To Muslim members of ATS: What do you think about Mali?

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by nenothtu

I also have problems with formulae such as "those things forbidden by Allah and his Prophet". I'd be much more likely to acquiesce to prohibitions from Allah - I care not at all what his Prophet, any of them, forbids, nor do I subscribe to the notion that any should be placed beside Allah, as that formula requires.



I've just had a lengthy discussion on this very phrase. I remain unconvinced, but concede that it might be a problem with something being lost in translation, and have no quarrels with anyone who decides on their own to embrace the formula. I still don't, but that, I suppose, is my problem.


Believing in Allah and obeying the messenger go hand in hand. A Messenger/Prophet is Allah's spokeperson on earth. As soon as you agree that a prophet is a Prophet sent by God then its incumbent to heed him and obey him. In short he is just relaying God's orders. So what's forbidden by Prophet is done because Allah wants it.
The jews had no problem in believing/obeying Allah but when Jesus pbuh came they refused to obey him. The only way they could do it is by rejecting him as Christ or messenger and making him allegedly a blasphemer to get rid of him.
The pagan Makkans believed in Allah but worshipped idols too. Prophet Muhammad pbuh forbade it. That was just Allah's orders being relayed.
Maybe it would be more clear to you if you think Qur'an as Allah's Words and an Instruction Manual to humans. Muhammad pbuh is the prototype following that Manual. Qur'an doesnt specify every detail just a general idea, so its necessary to look at Prophet for clearer understanding. Thats the reason why obeying the prophet even in being forbidden something is required as Qur'an hasnt elaborated on everything that's forbidden. Like how to not behave, how to deal with wife and kids etc. Example, the Prophet forbade overloading camels, slaughtering an animal in view of other to be slaughtered animals.
.
Obeying Allah is compulsory(fard)
Obeying the prophet in details about the fard is obviously required.
In other things however obeying/following the prophet is better but optional(sunnah)
edit on 26-1-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Yes, that's very similar to the way it was explained to me. The construction of the phrase in the English doesn't support that interpretation, which is why I say it may be a matter of something being lost in the translation. I'm planning on digging deeply into the Arabic to get a better idea of the sense of it. There is no telling how long that will take me, because the shades of meaning can get pretty involved and in-depth.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
then isnt it interesting that she is reaching a different conclusion than you while using the same source?


There is no doubt that Muhammad was a violent and aggressive warlord. The Koran and Hadith make it clear that he was.

The question is, was that violence and aggression justified?

Personally, I prefer my prophets not to lead raids, besiege cities and enslave women and children.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 





There is no doubt that Muhammad was a violent and aggressive warlord. The Koran and Hadith make it clear that he was. The question is, was that violence and aggression justified?

yes thats the question. We disagree on is it justified. I say it is depending on circumstances. I respect that you want a 100% peaceful prophet.

Personally, I prefer my prophets not to
lead raids, besiege cities and enslave
women and children.

slavery was slowly abolished by islamic teachings promoting good treatment and freeing of slaves.
I would like to know, did you find any prophet who reached upto your expectations?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
slavery was slowly abolished by islamic teachings promoting good treatment and freeing of slaves.
I would like to know, did you find any prophet who reached up to your expectations?


I'm not religious.

Apparently, Jesus had a violent side that didn't make it into the bible (New Testament Apocrypha).

Buddha, on the other hand, as far as I know was a man of peace. I have never read anything that suggests otherwise.


Originally posted by logical7
slavery was slowly abolished by islamic teachings promoting good treatment and freeing of slaves.


Apparently as late as 1950, 20% (450,000) of Saudi Arabia’s population was slaves. It was abolished in 1962.

African Slave Trade



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 





Apparently as late as 1950, 20% (450,000) of Saudi Arabia’s population was slaves. It was abolished in 1962.

yes and that is unfortunate. Personally disgusting to me. Unofficially it still continues!!! The kings and princes need their luxury but cheap. Islamic law is just for the poor according to them!

