How Christians would be treated under Sharia!

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 

there is no difference between Shias or Sunnis book there are false Hadithes in all of them. if you say that to an aware Muslim he will not believe your statements. because they know that the books are just collections and one should study them carefully. of course some minorities may believe those sentences.
and about Koran:


And when you divorce women and they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or release them according to acceptable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them]. And whoever does that has certainly wronged himself. And do not take the verses of Allah in jest. And remember the favor of Allah upon you and what has been revealed to you of the Book and wisdom by which He instructs you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is Knowing of all things. -Koran 2:231

if one read all the Koran it may think there are paradoxes in it. disobedience means desertion in verses you quoted.
and beating means stronger action than just advising wives who are deserting their husbands and it is only when they do not pay attention to husbands. husbands have no way to have sex unless with their wives. the audiences are people who are doing honor killings even nowadays !!!
the meaning of such questionable verses has come in the right Ahadithes. such questionable verses are really rare in Koran and there is a rational comment for them and through right Ahadithes.

I'd like to insist that Saudi does not mean sunni. I know that Saudies attach detectors to their wives and they still keep slaves and they teach people how to beat women !!!!
however there is a hope they do not bury their girls alive like their ancestors


And when the [innocent] girl [who was] buried alive is asked
For what sin she was killed -Koran 81:8

edit on 2-12-2012 by maes2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
and as you can see from logical7's posts I was 100% correct in my assertions that if you bring up something like the crusades or the inquisition to a christian they will have the good grace to be embarrassed about the behavior of their predecessors while a Muslim when confronted with the evidence of the bad behavior of their predecessors will do EVERYTHING they can to JUSTIFY and or explain the bad behavior away!!!!

This should be the wake up call people need to understand what a clear and present danger the religion of islam presents to the modern world.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by roguetechie
and as you can see from logical7's posts I was 100% correct in my assertions that if you bring up something like the crusades or the inquisition to a christian they will have the good grace to be embarrassed about the behavior of their predecessors while a Muslim when confronted with the evidence of the bad behavior of their predecessors will do EVERYTHING they can to JUSTIFY and or explain the bad behavior away!!!!

This should be the wake up call people need to understand what a clear and present danger the religion of islam presents to the modern world.

so not "integrating" with your way doesnt go down well with you?
I should go to a bar on weekend and drink, i should eat whatever they serve me, i should take home loans and have credit cards,
and if i dont then i am a threat?
.
And killing a person for a belief and taxing for it is the same?
.
The problem here is that you judge the past with the standards of present secularism. Sharia is not secular, it would be secular in freedom to worship but not freedom to sleep around, drink or gamble.
Its a different system with a complete set of laws, civil, economic and criminal laws.
.
How can you judge a system as bad just because you dont like it? A secular system is advantageous to you not so good for a muslim or jew so they have some inconviniences and adjust.
A sharia system is advantageous to practicing religious muslims , jews and even priests and nuns, not so good to individualistic, unlimited freedom seeking, pleasure oriented people.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 

Ottoman Empire was a monarchy not an islamic government. moreover the corrupted monarchies and puppet governments are all like Medieval ! no difference !! religions are not nations or races or countries or corrupted clerics ! religions are religions, ideologies.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

The problem here is that you judge the past with the standards of present secularism.


Yet, you appear to have no problem judging present day secularism by the standards of a 7th century prophet.


Originally posted by logical7

How can you judge a system as bad just because you dont like it?


I don't like the fact that

• Muhammad led armies of over 10,000 soldiers and spread Islam by the sword, conquering the Arabian peninsula before he died HistoryNet,

• Enslaved women and children Sirat Rasul Allah - "Life of God's Messenger" (768 AD),

• Struck his favourite wife for leaving the house without his permission Sahih Muslim 4:2127,

• Burnt people to death for not praying Bukhari (11:626) ,

• Laid down the death penalty for people who leave Islam Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17,

• Ordered the execution of the 800 Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe Koran 33/26, Koran 33/27, Sirat Rasul Allah - "Life of God's Messenger" (768 AD),

• Told followers that Jihad was the second highest thing after believing in Allah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, number 25

• Stated he would fight until everyone admitted their was only one god, Allah, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, number 24

Forced non Muslims to be humbled, submit to Islam and pay jizyah tax.Koran Book 9 Verse 29


I have plenty reason to not like Muhammad and the religion that he created.


edit on 3-12-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 




I have plenty reason to not like Muhammad and the religion that he created.

