Muslim group, Ansar al-Sunna, demand breakaway Islamic nation in Norway or another 9/11 threatened

page: 12
42
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Look, I am not racist in any way towards any religion or race,
But i do have to agree with most of the posts here, if we went to an Arab or Muslim country we have to follow their rules and laws, but it does not mean you have to follow their religion. I live now in a Muslim country for 10 years and I am a christian, I know if i was to do some bad things like drugs, theft or defacing their beliefs than I know I have to pay for the consequences for it. I don't expect to cry and protest we should only have a christian law in a Muslim country, why? because we are in their country and I don't expect them to do this in other peoples countries, but lately I have seen equal violations on both religions intruding with others ways of life or religions... I see Christians here pushing their religion, as well as Muslims pushing theirs in other non-Muslim countries.
This has been going on for thousands of years, when is it ever going to end? I sadly doubt it would.
Anyways, I think if you go into a country that's not yours you must follow the rules and laws no matter what religion you are, and if you can't take the rules than why are you there? Yes if you want a Sharia law than go to a country that has Sharia law respectfully, and if you want to live in a country with Sharia law than respect their laws as well..this needs to end, we need to focus on our beliefs in its proper places... Thank You!




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mekhanics
Today islam is nothing like the original islam how it supposed to be.

Time for education Folks.

[color=grey]The Greatest Muhammad of them all - The Life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)






They have moved from the nondualic path as Christianety did in the middle ages and still do with preaching of hate/judgement against the different/unknown. When spirituality is removed from faith and religious systems becomes dogmatic then it totaly looses its meaning and becomes anti-gods will.

I thank you for showing me this movie. I knew there would be a core of thruth somewhere in Islam in the end of the video preaches the same nonduality that both Buddha and Jesus preached.

A man of god is always a man of god no matter the road that gets them to god be it science, christianety, islam, hiduism, buddism or own spirit/soul that guides. But this conformity to old religious dogma and other part of system dogma have to stop as it is antispiritual and antiproductual to the evolution of the human society and the evolution of the spirit.

A message to those who already know to much and to the people who have not traveled far down the rabbit hole. This is how the mystics/prophets of our time preach:
edit on 9-9-2012 by apushforenlightment because: spellchecking



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by mekhanics
 


I don't care if the picture is from Pakistan. That's not what I asked you. I asked you why that means the events in the OP's report magically didn't happen?

Because it didn't.
The photograph and the (originally posted) article give present an understanding that is totally false.
One would look at the originally posted article, and glean these "facts":
- Some muslimmy looking people had a protest in Norway
- They burnt a Norwegian flag.
- They "threatened" that if they don't get their land, another 9/11 is imminent.

Would you agree that this is the news that is attempting to be portrayed?

Because that is false.
You know what actually happened?

SOMEONE SENT A LETTER. That is it.


We don't know who it is from, we don't know how credible they are, we don't even know if they are who they say, we don't know how many people back or support them. "Ansar al-Sunna", which the group claims to be, is a political party in Iraq, pretty far away from Norway, and certainly has no claim to being Norwegian.
The Norwegian police THEMSELVES also state that their suspects also include the more creative agent provocateurs of the anti-jihadist movements in Norway (which are a lot bigger than any extremist muslim groups they have there).

It'd be like me sending a letter to Microsoft telling them how much I think Windows sucks, and how I'll burn all the copies I can find, and force everyone to use Linux at gunpoint if they don't stop making the new Windows, and then sign myself off as "A friend from the Potato state".
THEN it would be like crazy people discussing how Microsoft shouldn't sell windows to anyone in Idaho, and how we should round up and jail everyone who lives in Idaho.

