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

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Maybe someday we will get there.




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





For several weeks now, I have been engaged in a dialogue about religious differences and cultural misunderstandings with a Muslim male who has no personal exposure to "Western women" -- I felt that we were bridging a gap, both paying attention, asking questions back and forth to make sure we understood one another. It was civilized and informational....even "friendly" in the sense of "I'd be happy to tell you what I know and how I feel, and have some questions for you as well..." Sadly, some boundary was apparently crossed, or some nerve struck, that caused damage to the forward momentum, and I was then told I sounded like I was accusing. I can only hope that somehow I am not misconstrued or misunderstood.

Wildtimes, i respect you and consider you very friendly.
Yes i think some boundary was crossed, if it was innocent curiosity then its my fault that i took it the wrong way and i am sorry.
The thing is that i have tried to talk openly with others and seen that even after a long time they still have the same prejudices and then it feels like a waste of time.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 

I completely agree with you, logical7.

Likewise, I apologize for being imprecise....I acknowledge and respect your efforts to be open and communicative. It has meant a great deal to me, too!

you see, we have very good reasons to be "on alert" with one another. That is the way TPTB have orchestrated things. As you and I have "discovered" from one another, we don't really understand where the other person is "coming from" (in terms of worldview and perspective) unless we ask some hard and sensitive questions of each other, and put on our "emotional armor" in doing so -- meaning, to agree not to take it personally, and to squelch anger or argument for the sake of honest communication -- and really listen to each other.

I also regret if I said anything that offended you, or any other Muslims who, in good faith, have contributed to this small "round table". I sometimes ask questions that reach outside parameters....and that challenge people to "defend" their beliefs -- when what I'm hoping for is that they will look at other points of view as worthy of consideration.

You have done me a tremendous service in participating with me; I hope I have dispelled at least some of the misconceptions that people have about the "evil West." We, like you all, are just people, trying to make our way in a confusing world...

Peace.

edit on 22-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Also, I recall you were the one posting those maps showing how all those countries became Islamized through bloody conquest. Have you changed your stance on this matter?


Historically there is little doubt that early in their history, Islamic conquerors preferred to heavily tax the conquered Jews and Christians and actively discouraged their conversion to Islam to escape the punitive taxation.

There also is no doubt historically that Islamic domination was spread by the sword. For instance, Muhammad personally conquered the Arabian peninsula before he died and extracted jizyah tax from non Muslims.

Muhammad personally fought 8 major battles, led 18 raids, and further planned another 38 military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction.

HistoryNet

Military conquests by Muhammad and early Caliphs



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



Military conquests by Muhammad and early Caliphs





So basically Mohammad conquered pretty much all of Arabia in his life time.

You said "Early in its history of conquest, Islamic rulers actually discouraged conversion to Islam by conquered people. Non-Muslims paid higher taxes." (What are your sources on this? Any Hadith / verses to prove this? Im asking since you like using Hadith as part of your arguments? )

Mohammads times is about as "early in its history of conquest" as it gets.

How did Mohammad convert all of Arabia in his lifetime, if his intent was(as you say) to conquer people, yet discourage them from conversion, so he could benefit from higher-taxes?

Like I said....
When its convenient, "muslims converted people through the sword"
When its not, "Muslims didn't convert people because they could tax them heavily"

edit on 22-1-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

How did Mohammad convert all of Arabia in his lifetime, if his intent was(as you say) to conquer people, yet discourage them from conversion, so he could benefit from higher-taxes?



Muhammad conquered all of Arabia before his death. He didn't convert it all. Someone had to pay the taxes after all.



• In 628 Muhammad laid siege to the Jewish tribe in Khaibar with an army of 2,000. After the Jews surrendered Muhammad allowed the Jews to stay on in return for an annual tribute of half of their produce.

• In 630 Muhammad besieged Mecca with a force of 10,000 men. When Mecca surrendered with little resistance Muhammad didn't force the citizens to convert.

• In 630 Muhammad negotiated a treaty with the Christian Prince of Aylah - in return for tribute the people retained freedom to worship as Christians.

Source: Gabriel, R.A. (2007) Muhammad: Islam's first great general. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, USA.


Muhammad and other early Muslim conquerors were happy to heavily tax Jews and Christians as long as they submitted to Islamic military, legal and political dominance.

