Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 96

Thread: Another **** thread on Islam!

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default Another **** thread on Islam!

    Here you can Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros's interesting opinion.

    War of the worlds?

    Melkite archbishop says clash between Islam, West is inevitable unless both sides change.

    By Ana Rodriguez-Soto, Miami Gardens




    Jihad and suicide bombers, Osama bin Laden and terrorism: That image of Islam, prevalent in the West, may not be representative of the majority of Muslims in the world.

    But neither is it a false image, says Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, an expert on Christian-Islamic relations who currently serves as eparch of the Melkite Diocese of Newton, Mass., and spiritual leader of all the Melkite Catholics in the United States.

    While visiting the Melkite communities in Miami and Delray Beach at the beginning of March, he spoke at St. Thomas University on the "clash of civilizations" between Islam and Christianity.

    Archbishop Bustros was born in Lebanon, studied in Jerusalem and served as bishop of his native diocese of Baalbeck from 1988 to 2004. Speaking from a Middle Eastern perspective, he emphasized that the current conflict is not about religion but about "the different forms of structuring society and the relationship of religion to the state."

    He explained that while Islam has many different interpretations and no central arbiter of doctrine, such as the pope, most Muslims are taught to interpret the Quran literally. Following its precepts, they divide the world into Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb — the land of peace and the land of war, the land conquered by Muslims and the land yet to be conquered by Muslims.

    Like Christians, Muslims are obligated to "convert nonbelievers." Unlike Christianity, however, "the doctrines of Islam dictate war against unbelievers." Jihad, or holy war, is justified as self-defense whenever Islam is threatened — be it by a conquering power or an offensive cartoon.

    Most Muslims do not take those interpretations of the Hadith, or Islamic teaching, as far as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, Archbishop Bustros said. But the fact is that "the concept of nonviolence is absent from Muslim doctrine and practice."

    (...)
    Continues here: http://www.flcath.org/articles/2006/...mi-bustros.htm

  2. #2

    Default

    Like I've said before, Muslims all around the world feel 'deprived' and look back at their past (Caliphate, Mughal, Ottoman, etc). However, the popular (mass) revival that's actually being sparked off in most Muslim countries at the moment is an intellectual one - not a military one. They're finally realizing they've turned into the ruled from the rulers because they lack knowledge/education.

    As far as conversion is concerned, Islam only has issues with the percieved Christians' liberty with the concept of the oneness of god.

    Dar-ul-Harb = literally "house of war". Wider meaning: a place where Muslims can't practise their faith freely, where they're persecuted.

    Dar-ul-Islam = literally "house of peace". A place where Muslims are free to practise their religions.

    Both these concepts are post-Muhammad inventions.
    Death be not proud, though some have called thee
    Mighty and dreadful, for, thou art not so.

  3. #3
    MoROmeTe's Avatar For my name is Legion
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An apartment in Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Florida Catholic
    Melkite archbishop says clash between Islam, West is inevitable unless both sides change
    ... but the rest of the article lends some space to the idea that Muslims, Jews and Christians could live in peace. Especially if they knew more of each other.

    And I suppose Samuel Huntington is rejoicing... practically the good arcbishops thesis is a reformulation of his Clash of Civilizations theory (more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations). And the theory itself is not critic proof.


    In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
    Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
    Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat

  4. #4

    Default

    The clash between the West and Islam is more of an ideological one rather than a religious one. Muslims don't like the idea of free speech as it may offend their religion but we in the west see it as a pillar that keeps democracy going.
    There are many other reasons the West and Islam are 'falling out' like Iraq and the supposed idea that we are controlled by Jews. Many in the west see Islam as an 'invasion' by immigrants, the amount of immigrants to the EU is causing serious tensions, which have come out in recent months.
    Until a lot of thes 'issues' have been resolved I can't see a peaceful assimilation of Islam into western culture.

  5. #5
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default

    Infact it is why I quoted it. Pretty well balanced article, admits the problems on both sides. Because problems exist on both sides. Sadly only one side is accustomed to self-criticism, and that is not Islam IMHO.

  6. #6
    MoROmeTe's Avatar For my name is Legion
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An apartment in Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Meh, the degree to which Christianity is open to self criticism is relative... although I'll admit that it seems at the moment Christianity as a whole is more open than Islam as a whole.

    What we have to ask ourselves is: Is Islam so reactionary and monolithic by its by its own essence or by history or other external factors? I know your answer Ummon, ut my jury is still out...