(i) Islamic law
forbade Muslims to enslave fellow
Muslims or so-called People of the Book: Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. (ii) If they converted to
Islam their master had the obligation
to free them and if they did not they
have to teach them. (iii) Slaves could
rise socially by marriage and attain
high office. However, Muslims did not always treat with slaves in accordance with Islamic law.

saudis have muslim slaves!
The thing i have to clear is islam discourages slavery, some muslims prefer it by disregarding islamic teachings. These are two different things, we should clear this beforehand as its easy to shift and jump from one to other to prove points. My stand on these is
1) Does islam promote violence/slavery/inequality? NO.
2) Are muslims doing it? Yes, some.
Wish they were more muslim!



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Apparently, Jesus had a violent side that didn't make it into the bible (New Testament Apocrypha).



I believe at least some representation of Jesus' violent streak made it into the Bible - he beat folks at the Temple with knotted rope for doing business there instead of worshiping there, and he advised his followers to arm themselves, indicating at least a need for violence.

Buddha I couldn't say. Buddhists in general impose peace, but I've known some of them who could be very violent indeed. I'm not sure about the Buddha himself and violence - I can't even confirm that he was or claimed to be any sort of prophet, either. To be perfectly honest, I can't even confirm that he believed in any sort of god to be a prophet OF, nor can I find anywhere that Buddha preached the existence of any sort of god, much less claiming to be a representative of such.

Hindu deities seem to be pretty bloodthirsty. so we may just be stuck with the violent Ambrahamic sort - i.e. Moses. Jesus, and Mohammed. Those fellas sure could tear some stuff up when they got upset, couldn't they? Even Abraham is recorded to have been able to get pretty rowdy when riled up.

I reckon it's just a violent world we live in, and these prophets just prove themselves to be way too human.




edit on 2013/1/26 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


I do have to say that Muslims who owned slaves couldn't have been too overly harsh to them, because they had a disturbing habit of arming their slaves. Generally speaking, it's poor form to arm people whom you abuse, if you intend to continue breathing yourself. The Mamluks and Janissaries were both armed slaves - entire armies of them!

I'm guessing that there were probably other examples as well, but those two come to mind first.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by logical7
 


I do have to say that Muslims who owned slaves couldn't have been too overly harsh to them, because they had a disturbing habit of arming their slaves. Generally speaking, it's poor form to arm people whom you abuse, if you intend to continue breathing yourself. The Mamluks and Janissaries were both armed slaves - entire armies of them!

I'm guessing that there were probably other examples as well, but those two come to mind first.




thanks for the information, i dint knew this. I read about them now and it amazed me. They were definitely admired even then

Mamluks were proud of their origin as
slaves and only those who were
purchased were eligible to attain the
highest positions. The privileges
associated with being a mamluk were
so desirable that many free Egyptians arranged to be sold in order to gain
access to this privileged society.
Mamluks spoke Arabic and cultivated
their identity by retaining an Egyptian
name. However despite humble
origins and an exclusive attitude, mamluks were respected by their Arab
subjects. They earned admiration and
prestige as the “true guardians of Islam by repelling both the Crusaders and the Mongols."



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

I do have to say that Muslims who owned slaves couldn't have been too overly harsh to them, because they had a disturbing habit of arming their slaves. Generally speaking, it's poor form to arm people whom you abuse, if you intend to continue breathing yourself. The Mamluks and Janissaries were both armed slaves - entire armies of them!



A different perspective is given by an unknown author on Wikipedia.


The use of mamluk soldiers gave rulers troops who had no link to any established power structure. Local non-mamluk warriors were often more loyal to their tribal sheikhs, their families, or nobles than to the sultan or caliph.

If a commander conspired against the ruler, it was often not possible to deal with the conspiracy without causing unrest among the nobility.

The mamluk slave-troops were strangers of the lowest possible status who could not conspire against the ruler and who could easily be punished if they caused trouble, making them a great military asset.

Wikipedia


Over time, the slave armies did indeed come to realize their own power and were a force not to be abused. In fact, at various times, they became 'king' makers.

Initially however, the fact that slaves could be more easily controlled (existing outside the established client/noble structure) and hence punished largely with impunity, was presumably a major source of attraction for Muslim rulers.

They were after all often dealing with slaves purchased as children and indoctrinated from a young age.

Somewhat unusually for male slaves, they were not castrated at the border of Islamic lands by the slavers.