But yeah, carry on with your "Lets round them up, Lets deport them, Lets execute them, Lets bomb them". The Daily-Mailish article achieved its objectives to emotionally prod on the weakminded into a frenzy of hatred, for its own benefits.
edit on 9-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mekhanics
 


If the Muslim religious leaders of the world said "it is time for our Jihad, kill non-muslims who refuse to convert", how many Muslims living in western countries "Would not follow their orders of their leaders and defend their new homelands and contrymen"..?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Ironclad
 

Not a lot, because unlike Christianity, Islam doesn't have any hierarchical "leadership" (no equivalent to popes or archbishops, etc.), with the possible exception of SOME shia groups. You won't find a lot of muslims who would go "THIS person is my religious leader (unless they're referring to God or perhaps Muhammad)". That makes no sense in the context of Islam.

Besides, what is the point of such hypotheticals? According to many in this thread (I don't know about yourself), Islam supposedly ALREADY instructs muslims to "convert or kill" (such hogwash
), so that would mean that the millions of muslims in the US are baaaaaad muslims who don't listen to their religion, and in many cases, even join the US army (pro tip: no they aren't, actually, because their scripture makes no such demand on them).
edit on 9-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by Ironclad
 

Not a lot, because unlike Christianity, Islam doesn't have any hierarchical "leadership" (no equivalent to popes or archbishops, etc.), with the possible exception of SOME shia groups. You won't find a lot of muslims who would go "THIS person is my religious leader (unless they're referring to God or perhaps Muhammad)". That makes no sense in the context of Islam.

Besides, what is the point of such hypotheticals? According to many in this thread (I don't know about yourself), Islam supposedly ALREADY instructs muslims to "convert or kill" (such hogwash
), so that would mean that the millions of muslims in the US are baaaaaad muslims who don't listen to their religion, and in many cases, even join the US army (pro tip: no they aren't, actually, because their scripture makes no such demand on them).
edit on 9-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)


So how do imams fit in?

There's no head imam...no imam-in-chief?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Radical Islam...NOTE...RADICAL is the most dangerous threat out there to all our freedom, Radical Islam is spreading like the virus it is, spread by people seeking to replace the culture in the place they go to. Don't let some fool tell you its a mere percentage so should be ignored because you would be as stupid as them.

It only takes 1 person to kill many, it only takes one rabid religious fanatic to blow themselves up..

Radical Islam relies on fear and violence while being funded by Saudi, but lets look at the hypocrisy of Radical Islam, find a place where radical young men are and I'll guarantee that there will be a drugs gang among them. Now drugs gangs are nothing new but their religion makes it a SIN to be using drugs or drink or ANY intoxicant.

Clearly these gangs are not top quality Muslims...

Rape is another sin, there's nothing to say a Muslim man is entitled to rape a woman unless they are classed as at war with us, and it just so happens all the RADICALS class themselves at war with us, how convenient, free rape and war, double pleasure.

The simple fact is that Radical Islam is growing VERY fast in countries all over the world, countries not considered Islamic are targeted to be turned by whatever means it can, there's no living with Radical Islam, your are either a Muslim or dead, that's what Radical Islam preaches.

What makes me laugh are the Morons that charge what I'm saying as hate speech yet totally ignore the vile nasty hatred spewed by Radical Islam against every one not Muslim INCLUDING the person defending them.

I'm NOT saying hate speech, I'm telling the truth, don't take my word for it, ask your local Radical Muslim, he or she will laugh in your face while they not only confirm my words but tell you that its their country now. Religion for me is a foul excuse to control and terrorise people, telling them how to live their lives, telling them to pay for the religion, telling them what they can and cannot do, its all the same if you look at almost all religions but what makes Radical MAN MADE Islam so extreme is the violence, they have been brainwashed into being die for your religion mad people, these people will kill you for daring to even jokingly talk of their religion.

Now people will say that this sort of stuff only happens in places like Pakistan etc but no, in the US news right now is a Somalian Immigrant woman who is being done for attempted terrorism, she threatened fellow workers in a client firm of Dell with death, she went out of her way to tell them just how much she hates them and would shoot them dead..All for Allah.