    In the long run, we are all dead - John Maynard Keynes
    Under the patronage of Lvcivs Vorenvs
    Holding patronage upon the historical tvrcopolier and former patron of the once fallen, risen from the ashes and again fallen RvsskiSoldat

  7. #7
    AngryTitusPullo's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur
    Posts
    13,018

    Default

    From the HUMAN RIGHTS, THE WEST AND ISLAM


    The Western Approach:

    The people in the West have the habit of attributing every good
    thing to themselves and try to prove that it is because of them that the
    world got this blessing, otherwise the world was steeped in ignorance
    and completely unaware of all these benefits. Now let us look at the
    question of human rights. It is very loudly and vociferously claimed
    that the world got the concept of basic human rights from the Magna
    Carta of Britain; though the Magna Carta itself came into existence six
    hundred years after the advent of Islam. But the truth of the matter is
    that until the seventeenth century no one even knew that the Magna
    Carta contained the principles of Trial by Jury; Habeas Corpus, and
    the Control of Parliament on the Right of Taxation. If the people who
    had drafted the Magna Carta were living today they would have been
    greatly surprised if they were told that their document also contained
    all these ideals and principles. They had no such intention, nor were
    they conscious of all these concepts which are now being attributed to
    them.

    As far as my knowledge goes the Westerners had no concept of
    human rights and civic rights before the seventeenth century. Even
    after the seventeenth century the philosophers and the thinkers on
    jurisprudence though presented these ideas, the practical proof and
    demonstration of these concepts can only be found at the end of the
    eighteenth century in the proclamations and constitutions of America
    and France. After this there appeared a reference to the basic human
    rights in the constitutions of different countries. But more often the
    rights which were given on paper were not actually given to the people
    in real life.

    In the middle of the present century, the United Nations,
    which can now be more aptly and truly described as the Divided
    Nations, made a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and passed a
    resolution against genocide and framed regulations to check it. But as
    you all know there is not a single resolution or regulation of the
    United Nations which can be enforced. They are just an expression of
    a pious hope. They have no sanctions behind them, no force, physical
    or moral to enforce them. Despite all the high-sounding ambitious
    resolutions of the United Nations, human rights have been violated
    and trampled upon at different places, and the United Nations has
    been a helpless spectator. She is not in a position to exercise an
    effective check on the violation of human rights. Even the heinous
    crime of genocide is being perpetrated despite all proclamations of the
    United Nations. Right in the neighbouring country of Pakistan,
    genocide of the Muslims has been taking place for the last twenty-
    eight years, but the United Nations does not have the power and
    strength to take any steps against India. No action has even been taken
    against any country guilty of this most serious and revolting crime.

    The Islamic Approach:

    The second point which I would like to clarify at the very outset
    is that when we speak of human rights in Islam we really mean that
    these rights have been granted by God; they have not been granted by
    any king or by any legislative assembly. The rights granted by the
    kings or the legislative assemblies, can also be withdrawn in the same
    manner in which they are conferred. The same is the case with the
    rights accepted and recognized by the dictators. They can confer them
    when they please and withdraw them when they wish; and they can
    openly violate them when they like. But since in Islam human rights
    have been conferred by God, no legislative assembly in the world, or
    any government on earth has the right or authority to make any
    amendment or change in the rights conferred by God. No one has the
    right to abrogate them or withdraw them. Nor are they the basic
    human rights which are conferred on paper for the sake of show and
    exhibition and denied in actual life when the show is over. Nor are
    they like philosophical concepts which have no sanctions behind
    them.

    The charter and the proclamations and the resolutions of the
    United Nations cannot be compared with the rights sanctioned by
    God; because the former is not applicable to anybody while the latter
    is applicable to every believer. They are a part and parcel of the
    Islamic Faith. Every Muslim or administrators who claim themselves
    to be Muslims will have to accept, recognize and enforce them. If they
    fail to enforce them, and start denying the rights that have been
    guaranteed by God or make amendments and changes in them, or
    practically violate them while paying lip-service to them, the verdict
    of the Holy Quran for such governments is clear and unequivocal:

    "Those who do not judge by what God has sent down are the disbelievers."
    (Kafirun). 5:44

    The following verse also proclaims: "They are the wrong-doers (zalimun)" (5:45),
    while a third verse in the same chapter says: "They are the evil-livers (fasiqun)" (5:47).

