[quote]
Originally posted by faceup:
**
Logic User - they, the verses, mean exactly as they appear!**
[/quote]
Obviously, you have never actually been educated by a maulana in how to interpret the commands of the Quran. The most important of these is that the Quran is best understood in the original arabic; much is lost in the translation to English.
Take the verses in the original post, for instance. The word that has been translated as "friend" in the original arabic in these versus is "waliy". The word is most commonly understood in English as "friend". But the same term is also used to describe the legal guardian of a woman under Shahriah law. As for the situation of dealing with unbelievers, translators of the Qur'an have tried to come to grips with this term by using in their translations words such as "allies, protectors, helpers, bosom friends, etc." One translator uses both "friends and allies" to denote the meaning.
Contrast this with the other word for friend in arabic, "sadeeq", which is used in the Quran 26:61 to denote a personal friend.
"Waliy" and "sadeeq" are clearly used differently in the Quran; they mean different things. A Muslim (and the Muslim State) is prohibited from having a disbeliever as his "waliy". On the other hand, no similar restriction has been placed in the Quran on who a Muslim can have as his "sadeeq", or personal friend.
The best conclusion for my argument here is drawn from the Quran, Verses 8 and 9 of Chapter 60.
***Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.***
**
[quote]
Let's see how you have answered the questions that I asked of you.
1) I asked you a simple question re: freedom of worship for kafirs in Saudia but instead I recd a rather circumventive response.
**
[/quote]
My point is that you cannot use the treatment of non-muslims in Saudi Arabia as an example of how Islam requires non-muslims to be treated, simply because Saudi Arabia only implements the parts of Islam that suit its government. Yes, Saudi forces non-Muslims to keep a low religious profile, but it also horrifically persecutes Muslims who are doing nothing more than practising all of Islam, rather than just the selective parts that suit the government.
**
[quote]
2) Eating Foods prepared by Kafirs is Haram. You & I both know this but I applaud you for breaking with this archaic, xenophobic law.**
[/quote]
Utter rubbish. This is just the usual Shiv Sena-inspired pack of lies. The only food prepared by non-muslims that is not permitted for Muslims is that which contains non-halaal, or non-kosher, meat, and all foods containing alcohol. Imam Malik (712AD-795AD), one of the greatest Muslim scholars of all time and the founder of the widely-followed Maliki School of thought, made it clear that he saw no sin in eating food prepared by non-muslims so long as it had no non-halaal components.
**
[quote]
We also know that living in the West or Kafir-land is also considered Haram or against Sharia'h(refer to the thread for this subject). But majority of muslims still prefers to live in the West.**
[/quote]
More rubbish. Suffiya Bint Abu Huraira (ra), one of the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) lived in Abysinnia, a non-Muslim land, for many years after the Islamic State was established in Medina. And the Prophet (SAWS) still considered her to be a lady of excellent merit and married her.
**
[quote]
3) The tribes of Quraish were massacred by the armies of the Prophet. The children & women spared were distributed & raised as slaves.
**
[/quote]
Bring forth your evidence. A number of books, such as Tahia Al-Ismail's The Life of Mohammed, amongst others, make it clear that following the occupation of Mecca, the only people killed were 4 men who had committed murder for personal reasons.
The tribe which had its menfolk executed and its women and children enslaved was the Banu Qurayza, the Jewish tribe that was allied with the Muslims.
Many years before Mecca was conquered, during a seige where the Banu Qurayza and the Muslims were both surrounded by their common enemy, the Banu Qurayza offered to switch sides and compromise the defensive lines. By the next morning, however, the enemy had been defeated and the Muslims had the Banu Qurayza surrounded.
After a month, the Banu Qurazya requested arbitration in their dispute from the tribe of Al-Aws, who were friendly with them. Al-Aws sent Sa'd ibn Mu'adh to arbitrate. The Jews were happy because they felt that he would get a good deal for them. Both the Prophet (SAWS) and the leaders of Banu Qurayza swore to uphold whatever decision Sa'd came to.
But unknown to the Banu Qurayza, Sa'd had converted to Islam since they last met him. He was very bitter at the Banu Qurayza's betrayal of the Muslims, and so declared that all men of the Banu Qurayza were to be executed and the women and children enslaved.
Since the leaders of Banu Qurayza had promised to abide by the decision, they duly surrendered and were executed. The Prophet (SAWS) was unhappy with the harshness of the decision, but he too had agreed to abide by it. To try and limit the harshness, without breaking his promise, he ordered that families should not be broken up in slavery.
[This message has been edited by mAd_ScIeNtIsT (edited October 06, 2001).]