Source: Islamic Imperialism: A History by Karsh, E. (2007)

Tribute could be very heavy. For instance, after conquering the Jewish tribe in Khaibar with an army of 2,000, Muhammad forced the Jews to pay an annual tribute of half of their produce.

Source: Gabriel, R.A. (2007) Muhammad: Islam's first great general. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, USA.

Non people of the book (those who had not been given the scripture) suffered much more of a mixed bag at the hand of Muslim conquerors. For instance, Hindus in India did at times suffer religious persecution designed to encourage conversion to Islam. Destruction of Hindi temples, Mosques being built on top of them, punitive taxation of Hindus and persecution in general.

BBC
BBC


edit on 22-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


1. Lets get to the point.

Were muslims conquering everybody by the sword?
Or were they busy discouraging people from converting so as to be able to collect more taxes...as you said?
Which is it?

2. Also, you said "Early in its history of conquest, Islamic rulers actually discouraged conversion to Islam by conquered people. Non-Muslims paid higher taxes."
So are there any Hadiths / Koranic verses to prove this? Or is this a fabrication on your part?



For instance, Hindus in India did at times suffer religious persecution designed to encourage conversion to Islam. Destruction of Hindi temples, Mosques being built on top of them, punitive taxation of Hindus and persecution in general.


If the muslims were indeed the intolerant conquerors as often portrayed, India would have been a muslim country by now.

In reality, India remains 80% hindu and all those hindu holy sites remain to this day. I am a hindu by birth and I am at peace with my Muslim neighbors. So I have absolutely no use for kooky theories on Islam and India.... especially those coming from anti-muslim Westerners.

That said, keep your rancid bigotry and spread it among your own kind.

Thank you.



edit on 22-1-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sajuek
 


So what exactly is your point? You might not realize it, but that certainly isn't the first time in human history that former allies became enemies.


Bin Laden was there, but definitely NOT our ally. He steadfastly refused any US assistance, or even anything that smacked of US assistance, and brought his own resources, mostly construction stuff and money. Gotta admire him for sticking to his guns in his refusals, though. He was nothing if not consistent. Didn't take part in much of the actual fighting, either. I only know of one battle in which he "participated", from a safe distance, directing movements over a radio.

The Taliban was not even there, so they don't even enter the equation. They are a creation of Pakistani ISI, in Pakistani madrasas, and most of them were still kids at the time of the Soviet War - refugees, in the cross-border camps, "educated" by Pakistani ISI with intent to insinuate them into Afghan government, providing heavy Pakistani influence therein, AFTER the Soviet war. The Taliban were basically a Pakistani government power-play. US culpability in that situation is that we bailed out right after the Soviets did, leaving the country in a shambles with a major power vacuum. ISI wasted no time filling that vacuum with their own men - the Taliban.

The ONE person I can think of off the top of my head who was an "ally" then and an "enemy" now is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. He's actually an opportunist, and known for changing sides more often than most change underwear. He's in it for the power trip. and will take his fighters to whomever he thinks he can garner the most power from for himself.

Examples of our allies back then would be Masud, who was, conveniently enough, killed a couple of days before the events of 9/11 by operatives hired by AQ, allegedly as a "favor" to the Taliban, whom he was a thorn in the side of. I'm sure that, knowing what was coming, part of their real reasons was to eliminate another American ally in the area, to try to keep us from infiltration preparatory to an assault after the firestorm they knew was coming.

See, during the Soviet war, most of our infiltration was done by the expedient of walking or driving over the southern border with Pakistan. Not much in the way of jumps, and so that was what they expected our infiltration to consist of this time. Masud, based in the Panjshir, would be one of the first stops and linkups in that scenario. By eliminating him, they hoped to make us cross a lot more hostile territory before linking up with allies. Instead, we went a more direct route after 9/11, dropping straight into the north, where the Northern Alliance already held sway.

It's a fairly complex situation, and always has been, and can't be summed up by just saying "the US did it". Sure, some members of the current organizations (or DIS-organizations, in the case of al Qaeda) may have presented themselves as "allies" back then, just as Mitt Romeny presents himself as a Republican now, after presenting himself as a Democrat for umpty zillion years. This means that just because Hekmatyar allied himself with the Taliban currently, and allied himself with us years ago, the leap cannot be made across all the intervening events to simply state that we created the Taliban OR al Qaeda.