    In other words this means that if the temporal authorities regard their
    own words and decisions to be right and those given by God as wrong
    they are disbelievers. If on the other hand they regard God's commands
    as right but wittingly reject them and enforce their own decisions
    against God's, then they are the mischief-makers and the wrong-doers.
    Fasiq, the law-breaker,is the one who disregards the bond of allegiance,
    and zalim is he who works against the truth. Thus all those temporal
    authorities who claim to be Muslims and yet violate the rights
    sanctioned by God belong to one of these two categories, either they
    are the disbelievers or are the wrong-doers and mischief-makers.
    The rights which have been sanctioned by God are permanent,
    perpetual and eternal. They are not subject to any
    alterations or modifications, and there is no scope for any change or
    abrogation.


    CIVITATVS CVM AVGVSTVS XVI, MMVI
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites SVB MareNostrum SVB Quintus Maximus
    Want to know more about Rome II Total Realism ? Follow us on Twitter & Facebook

  8. #8
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default

    In truth I haven't made my mind up as well, but I believe in pursuing knowledge inquisitively.

  9. #9
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default

    A perfect way to ensure that only one side (Islam) which assumes it knows the will of God, is in the place of assigning rights. In other words, tyranny.

  10. #10
    AngryTitusPullo's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur
    Posts
    13,018

    Default

    From the BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS

    The first thing that we find in Islam in this connection is that it
    lays down some rights for man as a human being. In other words it
    means that every man whether he belongs to this country or that,
    whether he is a believer or unbeliever, whether he lives in some forest
    or is found in some desert, whatever be the case, he has some basic
    human rights simply because he is a human being, which should be
    recognized by every Muslim. In fact it will be his duty to fulfil these
    obligations.

    1. The Right to Life

    The first and the foremost basic right is the right to live and
    respect human life. The Holy Quran lays down:

    Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason like) man
    slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed
    all mankind ... (5:32)

    As far as the question of taking life in retaliation for murder or the
    question of punishment for spreading corruption on this earth is con-
    cerned, it can be decided only by a proper and competent court of
    law. If there is any war with any nation or country, it can be decided
    only by a properly established government. In any case, no human
    being has any right by himself to take human life in retaliation or for
    causing mischief on this earth. Therefore it is incumbent on every
    human being that under no circumstances should he be guilty of
    taking a human life. If anyone has murdered a human being, it is as if
    he has slain the entire human race. These instructions have been
    repeated in the Holy Quran in another place saying:

    Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due
    process of law ... (6:151)

    Here also homicide has been distinguished from destruction of
    life carried out in pursuit of justice. Only a proper and competent
    court will be able to decide whether or not an individual has forfeited
    his right to life by disregarding the right to life and peace of other
    human beings. The Prophet, may God's blessings be on him, has
    declared homicide as the greatest sin only next to polytheism. The
    Tradition of the Prophet reads: "The greatest sins are to associate
    something with God and to kill human beings." In all these verses of
    the Quran and the Traditions of the Prophet the word 'soul' (nafs) has
    been used in general terms without any distinction or particularization
    which might have lent itself to the elucidation that the persons belong-
    ing to one's nation, the citizens of one's country, the people of a
    particular race or religion should not be killed. The injunction applies
    to all human beings and the destruction of human life in itself has
    been prohibited.

    'The Right to Life' has been given to man only by Islam. You
    will observe that the people who talk about human rights if they have
    ever mentioned them in their Constitutions or Declarations, then it is
    clearly implied in them that these rights are applicable only to their
    citizens or they have been framed for the white race alone. This can
    clearly be gleaned by the fact that human beings were hunted down
    like animals in Australia and the land was cleared of the aborigines for
    the white man. Similarly the aboriginal population of America was
    systematically destroyed and the Red Indians who somehow survived
    this genocide were confined to specified areas called Reservations.
    They also penetrated into Africa and hunted down human beings like
    wild animals. All these instances go to prove that they have no respect
    for human life as such and if they have, it is only on the basis of their
    nationality, colour or race. Contrary to this, Islam recognizes this right
    for all human beings. If a man belongs to a primitive or savage tribe,
    even then Islam regards him as a human being.
    2. The Right to the Safety of Life