Yes, there are plenty of valid reasons.

Many Christian haters like to point to the Crusades as as reason to invalidate the religion. What you have shown is the acts of the prophet Muhammad himself, violent, murderous and intolerant acts. Jesus did not sweep the Middle East with armies killing unbelievers.

Those who continue to call Islam a religion of love are either lying or deluded.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



And killing a person for a belief and taxing for it is the same?

I find it interesting that the Koran forbids usury....

But it is just fine to tax unbelievers that do not submit to the will of Allah.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Come to think of it,

Why aren't there some nice Muslim owned banks where a poor soul like myself could get an interest free loan?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

How Christians would be treated under Sharia


Obviously, they would be treated very, very badly.
Anyone trying to say otherwise is just telling lies.
Look at how practicing Christianity is outlawed in Saudi Arabia ... Look at how the Christian minister in Iran was sentenced to death for not converting to Islam ... Look at how women are beaten by misogynistic for not wearing those idiotic head-to-toe coverings ... Look at how a teenage child is shot in the head and a death sentence issued against her, all because she wants an education ... etc etc

Christians would be treated extremely poorly.
No amount of sugar coating by the author of this thread can change that truth.





posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Come to think of it,

Why aren't there some nice Muslim owned banks where a poor soul like myself could get an interest free loan?

you can get a loan, if you have an islamic bank around you.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by logical7

The problem here is that you judge the past with the standards of present secularism.


Yet, you appear to have no problem judging present day secularism by the standards of a 7th century prophet.


Originally posted by logical7

How can you judge a system as bad just because you dont like it?


I don't like the fact that

• Muhammad led armies of over 10,000 soldiers and spread Islam by the sword, conquering the Arabian peninsula before he died HistoryNet
,

• Enslaved women and children Sirat Rasul Allah - "Life of God's Messenger" (768 AD),

• Struck his favourite wife for leaving the house without his permission Sahih Muslim 4:2127,

• Burnt people to death for not praying Bukhari (11:626) ,

• Laid down the death penalty for people who leave Islam Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17,

• Ordered the execution of the 800 Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe Koran 33/26, Koran 33/27, Sirat Rasul Allah - "Life of God's Messenger" (768 AD),

• Told followers that Jihad was the second highest thing after believing in Allah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, number 25

• Stated he would fight until everyone admitted their was only one god, Allah, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, number 24

Forced non Muslims to be humbled, submit to Islam and pay jizyah tax.Koran Book 9 Verse 29


I have plenty reason to not like Muhammad and the religion that he created.


edit on 3-12-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

i dont have a problem with secularism. But if following my religion means that i follow 7th century standards then so be it. I have freedom of religion. Right? Or i would be forced to "integrate" and go to mosqúe only on sundays?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by butcherguy
Come to think of it,

Why aren't there some nice Muslim owned banks where a poor soul like myself could get an interest free loan?

you can get a loan, if you have an islamic bank around you.

I have google searched, first for an Islamic bank near me. There are none.

Then I searched for Islamic banks in the US. It seems that they charge rent on their money. They call it riba. Sounds just like interest to me.

I guess charging interest on loans was only bad back when the Koran was written, it seems to be acceptable now.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
ATS Thread - Muslim Brotherhood Pays Gangs to Rape Women and Beat Men in Opposition
Geeeeze .. they treat Muslims this bad ... it's not too hard to guess how badly they'd treat non-muslims.




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aesir26
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


"I do understand how you believe He was a prophet."

I am not a Moslem.


Alright, apologies then. I will rephrase as "they believe he was a prophet".


Originally posted by Aesir26
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 
Sin, by the way, is the Semitic Moon god associated with the cities Ur and Harran; father of Ishtar/Isis.
Living in/under Sin is gravitational bondage to the Earth through worship of the elemental forces of nature as opposed to Spirit as represented by the inverted pentagram (star) and star of Ishtar.


No, sin is any action that is against the laws of God.