Think of it this way. I'm married, forming an attachment to my wife. If she goes and joins the PTA tomorrow, does that mean I created the PTA? Should I put that creation on my resume, then? Another way of looking at it is saying that if my son is on a ball team, and I support that team, does that mean I created ALL the ball teams?

We actually come closer to being able to take credit for creating the Northern Alliance, but that's only "close" - no cigar, because we didn't actually do that, either. They were, however, the remnants of the mujaheddin we worked with back then.


edit on 2013/1/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Were muslims conquering everybody by the sword?
Or were they busy discouraging people from converting so as to be able to collect more taxes...as you said?
Which is it?


Did the Crusaders conquer some Muslim states - yes.

Did they force Muslims to convert to Islam - no

I am at a loss why you are so confused.


Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
If the muslims were indeed the intolerant conquerors as often portrayed, India would have been a muslim country by now.


Islam only ever controlled some of India yet 20% of the population today is Muslim.


Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
That said, keep your rancid bigotry and spread it among your own kind.


Historical facts are not rancid bigotry. It is interesting that you feel you must resort to personal abuse when your viewpoint of Islamic history is challenged. Is this how a typical Muslim responds when historical facts are being debated?

Historically, Muhammad did conquer the Arabian peninsula.

Muhammad did extract heavy tribute from the Jews and Christians.

Hindus in India did suffer at times religious persecution at the hands of Muslim conquerors.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 




Did the Crusaders conquer some Muslim states - yes.
Did they force Muslims to convert to Islam - no
I am at a loss why you are so confused.


Im confused by this statement....because the Crusaders had nothing to do with what I asked.

Were muslims conquering everybody by the sword?
Or were they busy discouraging people from converting so as to be able to collect more taxes...as you said?

Also, what Hadith / Koranic verse can you produce to prove that
"Early in its history of conquest, Islamic rulers actually discouraged conversion to Islam by conquered people. Non-Muslims paid higher taxes."



edit on 22-1-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



Historical facts are not rancid bigotry. It is interesting that you feel you must resort to personal abuse when your viewpoint of Islamic history is challenged.


Your twisting of historical facts to attack Islam is the issue.

You first imply that Islam spread by the sword.

But when I present the fact that India (which was under Islamic rule for centuries) remains an 80% hindu country, you change your story with some bizarre theory that Muslims didn't want to convert everybody because they wanted tax money.

So what was it?

Also, where are the Hadiths / verses which support your theory that

"Early in its history of conquest, Islamic rulers actually discouraged conversion to Islam by conquered people. Non-Muslims paid higher taxes."

Those are your words.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

The thing is that i have tried to talk openly with others and seen that even after a long time they still have the same prejudices and then it feels like a waste of time.



Prejudices are hard to dislodge. As OpinionatedB observed, it's often a matter of who get there to tell their "side" of the story first, and then an opinion is (sometimes irrevocably) influenced. It often DOES seem to be a waste of time, but we've got to keep on swinging all the same. There is always a chance that it will take root somewhere, and what takes root, grows.

The only way to get to a goal is to keep on stepping towards it, even if half the time you seem to be sliding backwards.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Another thing I'd like to point out, from my perspective, is that "fundamentalists" and "extremists" are two different things, with different connotations. I personally could be called a "fundamentalist" in some matters, and an "extremist" in others. Of the two, the extremists are far more dangerous - They are extreme because there is an agenda behind their extremes.

"Fundamentalism" to me implies getting back to the basics, the fundamentals of a thing. That would seem to be inimical to extremism, simply because there is less there to take to extremes. In matters of religion, I would see "fundamentalism" as studying up on Adam, on Ibrahim, on the founders of the religions BEFORE all the divisions took place, which as near as I can tell started with Ibrahim's sons. Ibrahim and the patriarchs before him were some of the last common ground that Christians and Muslims stood upon. Therefore, they are the "fundamentals".

"Extremism" enters the fray when sides are chosen. Some leader, some where, decides that, for his own reasons, HIS way is the right and only way, and then he starts gathering and instructing followers, promoting his own branch of the religion tree as if it were the trunk and root. Different "schools" are born, promoting themselves to the extreme. The branches created eventually subdivide, just as the branches on a tree do, each thinking their way is the ONLY right and proper way, and almost always, each claims to be the bearers of the one true and only religion, the actual heirs of the "trunk" of the religion tree.