    Immediately after the verse of the Holy Quran which has been
    mentioned in connection with the right to life, God has said: "And
    whoever saves a life it is as though he had saved the lives of all
    mankind" (5:32). There can be several forms of saving man from
    death. A man may be ill or wounded, irrespective of his nationality,
    race or colour. If you know that he is in need of your help, then it
    is your duty that you should arrange for his treatment for disease or
    wound. If he is dying of starvation, then it is your duty to feed him so
    that he can ward off death. If he is drowning or his life is at stake,
    then it is your duty to save him. You will be surprised to hear that the
    Talmud, the religious book of the Jews, contains a verse of similar
    nature, but records it in altogether different form. It says: "Whoever
    destroyed a life of the Israelite, in the eyes of the Scripture, it is as
    if
    he destroyed the whole world. And whoever protected and saved one
    life of the Israelite, in the light of the Scripture, it is as if he saved
    the
    whole world." Talmud also contains the view that if a non-Israelite is
    drowning and you tried to save him then you are a sinner. Can it be
    given a name other than racialism? We regard it as our duty to save
    every human life, because it is thus that we have been enjoined in the
    Holy Quran. On the other hand, if they regard it necessary to save
    the life of a human being at all, it should be the life of an Israelite. As
    far as other people are concerned, according to this view, they do not
    seem to be human enough to deserve protection of their persons. In
    their literature the concept of 'Goyim' for which the English word
    'Gentile' and the Arabic word ummi (illiterate) is used, is that they
    enjoy no human rights; human rights are reserved only for the children
    of Israel. The Quran has mentioned this belief of the Israelites and
    quotes the Jews saying: "There is no blame on us (for anything we
    may do) with regard to the unlettered folk (i.e. the ummi)" (3:75).

    3. Respect for the Chastity of Women

    The third important thing that we find in the Charter of Human
    Rights granted by Islam is that a woman's chastity has to be respected
    and protected under all circumstances, whether she belongs to our
    own nation or to the nation of an enemy, whether we find her in the
    wild forest or in a conquered city; whether she is our co-religionist or
    belongs to some other religion or has no religion at all. A Muslim
    cannot outrage her under any circumstances. All promiscuous relation-
    ship has been forbidden to him, irrespective of the status or position
    of the woman, whether the woman is a willing or an unwilling partner
    to the act. The words of the Holy Quran in this respect are: "Do not
    approach (the bounds of) adultery" (17:32). Heavy punishment has
    been prescribed for this crime, and the order has not been qualified by
    any conditions. Since the violation of chastity of a woman is
    forbidden in Islam, a Muslim who perpetrates this crime cannot escape
    punishment whether he receives it in this world or in the Hereafter.
    This concept of sanctity of chastity and protection of women can be
    found nowhere else except in Islam. The armies of the Western powers
    need the daughters of their nation to satisfy their carnal appetites even
    in their own countries, and if they happen to occupy another country,
    the fate of its women folk can better be imagined than described. But
    the history of the Muslims, apart from a few lapses of the individuals
    here or there, has been free from this crime against womanhood. It has
    never happened that after the conquest of a foreign country the
    Muslim army has gone about raping the women of the conquered
    people, or in their own country, the government has arranged to
    provide prostitutes1for them. This is also a great blessing which the
    human race has received through Islam.2

    4. The Right to a Basic Standard of Life

    Speaking about the economic rights the Holy Quran enjoins upon
    its followers:

    And in their wealth there is acknowledged right for the needy and
    destitute. (51:19)

    The words of this injunction show that it is a categorical and un-
    qualified order. Furthermore this injunction was given in Makkah
    where there was no Muslim society in existence and where generally
    the Muslims had to come in contact with the population of the
    disbelievers. Therefore the clear meaning of this verse is that anyone
    who asks for help and anyone who is suffering from deprivation has a
    right in the property and wealth of the Muslims; irrespective of the
    fact whether he belongs to this nation or to that nation, to this
    country or to that country, to this race or to that race. If you are in
    a position to help and a needy person asks you for help or if you come
    to know that he is in need, then it is your duty to help him. God has
    established his right over you, which you have to honour as a Muslim.

    5. Individual's Right to Freedom

    Islam has clearly and categorically forbidden the primitive
    practice of capturing a free man, to make him a slave or to sell him
    into slavery. On this point the clear and unequivocal words of the
    Prophet (S) are as follows: "There are three categories of people
    against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement.
    Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and
    eats this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah). The words of this
    Tradition of the Prophet are also general, they have not been qualified
    or made applicable to a particular nation, race, country or followers
    of a particular religion. The Europeans take great pride in claiming
    that they abolished slavery from the world, though they had the
    decency to do so only in the middle of the last century. Before this,
    these Western powers had been raiding Africa on a very large scale,
    capturing their free men, putting them in bondage and transporting
    them to their new colonies. The treatment which they have meted
    out to these unfortunate people has been worse than the treatment
    given to animals. The books written by the Western people themselves
    bear testimony to this fact.
    The Slave Trade of Western Nations:

    After the occupation of America and the West Indies, for three
    hundred and fifty years, traffic in slave trade continued. The African
    coasts where the black-skinned captured Africans were brought from
    the interior of Africa and put on the ships sailing out from those
    ports, came to be known as the Slave Coast. During only one century
    (from 1680 to 1786) the total number of free people who were
    captured and enslaved only for British Colonies amounts, according to
    the estimate of British authors, to 20 million human beings. Over the
    period of only one year (1790) we are told that 75,000 human beings
    were captured and sent for slave labour in the Colonies. The ships
    which were used for transporting the slaves were small and dirty.
    These unfortunate Africans were thrust into the holds of these ships
    like cattle right up to the top and many of them were chained to the
    wooden shelves on which they could hardly move because these were
    only eighteen inches apart, kept one on top of the other. They were
    not provided with suitable food, and if they fell ill or were injured, no
    attempt was made to provide them with medical treatment. The
    Western writers themselves state that at least 20% of the total number
    of people who were captured for slavery and forced labour perished
    during their transportation from the African coast to America. It has
    also been estimated that the total number of people who were
    captured for slavery by the various European nations during the
    heyday of the slave trade comes to at least one hundred million. This
    is the record of the people who denounce Muslims day and night for
    recognizing the institution of slavery. It is as if a criminal is holding
    his finger of blame towards an innocent man.

    The Position of Slavery in Islam:

    Briefly I would like to tell you about the position and nature
    of slavery in Islam. Islam tried to solve the problem of the slaves that
    were in Arabia by encouraging the people in different ways to set
    their slaves free. The Muslims were ordered that in expiation of some
    of their sins they should set their slaves free. Freeing a slave by one's
    own free will was declared to be an act of great merit, so much so that
    it was said that every limb of the man who manumits a slave will be
    protected from hell-fire in lieu of the limb of the slave freed by him.
    The result of this policy was that by the time the period of the
    Rightly-Guided Caliphs was reached, all the old slaves of Arabia were
    liberated. The Prophet alone liberated as many as 63 slaves. The
    number of slaves freed by 'Aishah was 67, 'Abbas liberated 70, 'Abd
    Allah ibn 'Umar liberated one thousand, and 'Abd al-Rahman
    purchased thirty thousand and set them free. Similarly other
    Companions of the Prophet liberated a large number of slaves, the
    details of which are given in the Traditions and books of history of
    that period.

    Thus the problem of the slaves of Arabia was solved in a short
    period of thirty or forty years. After this the only form of slavery
    which was left in Islamic society was the prisoners of war, who were
    captured on the battlefield. These prisoners of war were retained by
    the Muslim Government until their government agreed to receive
    them back in exchange for Muslim soldiers captured by them, or
    arranged the payment of ransom on their behalf. If the soldiers they
    captured were not exchanged with Muslim prisoners of war, or their
    people did not pay their ransom money to purchase their liberty, then
    the Muslim Government used to distribute them among the soldiers of
    the army which had captured them. This was a more humane and
    proper way of disposing of them than retaining them like cattle in
    concentration camps and taking forced labour from them and, if their
    women folk were also captured, setting them aside for prostitution.
    In place of such a cruel and outrageous way of disposing of the
    prisoners of war, Islam preferred to spread them in the population and
    thus brought them in contact with individual human beings. Over and
    above, their guardians were ordered to treat them well. The result of
    this humane policy was that most of the men who were captured on
    foreign battlefields and brought to the Muslim countries as slaves
    embraced Islam and their descendants produced great scholars, imams,
    jurists, commentators, statesmen and generals of the army. So much
    so that later on they became the rulers of the Muslim world. The
    solution of this problem which has been proposed in the present age is
    that after the cessation of hostilities the prisoners of war of the
    combatant countries should be exchanged. Whereas Muslims have been
    practising it from the very beginning and whenever the adversary
    accepted the exchange of prisoners of war from both sides, it was
    implemented without the least hesitation or delay. In modern warfare
    we also find that if one government is completely routed leaving her in
    no position of bargaining for the prisoners of war and the winning
    party gets its prisoners easily, then experience has shown that the
    prisoners of war of the vanquished army are kept in conditions which
    are much worse than the conditions of slaves. Can anyone tell us what
    has been the fate of the thousands of prisoners of war captured by
    Russia from the defeated armies of Germany and Japan in the Second
    World War? No one has given their account so far. No one knows how
    many thousands of them are still alive and how many thousands of
    them have perished due to the hardship of the Russian concentration
    and labour camps. The forced labour which has been taken from them
    is much worse than the service one can exact from slaves. Even perhaps
    in the times of ancient Pharaohs of Egypt such harsh labour might not
    have been exacted from the slaves in building the pyramids of Egypt, as
    has been exacted from the prisoners of war in Russia in developing
    Siberia and other backward areas of Russia, or working in coal and
    other mines in below zero temperatures, ill-clad, ill-fed and brutally
    treated by their supervisors.