At the borders of the Islamic Empire vast numbers of new slaves were castrated ready for sale (Islamic law did not allow mutilation of slaves, so it was done before they crossed the border).

Islamic Role in Slavery
Reasons for low natural increase in the internal slave population

While it is true that Islamic rulers were not unduly harsh on their slave armies, or even the fact that at various times slaves could rise up within Islamic administrations, males were often castrated.



edit on 27-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Then you choose to only focus only on the violence of certain holy books and religions then?

You seem to remain silent on the violence of the Bible. I wonder why.


Because we don't have Christian fundamentalists trying to blow up skyscrapers, shopping malls and civilian airliners

For instance,


Since 9/11, in the USA we have had Muslim Americans conspiring to destroy the Brooklyn bridge, a Somali Muslim living in Ohio plotting to blow up a local shopping mall, a cell of 7 Muslims plotting to blow up the New York stock exchange, A US Muslim and accomplice plotting to blow up the NY subway, two NY mosque leaders who plotted to blow up an Indian diplomat with a shoulder fired grenade launcher, a group of 4 Muslims who plotted to blow up National Guard facilities and synagogues in the LA area, 2 Muslims who conspired to blow up the Wyoming natural gas refinery & the Transcontinental Pipeline, a Muslim flying into Chicago plotting to use a dirty bomb in the USA, 2 Muslim men plotting to blow up the US Capitol and Word Bank Headquarters, 7 Muslims arrested for plotting to blow up the Sears tower in Chicago, 8 Muslims arrested for planning to blow up NY city train tunnels, a Muslim man who plotted to set off hand grenades in a shopping mall outside Chicago, 6 Muslims conspiring to attack Fort Dix, New Jersey, a Muslim who planned to set of a TAPT bomb in the NY subway, a Muslim who plotted to blow up a Dallas skyscraper, a Muslim who tried to set off a car bomb outside the courthouse in downtown Springfield, Illinois, 2 Muslims who plotted to murder civilians in US shopping malls, 4 Muslims plotting to blow up “aviation fuel tanks and pipelines at the John F. Kennedy International Airport” in New York City and 4 Muslims planning to shoot down planes with stinger missiles.

Link


That list is out of date of course. For instance, the Fort Hood shooting in which the Muslim US army major killed 13 people and wounded 29 others while chanting 'God is great' in Arabic is not included.

I also have little respect for a religion in which the founder was a warlord who led armies into battle, led raids, besieged cities, forced tribute from conquered peoples, executed POWs and enslaved women and children.

Muhammad was all of those things. They say the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.

For instance, in the UK


MI5 has estimated that up to 4,000 British Muslims had traveled to Pakistan and, before the fall of the Taliban, to Afghanistan for military training.

www.independent.co.uk...


Another out of date list for the UK is the one below


* 27 February 2002
Moinul Abedin was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment after being convicted of making large amounts of detonators and the explosive HMTD in a Birmingham house.

* 1 April 2003
Leicester residents Brahim Benmerzouga and Baghdad Merziane were each sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment for their roles in fundraising for Al Qaida and other extremist groups.

* 1 March 2005
Saajit Badat was imprisoned for 13 years following his admission that he had plotted with jailed shoe-bomber Richard Reid to destroy an airliner over the Atlantic.

* 13 April 2005
Kamel Bourgass was convicted of plotting to commit a public nuisance by the use of poisons and/or explosives to cause disruption, fear or injury. He was already serving a life sentence for the murder of PC Stephen Oake.

* 7 February 2006
Radical London cleric Abu Hamza was convicted of incitement to murder and sentenced to 7 years.

* 7 November 2006
Al Qaida operative Dhiren Barot was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years' imprisonment after admitting a plot to attack UK and US targets using a "dirty bomb" and gas-filled limousines.

* 30 April 2007
Five men were imprisoned for life after being convicted of a plot to attack targets such as shopping centres and nightclubs using fertiliser-based explosives; two others were acquitted.

* 15 June 2007
Seven men were jailed for a total of 136 years for their involvement in Dhiren Barot's "dirty bomb" plot and "Gas Limos Project".

* 5 July 2007
Three men were imprisoned for up to 10 years after being convicted of using the Internet to promote terrorism.