Originally posted by Aesir26
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 
Judea is Babylon. The entire book of Esther is a tribute to Babylonian deities Ishtar (Esther) and Marduk (Mordecai). One look at the names of Jewish months in the Hebrew calendar shows the indisputable connection between Judea and Babylon. In fact, when Cyrus the Great "liberated" the Jews from captivity in Babylon, he attributed their "deliverance" back to Jerusalem to the will of the god, "Marduk", known to the Jews as, "Yahweh".


Not even close. This habit to assume that any similarity in names means something is the same isn't scholarly or logical. There is NOTHING in the story of Esther that can be compared to anything about the false god Ishtar. No, Judea isn't Babylon, either.


Originally posted by Aesir26
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 
Proto-Hebrew is Phoenician; the Babylonian Talmud written in "Hebrew" is merely Aramaic. Modern written Hebrew is Aramaic, the official script of Babylon.


Where DO you get this stuff? Please, do some real reading, someplace other than some anti-Christisn/anti-Jewish/anti-religion sites. info on Babylon

www.livius.org... was not a Jew. Read the Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of John and Revelation in which the anti-Christ is clearly, clearly identified as the Jews.
edit on 30-11-2012 by Aesir26 because: (no reason given)


According to every single verse on the matter int he Bible, he most certainly was born of the Jewish people, of the line of David. I have read those books MANY times, and they certainly do NOT call the Jewish people the Antichrist. If this sort of commentary is the best you can do, please don't bother responding.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Really, one ancient treaty, compared to lots of actual historical and recent events, doesn't speak well for how Islam treats Christians in reality.


The Koran and Hadith command Muslims to fight unbelievers until they are dead, converted to Islam, or permanently subjugated under Muslim domination.

For instance, Jews and Christians living under the Ottoman Empire

1. Had to pay a jizya (dhimmi) tax and kneel and have a sword ceremonially strike their neck as they paid their annual tribute.
2. Jews and Christians were not allowed to give Muslims orders in any way.
3. They were not allowed to ride a horse - a donkey was fine.
4. Weapons of any sort were prohibited.
5. The word of a Muslim would automatically be believed above that of a Christian or Jew in a court of law.

Christians and Jews lived in a state of subjugation under Islamic domination.

edit on 30-11-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)


Exactly! The way Christians are treated today in areas of Muslim domination show clearly that things have not changed in that regard. If anything, they are more violent today. YOu stated this so well, I can't really add anything more. A simple "ditto" will have to do!



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Interesting......doesn't seem to line up with actual actions, though. Maybe, too, someone should tell those responsible in these cases that they aren't supposed to attack Christians.

not a short list

Really, one ancient treaty, compared to lots of actual historical and recent events, doesn't speak well for how Islam treats Christians in reality.

the recent events are a bit complicated and cant be over simplified and used to judge muslims. The events are completely wrong and unfortunate. There is a strong feeling of being wronged among muslims due to wars on them and their brothers in faith elsewhere and that can lead to violence which is not right at all.
.
But i would disagree that it was just this small treaty. the christians under islamic state were free to worship, even different sects (catholic, orthodox) prefered this state rather than being under the king of opposition sect as islamic state was neutral.
The jews found refuge within the islamic empire during the dark ages.
In islamic spain jews, christian and muslims scholars worked together to translate all available scientific text in arabic. Untill queen isabella forced muslims and jews to convert or leave.
And even now, in palestine the muslims and christians and even orthodox jews are great with each other and together in opposing israel policies.


Actually, recent events speak VERY Well of how Muslims would, and DO, treat Christians and any others with whom they disagree. No simplification is necessary. The result is ALWAYS violence. Always. I have watched videos of Muslims in the United States "stoning" Christian witnesses, using concrete blocks and many other items, for nothing other than being present and presenting, peacefully, a Christian message. You can claim whatever you want about some ancient treaty, but no such claims will alter the facts. Wars on Muslims tend to be as a result to violence from Muslims. You know, the way the4 Crusades were. Hundreds of years of attacks by Muslims, before some stated that enough was enough. I know the history. Save the platitudes.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChesterJohn

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Aesir26
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Moslems revere Jesus/Isa the true prophet of the God Most High.
Jews hunted down and killed Christ and His Apostles, later perverting His message by grafting early Christianity onto Judaic beliefs between the 2nd to 4th centuries A.D.


