot prove that they were ever called a terrorist. Besides, what is the very defination of terrorist? A mischief maker? I think not. A terrorist is a person whose very aim is to inflict wanton destruction on a group of people in an insidious manner. Did the prophets have this aim? Absolutely not.

Now, comparing the acts of terrorism today that are perpetrated in the name of religion to the actions of prophets is pretty far-fetched.

Simply put, terrorism has no place in religion much less Islam. Whoever is killing other people out of desperation or anger must know that these emotions do not justify their acts. Islam teaches patience and tolerance. Remember the times of early Islam, when Muslims were undergoing tremendous hardships under Quraysh? Is their even a single incident recorded in the annals of history that shows the Muslims ever launched an underhanded attack on a group of Kuffar? Instead, they remained steadfast and inculcated their conviction until Allah gave them victory.

I was referring to Jerry Falwell’s remarks about our Holy Prophet :saw:…

And aren’t the terrorists of today called by the kuffar as mad, possessed and other things? As for your description of a terrorist, I don’t agree with it…A terrorist is one whose aim is to terrorise, not create wanton destruction…I know one that would argue with me over semantics, but you just translated the whole thing wrong…:flower2:

And that is precisely what the Prophets did…They terrorized nations with their messages…The rulers of nations feared change and were terrorized, either through divine means or military means…In the case of Hazrat Eesa :as: neither was used to defeat the enemy, and the Romans triumphed over the Jews…

Yes, they had tremendous hardship under the Quraysh, and when they went to conquer Makkah again, everyone was forgiven…However, they had come to conquer Makkah, with swords and lances…They were ready for a fight…

As for inculcating victory, please recount the number of battles that our Holy Prophet :saw: took part in…You believe it was that easy for him to walk through the streets of Makkah in peace…

As for underhanded, war is war…In times of war the pitchfork becomes the sword and the citizen becomes the soldier…

Using Uranium depleted ammo, now that’s low…That’s real low…:nono1:

Whether you use the widely accepted translation of terrorism as "violence against individuals with the intention of intimidating or coercing governments" or your general interpretation of "one whose aim is to terrrorize", it is way off base and does not fit most prophets (Judeo-Christian, Muslim or otherwise). Most prophets teach non-violence and peace. Even for those did pick up the sword, their intent was not to spread 'terror' but rather spread the word of God.

"violence against individuals with the intention of intimidating or coercing governments"

There's a lot of that going around in different parts of the world right now, wouldn't you say? All emanating from one source and all directed at one source...

And anyway, terror doesn't necessarily come from the fear if death itself...it can be fear of anything...Losing your position, your wealth, your status,...Anyone who challenges them terrorizes them from losing what they hold dear...