    6. The Right to Justice

    This is a very important and valuable right which Islam has given
    to man as a human being. The Holy Quran has laid down: "Do not let
    your hatred of a people incite you to aggression" (5:2). "And do not
    let ill-will towards any folk incite you so that you swerve from dealing
    justly. Be just; that is nearest to heedfulness" (5:8). Stressing this
    point
    the Quran again says: "You who believe stand steadfast before God as
    witness for (truth and) fairplay" (4:135). This makes the point clear
    that Muslims have to be just not only with ordinary human beings but
    even with their enemies. In other words, the justice to which Islam
    invites her followers is not limited only to the citizens of their own
    country, or the people of their own tribe, nation or race, or the
    Muslim community as a whole, but it is meant for all the human beings
    of the world. Muslims therefore, cannot be unjust to anyone. Their
    permanent habit and character should be such that no man should ever
    fear injustice at their hands, and they should treat every human being
    everywhere with justice and fairness.

    7. Equality of Human Beings

    Islam not only recognizes absolute equality between men
    irrespective of any distinction of colour, race or nationality, but makes
    it an important and significant principle, a reality. The Almighty God
    has laid down in the Holy Quran: "O mankind, we have created you
    from a male and female." In other words all human beings are brothers
    to one another. They all are the descendants from one father and one
    mother. "And we set you up as nations and tribes so that you may be
    able to recognize each other" (49:13). This means that the division of
    human beings into nations, races, groups and tribes is for the sake of
    distinction, so that people of one race or tribe may meet and be
    acquainted with the people belonging to another race or tribe and
    cooperate with one another. This division of the human race is neither
    meant for one nation to take pride in its superiority over others nor is it
    meant for one nation to treat another with contempt or disgrace, or
    regard them as a mean and degraded race and usurp their rights.
    "Indeed, the noblest among you before God are the most heedful of
    you" (49:13). In other words the superiority of one man over another
    is only on the basis of God-consciousness, purity of character and high
    morals, and not on the basis of colour, race, language or nationality,
    and even this superiority based on piety and pure conduct does not
    justify that such people should play lord or assume airs of superiority
    over other human beings. Assuming airs of superiority is in itself a
    reprehensible vice which no God-fearing and pious man can ever dream
    of perpetrating. Nor does the righteous have more privileged rights over
    others, because this runs counter to human equality, which has been
    laid down in the beginning of this verse as a general principle. From the
    moral point of view, goodness and virtue is in all cases better than vice
    and evil.

    This has been exemplified by the Prophet in one of his sayings thus:
    "No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab
    have any superiority over an Arab. Nor does a white man have any
    superiority over a black man, or the black man any superiority over the
    white man. You are all the children of Adam, and Adam was created
    from clay" (al-Bayhaqi and al-Bazzaz). In this manner Islam established
    equality for the entire human race and struck at the very root of all
    distinctions based on colour, race, language or nationality. According to
    Islam,God has given man this right of equality as a birthright. Therefore
    no man should be discriminated against on the ground of the colour of
    his skin, his place of birth, the race or the nation in which he was born.
    Malcolm X, the famous leader of African Negroes in America, who had
    launched a bitter struggle against the white people of America in order
    to win civil rights for his black compatriots, when he went to perform
    the pilgrimage, and saw how the Muslims of Asia, Africa, Europe,
    America and those of different races, languages and colours of skin,
    were wearing one dress and were hurrying towards God's House-the
    Ka'bah and offering prayers standing in one row and there was no
    distinction of any kind between them, then he realized that this was the
    solution to the problem of colour and race, and not what he had been
    trying to seek or achieve in America so far. Today, a number of non-
    Muslim thinkers, who are free from blind prejudice, openly admit that
    no other religion or way of life has solved this problem with the same
    degree of success with which Islam has done so.