Jesus is God, not just some prophet. I have been vilified online for stating that, by almost every Muslim that responded. Not all - ONE did not. Most, though, were quite rude.

Jesus was also Jewish. And, no, the Jews didn't kill Him. I did that; my sin is what He died for. He chose to die, that we could live, because He loves us that much. The first Christians were Jewish, so there was no "grafting" of beliefs, save grafting us non-Jewish believers onto His blessing.

I do understand how you believe He was a prophet. You have the right to believe as you wish, too. Simply stating what I believe, and that my belief will never change. I know my Savior. Can't deny Him.

All of our stated beliefs, though, don't address the violence in the link I posted. Yes, I do understand that not all Muslims support that. My husband, while deployed, worked with many very peaceful people, that were as appalled as we are by the violence of some. Perhaps more peaceful Muslims can speak up, and stand against the radical ones? They do no one any good.


I agree with you as to the deity of Christ however your watering down of the work of Christ cross is disheartening.

Jew and Gentile are made one Body in Christ by their faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross and not because Jesus or God loved them.

God judged sinful man and said the soul that sinneth shall die. He substituted himself in our place took our death on himself and bore it on the cross. died the death and went to hell all of which we were sentenced too by God's judgement of our sin. His shed blood then made atonement for our sins before God in heaven that through our faith on his work we can have eternal life. and his resurrection gives us the promise that whether alive or dead physically we will join him in heaven for ever.

It is faith on his work that saves not the love of God or Christ. If you make Salvation anything other than the faith on Christ finished work of the cross it becomes another Gospel and that will place you under a curse.

It is obvious you are confused as to what the Gospel of Grace is all about and it would seem you have had teaching that is of men and not of the Preserved Holy Bible.



At what point in anything I posted did you find the idea that I would disagree with what you stated? We are saved by grace, through faith, which I have posted time and time again. Grace, because of His LOVE for us. If God didn't love us, enough to die in our place, then there would be nothing in which to have faith. No, I am not confused at all. I don't think you understood my meaning. Christ DID die in our place because He loves us. That is why we can have faith that His actions are all we need for salvation. I stated clearly that He died for our sins, for MY sins. Stating that He did so because He loves us doesn't in any way imply that I don't think faith in His actions is needed. I can appreciate your adding to the narrative, but perhaps next time you should not assume that I don't know those details? Any reading of my posts on any topic related to this would show you the truth. Still, I can understand your concern, wanting to be sure someone knows all of the information. I would guess your intentions are good. Be assured, though, I have no issues with my faith. Thanks for the concern!



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Interesting......doesn't seem to line up with actual actions, though. Maybe, too, someone should tell those responsible in these cases that they aren't supposed to attack Christians.

not a short list

Really, one ancient treaty, compared to lots of actual historical and recent events, doesn't speak well for how Islam treats Christians in reality.

the recent events are a bit complicated and cant be over simplified and used to judge muslims. The events are completely wrong and unfortunate. There is a strong feeling of being wronged among muslims due to wars on them and their brothers in faith elsewhere and that can lead to violence which is not right at all.
.
But i would disagree that it was just this small treaty. the christians under islamic state were free to worship, even different sects (catholic, orthodox) prefered this state rather than being under the king of opposition sect as islamic state was neutral.
The jews found refuge within the islamic empire during the dark ages.
In islamic spain jews, christian and muslims scholars worked together to translate all available scientific text in arabic. Untill queen isabella forced muslims and jews to convert or leave.
And even now, in palestine the muslims and christians and even orthodox jews are great with each other and together in opposing israel policies.


