On line dialogue with Muslims usually does not result in breakthroughs. One such exchange, in the Islam is a CRIME! discussion thread in the ISLAM: Not compatible with western values Facebook group, brings an extremely significant fatal fact to the foreground with unusual clarity.
The above linked discussion thread delves into the criminal nature of Islam. The thread was recently revived by a new commentator who asserts that Islam is peaceful.
My citation of Shari'ah relevant to offensive jihad asghar provoked this response: [All original spelling & syntax.]
Ashraful Haque Rana
8.61 gives the general rule. And u can not say fighting is bad in each and every circumstance. It would have been great to establish peace without fighting but sometimes we r forced to do it.And there are more explanations abt this at the websites I had given u. I explained the Jizya concept(9.29) to u and also gave Yusuf Ali's commentaries. Reread those parts. U seem to ONLY believe negative commentaries from the so called scholars. Regarding Ghazwat on tabuk,Read: http://www.al-islamforall.org/ghazwat/ghazwat/tabuk.htm Ignoring the denial of war's status as a social evil, I responded with references to two of Moe's extortion letters and a hadith which tells how caliph Umar followed up on one of him by sending his army to Persia. Ashraful's response is revelatory. I have emphasized the crucial statement.
Ashraful Haque Rana
Abt level of tolerance,Read this with othr websites I had given u: http://www.guidedones.com/metapage/non_muslims/Qislamtol10.htm There r good number of laws given in general sense. Prevention is better than cure. How can u give guarantee that they will not form such armies. There r many evidence in the History that small armies CAN defeat far more larger armies using good battle strategy,superior weapon,and of course by betraying them. <<<Peace be upon him who follows true............... sins of the Magians.">>> This certainly means it wasn't possible to preach Islam to Magians of that time.It would be very tough to preach in an unconquered land coz non-muslims might attack any time and kill Muslims at their will.According to Islamic law following other religion is sin. And if someone prevents preaching he is the sole responsible of all the sins. The problem is not with Islam, The problem is with U. Ur approach has been to prove SOMEHOW that 'ISLAM: Not compatible with western values', Never to understand Islam.
This outline of the essential elements may help the uninitiated to comprehend the enormity of the revelation.
- war is not always bad
- necessity of preaching Islam
- difficulty of preaching Islam to people who have not been conquered
- sins:
- not being Muslim
- obstructing Islam's spread
To the accepted standards of 'just war', Islam adds obstruction of Islam as a casus belli. But that does not mean blocking their 'missionaries', it means refusing their demands and resisting their invasion. Moe's missive to the chiefs of Aqaba makes this point with a fine flourish.
...I do not intend to wage war against you till you receive my written reason for it. It is better for you, either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jiziya and consent to remain obedient to Allah, His prophet and his messengers.... ...If you do not accept these terms and set them aside, I do not need your presents and gifts. In that case, I shall have to wage war (to establish peace and security)....
That was an extortion letter. Its essential message was: 'become Muslims or submit to extortion; otherwise I will invade and conquer you'. There will be peace and security if we surrender without a fight, otherwise there will be war.
Now we have a Muslim asserting that aggression is justified because we resist Islam and conversion might be difficult if not preceded by conquest. I do not expect to see a better confirmation of the fatal facts which are open on the text of Islam's canon.
No comments:
Post a Comment