    8. The Right to Co-operate and Not to Co-operate

    Islam has prescribed a general principle of paramount importance
    and universal application saying: "Co-operate with one another for
    virtue and heedfulness and do not co-operate with one another for the
    purpose of vice and aggression" (5:2). This means that the man who
    undertakes a noble and righteous work, irrespective of the fact whether
    he is living at the North Pole or the South Pole, has the right to expect
    support and active co-operation from the Muslims. On the contrary he
    who perpetrates deeds of vice and aggression, even if he is our closest
    relation or neighbour, does not have the right to win our support and
    help in the name of race, country, language or nationality, nor should
    he have the expectation that Muslims will co-operate with him or
    support him. Nor is it permissible for Muslims to co-operate with him.
    The wicked and vicious person may be our own brother, but he is not
    of us, and he can have no help or support from us as long as he does not
    repent and reform his ways. On the other hand the man who is doing
    deeds of virtue and righteousness may have no kinship with Muslims,
    but Muslims will be his companions and supporters or at least his well-
    wishers.


    CIVITATVS CVM AVGVSTVS XVI, MMVI
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites SVB MareNostrum SVB Quintus Maximus
    Want to know more about Rome II Total Realism ? Follow us on Twitter & Facebook

  11. #11
    Carach's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    18,054

    Default

    the west has nothing to change..this whole 'conflict' has come about because of crazy idiotic suicide bombers killing random civilians in the name of islam.

    Islam needs to change, not the west.

  12. #12
    AngryTitusPullo's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur
    Posts
    13,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carach
    the west has nothing to change..this whole 'conflict' has come about because of crazy idiotic suicide bombers killing random civilians in the name of islam.

    Islam needs to change, not the west.
    Islam do not need to change. It's the 'followers' who deviates from the true teachings of Islam.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ummon
    Titus Pullo, you post things little short of extremism. That is legitimate, but also obvious.
    Err.. sorry because my English (as you know s**k big time) but where is the extreme part ? Have you read the whole context or just somepart of the text ?


    CIVITATVS CVM AVGVSTVS XVI, MMVI
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites SVB MareNostrum SVB Quintus Maximus
    Want to know more about Rome II Total Realism ? Follow us on Twitter & Facebook

  13. #13
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default

    Titus Pullo, you post things little short of extremism. That is legitimate, but also obvious.

    If Islam did possess all those marvelous institutions of right, I wonder why they never transpired into action. Because you see, the west at least stopped enslaving people by its own free will, while this can't be said of Islam.

    Besides: "those whom your right hand possesses" refers to slaves/captives, and it is part of a verse of the Qu'ran.

  14. #14
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default

    After the occupation of America and the West Indies, for three
    hundred and fifty years, traffic in slave trade continued. The African
    coasts where the black-skinned captured Africans were brought from
    the interior of Africa and put on the ships sailing out from those
    ports, came to be known as the Slave Coast. During only one century
    (from 1680 to 1786) the total number of free people who were
    captured and enslaved only for British Colonies amounts, according to
    the estimate of British authors, to 20 million human beings. Over the
    period of only one year (1790) we are told that 75,000 human beings
    were captured and sent for slave labour in the Colonies. The ships
    which were used for transporting the slaves were small and dirty.
    These unfortunate Africans were thrust into the holds of these ships
    like cattle right up to the top and many of them were chained to the
    wooden shelves on which they could hardly move because these were
    only eighteen inches apart, kept one on top of the other. They were
    not provided with suitable food, and if they fell ill or were injured, no
    attempt was made to provide them with medical treatment. The
    Western writers themselves state that at least 20% of the total number
    of people who were captured for slavery and forced labour perished
    during their transportation from the African coast to America. It has
    also been estimated that the total number of people who were
    captured for slavery by the various European nations during the
    heyday of the slave trade comes to at least one hundred million. This
    is the record of the people who denounce Muslims day and night for
    recognizing the institution of slavery. It is as if a criminal is holding
    his finger of blame towards an innocent man.
    This, and the following apologetics of good treatment and liberation of slaves in Islam, is little short of extremism and mystification of History. Arabs had to be forced to stop trading slaves, by western countries. The west ceased its own wrong practice of slavery based on an autonomous evolution of morals.

    Islam not only recognizes absolute equality between men
    irrespective of any distinction of colour, race or nationality, but makes
    it an important and significant principle, a reality
    You perhaps notice how the word religion is lacking here. Interesting. And infact:

    In other words the superiority of one man over another
    is only on the basis of God-consciousness, purity of character and high
    morals, and not on the basis of colour, race, language or nationality,
    and even this superiority based on piety and pure conduct does not
    justify that such people should play lord or assume airs of superiority
    over other human beings.
    They should however not assume airs of superiority, but the Qu'ran states very bad things of unbelievers. So how is a believer, who according to the Qu'ran is part of the group of purest an most perfect beings on earth, not assume airs of superiority towards swine, to which infidels are infact compared?

