It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I don't see any reason, yet, to disbelieve olln's offered information. Can you or Skorpion provide equally researched sources that make olln's sources fraudulent?
If you are surrounded by people
who want you dead, and you catch an assassin and forgive him
and declare by your actions that
even assassins will be forgiven,
you'l not be seeing the next
sunrise! Better chance of survival
if you hang his body out to discourage anymore attempts.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
But its a good thing that you are differentiating between Mohammad and the practices of later rulers. Its obvious that Muslim leaders didn't always govern in accordance with the laws laid down by Mohammad. Regarding taxes / conversion, the later Muslim rulers were acting on their own by discouraging conversion for the sake of wealth.
So with that we can establish that the Muslim rulers who discouraged conversion did so out of their own. Muslim leaders had their own personalities and acted on their own, whether for good or bad.
Akbar actually abolished Jizya... and neither did he forcefully convert.
Shah Jahan was wine connoisseur, despite drinking being prohibited in Islam.
Jahangir was an opium addict.
So there's no need to cherry pick what later Muslim rulers did and say "Muslims did this or that".
If there is ONE religion that truly supports peace and unity with the Source, it's Buddhism.
A Muslim minority situated along the
country's western coast, the
Rohingyas have been brutally
targeted for extinction by ethnic
Arakanese, aided at times by
government security officials. Satellite imagery released by Human Rights Watch earlier this month exposed destruction covering 348 acres and
involving at least 4,855 destroyed
structures. At least 200 people have
died in recent attacks, and more than
100,000 people have been displaced
in the violence. The Rohingya Muslims have faced a
campaign of terror simply because of
their faith and their ethnic identity.
Their plight has been largely
unnoticed in the international
community, and ignored by the government of Myanmar.
Originally posted by logical7
the point is, an act may seem cruel on its own but when the circumstances are specific, the same act is the RIGHT thing to do.
The example was completely hypothetical!!
Originally posted by logical7
The seven hundred men of the Qurayzah were killed, and their women and children sold as slaves. The massacre of the Qurayzah was a horrible incident, but it would be a mistake to judge it by the standards of our own time.
This was a very primitive society: the Muslims themselves had just narrowly escaped extermination, and had Muhammad simply exiled the Qurayzah they would have swelled the Jewish opposition in Khaybar and brought another war upon the ummah.
Koran
33:26 And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.
33:27 And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.
Muslim Access
"The apostle of Allah imprisoned the Qurayza in Medina while trenches were dug in the market-place. Then he sent for the men and had their heads struck off so that they fell in the trenches. They were brought out in groups, and among them was Kab, the chief of the tribe. In number, they amounted to six or seven hundred, although some state it to have been eight or nine hundred. All were executed. One man turned to his people and said, 'It matters not! By God's will, the children of Israel were destined for this massacre!’ Then he seated himself and his head was struck off...
...Now the apostle distributed the property of the Banu Qurayza, as well as their women and children, to the Muslims, reserving one-fifth for himself. Every horseman received three shares, one for himself and two for his steed, and every foot soldier one share. There were thirty-six horses present on the day of the Qurayza. The apostle dispatched an emissary to Najd with the prisoners, to barter them as slaves in exchange for horses and camels.
The apostle of Allah selected one of the Jewish women, Rayhana, for himself, and she remained with him as his slave until she died. He had suggested marriage to her, that she should wear the veil (to separate her from all other persons, as his wives did), but she replied, 'Rather allow me to remain thy slave; it will be more easy for me, and for thee.'"
Originally posted by logical7
The Rohingya Muslims have faced a
campaign of terror simply because of
their faith and their ethnic identity.
Their plight has been largely
unnoticed in the international
community, and ignored by the government of Myanmar.
Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
What olln was doing was juxtapose certain verses and historical accounts of certain Muslim rulers (With regard to conversion/taxation) in order to portray Muslims in the way he usually does. (He later began to differentiate between Mohammad and the Muslim rulers who acted on their own.)
It would be like me quoting the war verses from the Bible and then citing the policies of certain Christian American presidents. By combining 2 unrelated well researched "facts"...I can easily portray American Christians as a barbaric and warmongering. .
According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad chopped the heads of the men off of the six to seven hundred men of the Jewish tribe. He then enslaved the surviving women and children. The really scary part of this story is that Muslims today think that the founder of the religion of 'peace' was justified in besieging and then executing the six to seven hundred men of the Jewish tribe. It really is frightening how supposedly some moderate Muslims actually think.
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by ollncasino
This morning I was reading more background information on the current situation in Mali. The Islamist extremists have imposed very harsh and brutal Sharia law to the area, which was far more relaxed and tolerant until they got there.
If anything, the victims of this invasion and the brutality (lopping off limbs, stoning people to death, imprisoning and raping women, forbidding sports, tv, music, smoking, drinking, conversation between men and women) show a much better light on Islam. I would like to assume that most of Islam is actually more like the displaced people in Mali;
moderate, joyful, peaceful.
Too bad it took these atrocities to help shed light on it for me.
uggh
Originally posted by ollncasino
Originally posted by logical7
The Rohingya Muslims have faced a
campaign of terror simply because of
their faith and their ethnic identity.
Their plight has been largely
unnoticed in the international
community, and ignored by the government of Myanmar.
Isn't it strange that Buddhists can live peacefully alongside other religions except Islam?
What is it about the religion of 'peace' that makes it such a target of hostility that it is in engaged in either low or high level violence with every other group and religion it lives beside?
It's a puzzle.
Does islam pose such a threat that there should be so much islamophobic propaganda using such questionable tactics?!
Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by ollncasino
This morning I was reading more background information on the current situation in Mali. The Islamist extremists have imposed very harsh and brutal Sharia law to the area, which was far more relaxed and tolerant until they got there.
If anything, the victims of this invasion and the brutality (lopping off limbs, stoning people to death, imprisoning and raping women, forbidding sports, tv, music, smoking, drinking, conversation between men and women) show a much better light on Islam. I would like to assume that most of Islam is actually more like the displaced people in Mali;
moderate, joyful, peaceful.
Too bad it took these atrocities to help shed light on it for me.
uggh
It's very hard to know what to believe. This points out how difficult it is to get to the truth; does it not?
As a good Muslim I would think you would welcome the fact that I quote the Koran and canonical Hadith.
I may be wrong however, but I get the impression that quoting the passages from your own holy books that show that Muhammad was a violent warlord appear to offend you in some way.
Do the people of the West pose such a threat to Islam that we need to be eradicated? Goes both ways.
I believe neither is superior than the other. I do see the advantages and faults in both.
Nothing should be forced rather it should be free choice, be it a hijab or a jeans n top with a pony tail.