* 11 July 2007
The four would-be suicide bombers of 21 July 2005 were given life sentences following their convictions on charges of conspiracy to murder. A fifth man involved in the plot was convicted in November 2007.

* 26 July 2007
Five students were convicted on charges of possessing material for terrorist purposes with the intention of going to terrorist training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

* 9 Jan 2008
Sohail Anjum Qureshi, an Al Qaida-trained terrorist intent on carrying out an act of terrorism overseas, was jailed for four and a half years.

* 18 February 2008
Five conspirators were convicted of plotting to kidnap and behead a British soldier and were sentenced to terms of between two years and life.

* 17 December 2008
Bilal Abdulla, an Iraqi citizen who worked in a hospital in Paisley, Scotland, was sentenced to 32 years' imprisonment for his role in terrorist attacks carried out in London and Glasgow International Airport in June 2007.

* 14 September 2009
In one of a series of trials, three men who plotted in 2006 to blow up aircraft mid-flight between the UK, America and Canada by using liquid explosives were jailed for life.

* 8 July 2010
Ibrahim Savant, Arafat Khan and Waheed Zaman were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiracy to murder persons unknown. By this point a total of twelve people had been convicted in seven trials for terrorism-related offences in connection with the 2006 aircraft bomb plot.

* 2 November 2010
Roshonara Choudhry, a student from East London, was convicted of attempting to murder the MP Stephen Timms after being inspired by extremist sermons she had watched on the Internet.

MI5


It is a bit rich to pretend that Islam is a region of peace when its founder was a blood thirsty warlord and many of its modern day adherents on both sides of the Atlantic are following in that tradition.

I don't deny that many if not most Muslims just want to lead a quiet life.

You can't deny that Muhammad was a violent warlord and that many Muslims today either actively follow that tradition or tacitly support it.

edit on 27-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


piling up events and incidences of over a decade in one post does make it look bad. Nice job.
Now lets get them in perspective. What people did in the examples you gave is COMPLETELY WRONG.
However you are taking things in a pre-selected framework and sure its not right.
If i searched only muslim names who had ever committed crimes then i'l sure find a long list.
Would you search how many non-muslim americans committed shooting, murders, arsons etc during the same length of time and were convicted(maybe you'l blame that on their "american" upbringing to be unbiased) . And then calculate which group has higher incidence of criminal activity based on how much percent they make of the total population. Maybe you can already guess it.
The links you gave is from an anti-islamic 'blog' site and the "MI5" link cant find it on server.
You also do the same with prophet Muhammad pbuh. Taking things out of perspective. Pre islamic arabia was not a peaceful place, it was a place of warring tribes, feuds etc. The feud over a camel went for generations killing many on both sides. He converted all those tribes into one nation/ummah in mere 25 years under one simple belief. He did fight battles but thats because the enemies were no cuddly bunnies. They were also fighting him against his "belief" not against his desire to be a "warlord." they would have happily joint him if that was his aim and he would be a 'warlord' over whole arabia in maybe half of that 25 years. He was a prophet with a message but born in a very hostile(to the message) surrounding yet did Great, dint he?
edit on 27-1-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

The links you gave is from an anti-islamic 'blog' site and the "MI5" link cant find it on server.
You also do the same with prophet Muhammad pbuh.


Here is the correct link

MI5: Terrorist plots in the UK

You and I both agree that Muhammad besieged cities, led raids, fought major battles, executed POWs and enslaved women and children.

You don't try to argue those facts. Rather you argue that Muhammad's abhorrent acts were justified.

That speaks volumes as to what is in the minds of modern day, so called, Muslim 'moderates'.


edit on 28-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 





Rather you argue that Muhammad's abhorrent acts were justified.

the circumstances justified it. The word justifying doesnt even give the right meaning, actually in similar circumstances its the best to act that way. I guess i sound extreme. I am not violent, but if someone tries to wrong/hurt my loved ones then i will sure respond appropriately and with violence if their is no other way. For others i'l respond but not with the same intensity obviously.