When the Police tried to pick her up they found that the address on her drivers license was an empty parking lot, they did find her and she admitted the threats. And before people say "but when I'm annoyed I've said I would kill someone", there's a great difference here, Radicals from these teachings actually do not joke when it comes to religion, they DO mean it, they see the act of violence as a blessing towards their Martyrdom.

So folks, you watch places like Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Germany, Spain and most of Europe start to fester from the utter hatred these people live for, they are not here to live along side you, they are here to replace you.

And America, just look at your immigrants from Islamic nations, how many have turned directly to crime but serve their Islamic handlers in Saudi, how many more Mosques will you allow to be built, mosques that are live in training camps, Mosques that are almost all radicalised, go and ask the normal Muslim Imams how much pressure they are under from radicals to allow teaching at these places.

They will say its IMMENSE, I know, I've asked many here in the UK....

You have nothing much to fear from normal Muslims like my in-laws, many are unwilling to confront the radicalising of Islam which is very disappointing but they will not act on you, many normal Muslims live and integrate amazingly well BUT the Radicals DO NOT and NEVER WILL...

They DO mean you harm..Oh and remember that Radical Islam instructs their followers in other countries which are not Islamic to NOT work and to use as much of the resources as they can, FACT.

So the next time you see the lady with the full burqa pushing two kids in a pram while 3 walk along side and she clearly pregnant, you remember that neither her of her partner will ever work....EVER..At that point don't blame that woman, blame your leaders for being utterly stupid.
edit on 9-9-2012 by Mclaneinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by Ironclad
 

Not a lot, because unlike Christianity, Islam doesn't have any hierarchical "leadership" (no equivalent to popes or archbishops, etc.), with the possible exception of SOME shia groups. You won't find a lot of muslims who would go "THIS person is my religious leader (unless they're referring to God or perhaps Muhammad)". That makes no sense in the context of Islam.

Besides, what is the point of such hypotheticals? According to many in this thread (I don't know about yourself), Islam supposedly ALREADY instructs muslims to "convert or kill" (such hogwash
), so that would mean that the millions of muslims in the US are baaaaaad muslims who don't listen to their religion, and in many cases, even join the US army (pro tip: no they aren't, actually, because their scripture makes no such demand on them).
edit on 9-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)


Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

I could go on, several verses state violence against non-believers. As to those Muslims who don't believe in this, there are quotes for them as well:

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"


and based on the religion of Islam, these are the words of God and can not be ignored....



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 




Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."


The verse says “Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth”.

My question to you. Does this verse stop here? No it doesnt. It continues and gives the actual reason as to the fighting. This is the continuation: – “until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”. Chatper 9 The Repentance




Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"


First of all, this is a very poor translation of the verse. Let us look at some notable translators:

PICKTHAL: Those of the believers who sit still, other than those who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those who strive in the way of God with their wealth and lives. God hath conferred on those who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each God hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those who strive a great reward above the sedentary

MUHAMMAD ASAD: Such of the believers as remain passive’ -.other than the disabled -cannot be deemed equal to those who strive hard in God’s cause with their possessions and their lives:’ God has exalted those who strive hard with their possessions and their lives far above those who remain passive. Although God has promised the ultimate good unto all [believers], yet has God exalted those who strive hard above those who remain passive by [promising them] a mighty reward

KHAN/HILALI: Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward;

Now that we have quoted the most common translations, the source for the quoted translation seems questionable. Words such as “Jihadists” are purely media coined terms without any real meaning. In fact, the Oxford American Dictionary says about this term:

USAGE: There doesn’t seem to be a pressing need for this English-friendly form since the Arabic term for a holy warrior, mujahid, has already made it into English in plural forms (mujahideen, mujahedin), along with jihadi, a form more in keeping with Arabic morphology. Jihadist, however, is the preferred form for all writers who are vehemently anti-Arab or anti-Islam.

