Real Islam vs Mullahism

[yazdi]

Re: Real Islam vs Mullahism

@chacha_Ghalib

The Holy Prophet did not abolish slavery? the way islam and the Holy Prophet abolished slavery was far better than they way it was abolished in the west. Just saying you can’t have slaves is not abolishing slavery. For example, slavery was abolished in US in the 1800s yet blacks were economic and political slaves until the 1960s and are still not seen as equal citizens. On the other hand, Islam provided so many ways for slaves to be freed and the Holy Prophet put so much emphasis on freeing slaves. And once someone was freed, they became part of the society just like everyone else and were free in the true sense of the word.

are you implying they would’ve fought had they been rulers of Mecca?

i strongly object to this reasoning. you are dead wrong when you say the Prophet used fighting and aggressiveness to establish Islam. Any fighting in the life of the Prophet was done solely in defence or if the enemy violated an agreement.

compare the number of people who embraced Islam in the years before the agreement at Hudabiya (remember this period is of wars and persecution) with those who became muslims in the time between hudabiya and the fall of Mecca and you’ll see that Islam spreads much more rapidly in time of peace and that is precisely the reason the Holy Prophet accepted the terms of the agreement of Hudabiya even though muslims in general considered this agreement to be insulting and showed the muslims as having a position of weakness. The reason Islam spread was beacuse of its logical and beautiful teachings which appealed to masses.

see the rest of the paragraph makes sense and is very logical, but then your logic takes you down the same path. The Holy Prophet NEVER EVER used force to establish Islam. No one in the world can provide a better example of tolerance towards non-religionists, when a perticular religion was the religion of the rulers, as was showing in the time of our Holy Prophet.

No it will not spread with Klashinkov but then again it never spread with force to start with. See this is the exact kind of reasoning that gives non-muslims ammunition to attack Islam. when the ‘logical’ and fundamentalist followers are both admitting to the use of force in spreading Islam, it being of no consequence that one uses the force presently and the other admits of its use in the past, then why should the enemies not say that Islam is a violent religion which was spread by force.

mind explaining where those principles came from?

I will start with your last question…

These principals come from a very careful study of Prophet’s life. If you study prophet’s life in the light of these principles you will see he never deviated from these principals all his life…
His actions were different in different situations but the principals remained the same, his actions were always for the betterment of Islam, the were to make people better human beings morally, and they were always logical according to the situations…

Let’s agree on these principals and then it will be more meaningful to move on to your next points. If you have objection on seeing these principals as the true principals of sunnah we will be debating on a lot of things without debating the core of all the arguments…

As far as your denying the fact that Holy Prophet did not act aggressively, or was not asked by Allah to act aggressively, and he acted only in self defence I ask you to read again Quran and different tafseers explaining the context of nazool. Aggression was comitted even to the captured and surrendered people, pre emptive strikes were made, people were forcibly subdued and not always in self defence. I can go on quoting Quran and Islamic sources, and these things are not a secret…

Whoso desires another religion than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him. (Q.3:85)

Fight them on until there is no more dissention and religion becomes that of Allâh. (Q.9:193)

“Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors (2:190)” On the authority of Ga’far ar-Razi from Rabi’ Ibn 'Ons, from 'Abil-'Aliyah who said: This is the first verse that was revealed in the Qur’an about fighting in the Madina. When it was revealed the prophet used to fight those who fight with him and avoid those who avoid him, until Sura 9 was revealed. And so is the opinion of 'Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn 'Aslam who said this verse was cancelled by 9:5 “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” bn Hazm al-Andalusi, An-Nasikh wal- Mansukh, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, birute, 1986, P.27}

Mr. Javed A Ghamidi writes in his book on Jihad:

Al-Mawrid

After the truce of Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet (sws) himself singled out these nations by writing letters to them. In all, they were written to the heads of eight countries.42 Consequently, after consolidating their rule in the Arabian peninsula, the Companions (rta) launched attacks against these countries giving them two options if they wanted to remain alive: to accept faith or to accept a life of subjugation by paying Jizyah. None of these nations were adherents to polytheism in the real sense, otherwise they would have been treated in the same way as the Idolaters of Arabia.

My friend had the Holy Prophet not acted logically like that today we would not have Islam as an alternate religion to become better human beings…

[USResident]

Re: Real Islam vs Mullahism

wa-alaikum-asslaam that was a gud joke sir. u'r very funny without meaning to :)

So do you agree or not disagree there are times when we can lie or decieve without getting the sin for it?

[USResident]

Re: Real Islam vs Mullahism

@yazdi

Therefore my stand on lying and deception is very clear that it is not allowed under any situation.

I think this is where the difference lies between my opinion and yours. I believe it is allowed in select few situations where it does not earn you the sin for it. However it seems to me your opinion is it will earn you sin regardless because your stance is based on DO or NOT DO, when its in the NOT DO category its sinning.

Another things you agreed with me before was that during the Battle of the Trench the muslims used deception as a battle strategy to weaken and cause division among the coalition of their enemies yet you state it is not allowed in any situation. So are you not in agreement or are you denying a historical fact which has been authentically established?

[yazdi]

Re: Real Islam vs Mullahism

@USResident

I think this is where the difference lies between my opinion and yours. I believe it is allowed in select few situations where it does not earn you the sin for it. However it seems to me your opinion is it will earn you sin regardless because your stance is based on DO or NOT DO, when its in the NOT DO category its sinning.

Another things you agreed with me before was that during the Battle of the Trench the muslims used deception as a battle strategy to weaken and cause division among the coalition of their enemies yet you state it is not allowed in any situation. So are you not in agreement or are you denying a historical fact which has been authentically established?

Let me rephrase my sentence:

Lying and decetion are not allowed under any situation NOW except may be in a war situation…

However the causes of the war can not be the same in today’s envoirnment which were allowed to the Holy Prophet through a divine decree. It can be against injustice and for self defence.

[USResident]

Re: Real Islam vs Mullahism

Let me rephrase my sentence:

Lying and decetion are not allowed under any situation NOW except may be in a war situation.....

However the causes of the war can not be the same in today's envoirnment which were allowed to the Holy Prophet through a divine decree. It cian be against injustice and for self defence.

I see your point however I am still of the opinion that it may be beneficial to hide some truth in matters of reconciliation.

Muslims were allowed to fight to divine decree in a very broad sense or I would say after a certain stage in the progression of Islam they were allowed to fight their enemies rather than remain in silent oppresion. I agree with this.