That speaks volumes as to what is in
the minds of modern day, so called,
Muslim 'moderates'.

i am not 'moderate.' if you are following the thread then you'l know what i am when i say i am a 'fundamentalist.'
.
Maybe you can suggest an alternative approach that Muhammad pbuh should have taken in the circumstances he was in.
edit on 28-1-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Over time, the slave armies did indeed come to realize their own power and were a force not to be abused. In fact, at various times, they became 'king' makers.

Initially however, the fact that slaves could be more easily controlled (existing outside the established client/noble structure) and hence punished largely with impunity, was presumably a major source of attraction for Muslim rulers.

They were after all often dealing with slaves purchased as children and indoctrinated from a young age.


You are failing to account for the intricacies of Arab tribal politics. These armed slaves were not valued because they could be punished at will - what soldier cannot be punished at will? - they were valued because their loyalty was not tied to any particular tribe or house owing to their own heredity.

This tribal loyalty was and is also a problem in Afghanistan - both for the Soviets when they were there, and for us now. We tend to see Afghanistan as a "nation", but it is in fact an area containing at least 20 different nations. people there have more loyalty to their village or their tribe than they have to the district, and more loyalty to the district than to the nation. In such situations, cohesion is more local, and weakens the further one gets from the individual.

Enter the Mamluks. They have no tribe, therefore their loyalties lie with something greater - or closer. Their loyalties lie either with Islam in general, or with the leader of any political division which has retained them, rather than with any fractious subgroups. Being slaves, they were also less likely to be swayed by offers of personal enrichment, as occurs in Afghanistan all of the time. There are a number of documented instances where loyalties have been bought in Afghanistan, sometimes bought by both sides, final loyalty lying with the highest bidder. "You can never by an Afghan - but they can be rented!" Mamluks and the like didn't suffer such financial defects. Because of their lack of financial or tribal motivations, they could be counted on much better to uphold their loyalties.



Somewhat unusually for male slaves, they were not castrated at the border of Islamic lands by the slavers.

At the borders of the Islamic Empire vast numbers of new slaves were castrated ready for sale (Islamic law did not allow mutilation of slaves, so it was done before they crossed the border).

Islamic Role in Slavery
Reasons for low natural increase in the internal slave population

While it is true that Islamic rulers were not unduly harsh on their slave armies, or even the fact that at various times slaves could rise up within Islamic administrations, males were often castrated.


No doubt there were instances of slave castration, but that was done, as you pointed out, by the slavers themselves, not "Islam", which forbade it. Also of note is the phrase "often castrated", which implies it not to have been the general rule, but noteworthy as an exception. As far as I know - which may not be that far - eunuchs were generally employed in places where an intact male might be a problem. Harem guards come to mind as an example. What good is a harem guard if he samples the wares and has to be killed for it, then replaced? Eunuchs filled that gap.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Also of note is the phrase "often castrated", which implies it not to have been the general rule, but noteworthy as an exception.


Actually, as far as I can discern, African male slaves were routinely castrated. So no, 'often' doesn't mean sometimes or exceptionally.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by nenothtu

Also of note is the phrase "often castrated", which implies it not to have been the general rule, but noteworthy as an exception.


Actually, as far as I can discern, African male slaves were routinely castrated. So no, 'often' doesn't mean sometimes or exceptionally.



"African"?

What was their proportion in relation to "non-African" slaves in the Middle East? Obviously, the African slaves the Arabs sold to the Dutch to be exported to the Americas weren't castrated, so I suppose castration of "Africans" as a matter of course must have been a Middle Eastern thing? So how many of their slaves were "African" as opposed to the ones that weren't African? We would need that proportion to assess the validity of the claim that "most male slaves were castrated in Islam".



edit on 2013/1/29 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
My son just called me a few minutes ago, and said he had a particular Qur'anic verse stuck in his head for a few days now. I looked it up, and this is what it said:




49:13 O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

Ya ayyuha alnnasuinna khalaqnakum min thakarin waonthawajaAAalnakum shuAAooban waqaba-ila litaAAarafooinna akramakum AAinda Allahi atqakum inna AllahaAAaleemun khabeerun



Source. Go to the link for the Arabic script.

It struck me as odd, because the verse seems to have a bearing on this thread, on the quest for knowledge of one another, and an admonition to get along.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join