we can describe a Mujahid as someone who strives to uphold justice, perhaps risking his life in the process. So what do these verses say? They are elevating the status of those who are brave to stand up for truth and justice in the face of oppression. The verses elevate their status over that of those who cowardly hide from defending the rights of others, unless they have a disability, which prevents them from doing so. So the Islam-hater finds no support (for their distorted presentation of Islam) in these verses either. Moreover, the verse supports the interpretation of Jihad as any struggle for the sake of God because it has mentioned those who perform Jihad with their wealth by donating it for a good cause, such as humanitarian organizations. As Muhammad Asad writes about this verse:

The term mujahid is derived from the verb jahada, which means “he struggled” or “strove hard” or “exerted himself”, namely, in a good cause and against evil. Consequently, jihad denotes “striving in the cause of God” in the widest sense of this expression: that is to say, it applies not merely to physical warfare (qital) but to any righteous struggle in the moral sense as well (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an)

quran.com...
edit on 9-9-2012 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
These kind of people who spread hate and differences really have no place in a civilized world. If these people have emigrated from different countries then they should be send back to their own country and if they are born in Norway i.e, citizen of Norway by birth then government should take action against them for spreading intolerance and separatism.

When people migrate to a new place they should do their best to assimilate in the new culture and the new ways while keeping their own identity but should not force others to change for them.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by selfharmonise
 

You know what an imam is?

Basically just a dude who leads the prayer. NOT synonymous with pastors or priests in Christianity. The function of an imam is to lead the prayer. That is it. An imam doesn't have to have a degree in theology, doesn't have to have even memorised the Quran or know it inside out. Just the person who stands in front of the rest of the muslims when they say their prayers, and shows them which bit (bending down, getting up, bowing, prostrating) to do next. ANY muslim from a community can be lead the prayer (although some denominations say women can't). They also give sermons about stuff on Fridays, but they don't have a religious authority or control or right over anyone.
edit on 9-9-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mekhanics
 


As to the first part, I gave the entire quote, and sorry, I do not feel like paying a tax to Muslims because I do not worship Islam. As to your second part, you can say it is a poor translation, but doesn't hold much water since an ever increasing number of Muslims support these "misinterpreted translations.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


You sound like as if i want to convert you. Internet !! - where people choose to be stupid.

Have a nice day.



Were Thomas Jefferson's Ancestors Muslim?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mekhanics
 


Likely you don't, you would prefer this part:

until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued


But go ahead and try to deflect the issue with pointing at Christianity (as you have done multiple times in this thread), and saying everything is mistranslated or misinterpreted. Keep on selling your crap, I am sure some are buying it.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


Plain dumb and simple U


A better explaination presented below (Ex-site) for those who seek knowledge:



Some people like you have falsely concluded from verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes:

These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)

Likewise, the following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful non-Muslim country:
Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?

Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court

If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.

The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.

The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet’s lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other nations. The Prophet Muhammad did not initiate agression against anyone, rather he and his followers were under attack from all who sought to crush the new Islamic state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad’s messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut’ah, was a defeat for the Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles between the Muslims and the Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as mentioned in the above fatwa, hostiltiies between the Muslims and the Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite peace treaties as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:

As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)

In light of the historical context of this verse, it becomes very clear that the verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As Dr. Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29 and similar verses:

All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians. (SOURCE)

Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression and not those who are committed to live in peace. The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:

What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, ‘Jihad’. (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 81)

The verse then proceeds to mention some issues relating to the Islamic state, and governing non-muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on the regulations in verse 9:29:

Freedom of religion is an essential aspect in an Islamic state. One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving). The People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are not obliged to pay the Islamic zakat that is spent by the state for social necessities and state affairs as defined in the Quran (see 9:60). But they must pay other taxes to share in the state budget. If they refuse to pay this tax to the state and rebel against the state, then it is the obligation of the state to confront them until they pay it. This is what Caliph Abu Bakr did after the death of the Prophet, when some people refused to pay zakat. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.53)