Actually, recent events speak VERY Well of how Muslims would, and DO, treat Christians and any others with whom they disagree. No simplification is necessary. The result is ALWAYS violence. Always. I have watched videos of Muslims in the United States "stoning" Christian witnesses, using concrete blocks and many other items, for nothing other than being present and presenting, peacefully, a Christian message. You can claim whatever you want about some ancient treaty, but no such claims will alter the facts. Wars on Muslims tend to be as a result to violence from Muslims. You know, the way the4 Crusades were. Hundreds of years of attacks by Muslims, before some stated that enough was enough. I know the history. Save the platitudes.

you know the history? Then you must know that the christian kings united under the crusades not for religion but to save their lands. It was a alliance of church and kings against a common enemy. Spreading the empire was a trend of that time so its understandable what the kings felt and what muslims were doing. But why the church had to go for butchering people just for their faiths? Dominance threatened by Islam? Crusaders killed muslims, jews and even christians. Took their gold to forward their troops even then none of the crusades were successful.
And the same now, why the hate towards Islam?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Interesting......doesn't seem to line up with actual actions, though. Maybe, too, someone should tell those responsible in these cases that they aren't supposed to attack Christians.

not a short list

Really, one ancient treaty, compared to lots of actual historical and recent events, doesn't speak well for how Islam treats Christians in reality.

the recent events are a bit complicated and cant be over simplified and used to judge muslims. The events are completely wrong and unfortunate. There is a strong feeling of being wronged among muslims due to wars on them and their brothers in faith elsewhere and that can lead to violence which is not right at all.
.
But i would disagree that it was just this small treaty. the christians under islamic state were free to worship, even different sects (catholic, orthodox) prefered this state rather than being under the king of opposition sect as islamic state was neutral.
The jews found refuge within the islamic empire during the dark ages.
In islamic spain jews, christian and muslims scholars worked together to translate all available scientific text in arabic. Untill queen isabella forced muslims and jews to convert or leave.
And even now, in palestine the muslims and christians and even orthodox jews are great with each other and together in opposing israel policies.


Actually, recent events speak VERY Well of how Muslims would, and DO, treat Christians and any others with whom they disagree. No simplification is necessary. The result is ALWAYS violence. Always. I have watched videos of Muslims in the United States "stoning" Christian witnesses, using concrete blocks and many other items, for nothing other than being present and presenting, peacefully, a Christian message. You can claim whatever you want about some ancient treaty, but no such claims will alter the facts. Wars on Muslims tend to be as a result to violence from Muslims. You know, the way the4 Crusades were. Hundreds of years of attacks by Muslims, before some stated that enough was enough. I know the history. Save the platitudes.

you know the history? Then you must know that the christian kings united under the crusades not for religion but to save their lands. It was a alliance of church and kings against a common enemy. Spreading the empire was a trend of that time so its understandable what the kings felt and what muslims were doing. But why the church had to go for butchering people just for their faiths? Dominance threatened by Islam? Crusaders killed muslims, jews and even christians. Took their gold to forward their troops even then none of the crusades were successful.
And the same now, why the hate towards Islam?


Yes, I know the history. Muslim invasions for centuries, very violent, and then retaliation for their actions, and now Muslims want to pretend they were victims of the Crusades. History doesn't support that at all.

Now, we have the same violence against non-Christians all over the world. History and current events both show how sharia treats non-Muslims.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by ollncasino
 





If Christians and Jews paid tribute to Muhammad, they were allowed to remain Christian and Jewish


Yes, it's called jizzya/zizzya poll tax, and if the christians or jews could not afford to cough up the ransom, what happened then? They would make their lives a living hell, and some converted to Islam just because life was so miserable for them, the choice was beatween converting to Islam or death. In essence you would end up being forced to convert for an easier life. Thats where the force comes into play, it was done subtily.

if a person couldnt pay then he was excused if his condition was not good, it was never forced to cough up.
And ya it was a subtle way to tell the person that he is wrong and if he strongly believed then a small tax or even whole wealth wouldnt be much to give for the sake of Saviour. Right?


I have to differ here. From what I've seen of it, the jizya tax is nothing more than a tribute payment - it seems to be there solely to force Christians and Jews to accept and acknowledge that Muslims are their overlords in areas where it is imposed.

Sure, 2 1/2 percent is nothing more than a token amount, but it's what it is a token OF that sticks in my craw.

Masters. Overlords. All of it based solely on religion.

Of course there are advantages - for example a Christian or Jew paying the jizya can't be conscripted to fight in Islamic wars - indeed, they are generally refused even if they volunteer - but to me the ignominy of acknowledging a master far outweighs the benefits of being able to run away from a war.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join