It's not so. Only the trunk is the trunk. None of the branches are, they are but offshoots, specialized portions of the whole. Furthermore, branches are ALWAYS weaker than the trunk.

Then, along comes some power mad politician, who seizes one particular branch because it aligns most closely with the power grab he wants to make for himself, and extremist organizations like al Qaeda and Westboro baptist are born. They are not, any of them, religious in nature - they are political, because they seek to gather power for some leader, not for their deity.

Any real Muslim can see the politics in play, using the religion of Islam as a veneer to make the politics more acceptable in play with al Qaeda, just as Christians can see the power politics in play with Westboro, shoving their God to the sidelines. I don't know any Muslims who actually support al Qaeda, and most seem to think that AQ is a creation of "The West" anyhow, so you KNOW they are not going to support them as a religious organization.

It goes deeper, though. AQ is itself just a veneer for Wahabbis and Salafis, the sort of folks who bring you The Muslim Brotherhood. Those also are political organizations rather than religious, but seem to be a bit less wary of laying that fact on the line and letting you know. Sure, they try to mix religious justifications in there, but they make no bones about their political ambitions.

Now, it's really odd to me that "the West" is at war with AQ, but hugging the Muslim Brotherhood like long lost friends. Both are extremist, with one being but a religious veneer, and umbrella, for the other.

Then you have TPTB in "the West" who are promoting the idea that "they're all the same", while at the same time they reject one and embrace the other. They tell us out of one side of their mouths that "them MOOSLIMS wanna kill us all", and out of the other side of their mouth claim "Islam is a religion of peace".

It's a "divide and conquer", folks. they just want to keep us off balance and dependent on what THEY are telling us. It's not just the Muslims they want to conquer - they intend to conquer their own people as well. They mean to do that by pitting us against one another. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, they're telling the Muslims the same things, but about "the West". Same game - keep us divided, ensure conquest.

What happens if they can't keep us divided? Oops.

If you want to know what a Muslim thinks, take him to lunch and talk it over. I recommend the veal, so that everyone is happy with the meal.

Be fundamental about it. Get back to the basics, but don't go to extremes.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



What is found in extremism is extreme literalism, acceptance of whatever traditions fit the situation they want fit, and militancy, rather than any learning, this is based in politics of this day, and the need to have a religion to twist in effort to gain more followers.

This is as true for our country as it is any other

The amount of energy and money and time it takes to fight extremism makes it almost impossible to remain moderate - which is the point

Good post Opinonated - the whole thing

The parts about the Middle Way are especially meaningful to me - it's a philosophy that has always spoken to me personally



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



It requires a degree of respect, a quality that appears to be lacking in both camps. People who allow themselves to be herded into the basket also allow other folks, those in control of that particular basket of sacrificial lambs, to also issue opinion for them, neglecting to think for themselves. They can have no more respect than they are issued, and sadly that demonstrates to my mind a supreme lack of respect for even themselves - how then can they respect anyone else in order to get along? That's true of many Muslims, and equally true of many Christians. They believe what they are told to believe about others, rather than finding out for themselves, and in the process gaining and giving some much needed respect.


So much to agree with in that post - I'll just single this out

Live and let live

How hard is that - seriously?

:-)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Wow, neno!
Once again, you have lit a fire in my brain, which is now melting.....

Thank you so much for this information. I will read it over and again, and probably still not have anything but a pedestrian grasp of the dynamics at play here.

I appreciate your input to the thread immensely....



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Were muslims conquering everybody by the sword?
Or were they busy discouraging people from converting so as to be able to collect more taxes...as you said?


Why is the historical fact

(1) Muslims (including Muhammad) conquered non Muslims

incompatible with

(2) the historical fact that early Islamic conquerors discouraged the conquered people from converting to Islam (to reap the higher taxes paid by Jews & Christians)?

The Koran itself makes it clear that Muslims have a duty to fight non Muslims until they are humbled and to force them to pay the jizyah tax.



"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled".

Source: Koran 9:29


This canonical Hadith also makes it clear that Muslims have a duty, according to Muhammad, to engage in Jihad Sahih Bukhari.


Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Also, what Hadith / Koranic verse can you produce to prove that

"Early in its history of conquest, Islamic rulers actually discouraged conversion to Islam by conquered people. Non-Muslims paid higher taxes."


The Koranic and Hadith only concern them self with the life of Muhammad so it is somewhat ridiculous of you to demand them as sources to prove that subsequent Islamic Caliphs discouraged conversion to Islam by conquered people so that they continued paying higher taxes.

My source was Islamic Imperialism: A History by Karsh, E. (2007), who used historical sources after the time of Muhammad.

As for Muhammad, here are canonical Hadith proving that he conquered the Jewish tribe living in Khaibar that I mentioned earlier Sahih Muslim and here is a canonical Hadith proving he extracted 50% of their annual produce as tribute Sahih Bukhari.

Furthermore the historical Muhammad did conquer Arabia (including Khaibar) and did extract heavy tribute from the conquered Jews and Christians.

He was also very hard on people who had converted but didn't present them self to the mosque to pray. This canonical Hadith reports that Muhammad ordered people who didn't pray burnt to death.


Bukhari (11:626)

- "The Prophet said, 'No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the 'Isha' prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.' The Prophet added, 'Certainly I decided to order the Mu'adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.'"

Bukhari (11:626)


As you well know, all of the above Hadith are considered very reliable to Sunni Muslims who make up 85% to 90% of Muslims worldwide six major hadith collections.

So the Muhammad revealed in the Koran and canonical Hadith ordered Muslims to fight non Muslims until they were humbled and forced to pay jizyah tax Koran 9:29, stated that Jihad was a religious duty Sahih Bukhari, did so himself (conquering Arabia before he died) HistoryNet, Sahih Muslim, extracted heavy tribute from the conquered Jews and Christians Sahih Bukhari and ordered converts to Islam who didn't turn up at the Mosque to pray burnt to death Bukhari.

That's the Muhammad as presented in Islam's holy books.

edit on 22-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

So that renders invalid the canard that Islam spread by the sword.

Also, I recall you were the one posting those maps showing how all those countries became Islamized through bloody conquest. Have you changed your stance on this matter?


Islam was an Imperialistic religion right from the start. Muhammad himself commanded large armies and conquered Arabia with them. For instance


• At Kheibar in 628 C.E., the Muslim army was 2,000 combatants.

• When Muhammad mounted his assault on Mecca (630 C.E.) he did so with 10,000 men.

• And at the Battle of Hunayn a few months later his army numbered 12,000.

Source: Islamic Imperialism: A History by Karsh, E. (2007)


Here is a map of Muhammad's conquests and those of his immediate successors



Here is a more comprehensive map including Islam's later conquests in the name of Allah



Here is a map of the Ottoman Empire in 1800, occupying much of Southern Europe. This map may surprise people as many are unaware that Islam conquered much of Southern Europe.




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


a really enlightening post!! If fundamentalism is taken in that sense i'l love to be a fundamentalist.


I would see "fundamentalism" as studying up on Adam, on Ibrahim, on the founders of the religions BEFORE all the divisions took place, which as near as I can tell started with Ibrahim's sons. Ibrahim and the patriarchs before him were some of the last common ground that Christians and Muslims stood upon. Therefore, they are the "fundamentals"

just realised that i read similar verses in Qur'an,
Surah 3


(3:64) Say: 'People of the Book! Come to a word common between us and you: that we shall serve none but Allah and shall associate none with Him in His divinity and that some of us will not take others as lords beside Allah.' And if they turn their backs (from accepting this call), tell them: 'Bear witness that we are the ones who have submitted ourselves exclusively to Allah.'
(3:65) People of the Book! Why do you dispute with us about Abraham even though the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after the time of Abraham? Do you not understand?
(3:66) Behold, you are those who have disputed greatly concerning matters which you knew; why are you now disputing about matters that you know nothing about? Allah knows it whereas you do not know.
(3:67) Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; he was a Muslim(verb meaning submitter), wholly devoted to God. And he certainly was not amongst those who associate others with Allah in His divinity.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


hey olincasino!
Remember me?
We had a talk about the same things you are posting now on some other thread, the same external excerpts, maps even same hadith, the same accusations too.
Its just gets boring you see!
Hope sc0rpi0n is able to answer them better than me and help you understand better.
Hey sc0rpi0n, all the best!





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join