The verse mentions Jizya, which is unfortunately misunderstood by some people. Like any nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay taxes in return for its services. Since Muslims pay the Zakat, the non-muslim citizens are required to pay Jizya (for more information on Jizya, please refer to Jizya in Islam and Jizyah and non-muslim minorities). Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar writes concerning the Jizya tax:

The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule. (SOURCE)

Shaykh Abu’l-Hasan Al-Mawardi (d. 1058CE) explicitly points out that the Jizya should be exacted in accordance with the means of the people, and the Imam should judge the conclude the amount to the satisfaction of the leaders of those being taxed:

The fuqaha (Jurists) differ as to the amount of the Jizya. Abu Hanifa considers that those subject to this tax are of three kinds: the rich from whom forty-eight dirhams are taken; those of average means from whom twenty four are taken, and the poor from whom twelve dirhams are taken: he thus stipulated the minimum and maximum amounts and prohibits any further judgement on behalf of those responsible for its collection. Malik, however, does not fix its minimum and maximum amount and considers that those responsible should make their own judgement as to the minimum and maximum. Ash-Shafi’i considers that the minimum is a dinar, and that it is not permitted to go below this while he does not stipulate the maximum, the latter being dependant on the ijtihad (judgement) of those responsible: the Imam, however, should try to harmonise between the different amounts, or to exact an amount in accordance with people’s means. If he has used his judgement to conclude the contract od jizyah to the satisfaction of the leaders of the people being taxed, then it becomes binding on all of them and their descendants, generation after generation, and a leader may not afterwards change this amunt, be it to decrease it or increase it. (Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. 1996, pp. 209-210)

Hence, the laws of Islam forbid Muslims from opressing non-muslims and command them to treat others with justice and compassion. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself forbade Muslims from harming non-muslim citizens of an islamic state or any non-muslim with whom there was an agreement of peace, as he said,
“The one who wrongs a covenanter or impairs his right or overworks him or forcibly takes something from him, I will be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment. (Sunan Abi Dawud 170/3 no. 3052, Sunan an-Nasa’i 25/8 no. 2749, and verified by Al-Albani no. 2626).

In conclusion, verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against only those who initiate agression as illustated by its historical context. Muslims may only fight under strict conditions, and are commanded to live peacefully with peaceful non-muslim neighbors.


theamericanmuslim.org...


( Tit for Tat - Don't tempt me to expose more about modern christianity and the bible )

edit on 9-9-2012 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
nvm
edit on 9-9-2012 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya
These kind of people who spread hate and differences really have no place in a civilized world. If these people have emigrated from different countries then they should be send back to their own country and if they are born in Norway i.e, citizen of Norway by birth then government should take action against them for spreading intolerance and separatism.


"These kind of people" in this case are most likely NOT Muslim and I'd say the most likely part is 100% not likely. The statements in that letter are uninformed ideas typical of what many haters of Islam, including radical haters (the worst kind of haters are the same kind of worst as applicable to any school of thought, i.e. RADICAL) seem to believe is fact.
Why would anyone who is devoutly religious in any religion want to force others who already have strong feelings against that religion to convert to that religion?
It is self-defeating. Radicals seek to destroy not convert. The devout follow the tenets of their chosen religion, whatever it is...and the rest are somewhere in the middle.
But the writer of this letter is using scare tactics couched in ignorant ideas and you're right...no place in a civilized world, I guess...but what is a civilized world?
A tolerant one, perhaps?
An educated one?
Open-minded?
Accepting of diversity?


When people migrate to a new place they should do their best to assimilate in the new culture and the new ways while keeping their own identity but should not force others to change for them.


Does that include soldiers? American troops?
Perhaps there is no room for militant activities and ideas in a 'civilized world.'



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


I didn't know that!

Thank you.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Thanks.

I wasn't an expert.

Appreciate the info.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by vonclod
to obtain citizenship in future there should be a loyalty clause


In the United States, there is.

But it is completely unrelated and detached from all religious ideas...it has to do with the Constitution and loyalty to the ideas that document implies and states.





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join