  15. #15
    AngryTitusPullo's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur
    Posts
    13,018

    Default

    From the RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN AN ISLAMIC STATE

    We have discussed the human rights in general. Now we would like
    to take up the question of rights of the citizens in an Islamic State. As
    these rights are more extensive than the general human rights which
    have been described earlier, they need separate treatment.

    1. The Security of Life and Property

    In the address which the Prophet delivered on the occasion of the
    Farewell Hajj, he said: "Your lives and properties are forbidden to one
    another till you meet your Lord on the Day of Resurrection." God
    Almighty has laid down in the Holy Quran: "Anyone who kills a
    believer deliberately will receive as his reward (a sentence) to live in
    Hell for ever. God will be angry with him and curse him, and prepare
    dreadful torment for him" (4:93). The Prophet has also said about the
    dhimmis (the non-Muslim citizens of the Muslim State): "One who kills
    a man under covenant (i.e. a dhimmi) will not even smell the fragrance
    of Paradise" (al-Bukhari and Abu Dawud). Islam prohibits homicide but
    allows only one exception, that the killing is done in the due process of
    law which the Quran refers to as bi al-haqq (with the truth). Therefore
    a man can be killed only when the law demands it, and it is obvious
    that only a court of law can decide whether the execution is being
    carried out with justice or without justification. In case of war or
    insurrection a just and righteous government alone, which follows the
    Shari'ah or the Islamic Law, can decide whether a war is just or unjust,
    whether taking of a life is justified or not; and whether a person is a
    rebel or not and who can be sentenced to death as a punishment. These
    weighty decisions cannot be left in the hands of a court which has
    become heedless to God and is under the influence of the administra-
    tion. A judiciary like this may miscarry justice. Nor can the crimes of
    state be justified on the authority of the Holy Quran or Traditions
    (hadith) when the state murders its citizens openly and secretly without
    any hesitation or on the slightest pretext, because they are opposed to
    its unjust policies and actions or criticize it for its misdeed, and also
    provides protection to its hired assassins who have been guilty of the
    heinous crime of murder of an innocent person resulting in the fact,
    that neither the police take any action against such criminals nor can
    any proof or witnesses against these criminals be produced in the courts
    of law. The very existence of such a government is a crime and none of
    the killings carried out by them can be called "execution for the sake of
    justice" in the phraseology of the Holy Quran.

    Along with security of life, Islam has with equal clarity and
    definiteness conferred the right of security of ownership of property, as
    mentioned earlier with reference to the address of the Farewell Hajj. On
    the other hand, the Holy Quran goes so far as to declare that the taking
    of people's possessions or property is completely prohibited unless they
    are acquired by lawful means as permitted in the Laws of God. The
    Law of God categorically declares "Do not devour one another's wealth
    by false and illegal means" (2:188).

    2. The Protection of Honour

    The second important right is the right of the citizens to the
    protection of their honour. In the address delivered on the occasion of
    the Farewell Hajj, to which I have referred earlier, the Prophet did not
    only prohibit the life and property of the Muslims to one another, but
    also any encroachment upon their honour, respect and chastity were
    forbidden to one another. The Holy Quran clearly lays down:

    (a) "You who believe, do not let one (set of) people make fun of
    another set.
    (b) Do not defame one another.
    (c) Do not insult by using nicknames.
    (d) And do not backbite or speak ill of one another" (49:11-12).

    This is the law of Islam for the protection of honour which is
    indeed much superior to and better than the Western Law of Defama-
    tion. According to the Islamic Law if it is proved that someone has
    attacked the honour of another person, then irrespective of the fact
    whether or not the victim is able to prove himself a respectable and
    honourable person the culprit will in any case get his due punishment.
    But the interesting fact about the Western Law of Defamation is that
    the person who files suit for defamation has first to prove that he is a
    man of honour and public esteem and during the interrogation he is
    subjected to the scurrilous attacks, accusations and innuendoes of the
    defence council to such an extent that he earns more disgrace than the
    attack on his reputation against which he had knocked the door of the
    court of law. On top of it he has also to produce such witnesses as
    would testify in the court that due to the defamatory accusations of
    the culprit, the accused stands disgraced in their eyes. Good Gracious!
    what a subtle point of law, and what an adherence to the spirit of Law!
    How can this unfair and unjust law be compared to the Divine law?
    Islam declared blasphemy as a crime irrespective of the fact whether the
    accused is a man of honour or not, and whether the words used for
    blasphemy have actually disgraced the victim and harmed his reputation
    in the eyes of the public or not. According to the Islamic Law the mere
    proof of the fact that the accused said things which according to
    common sense could have damaged the reputation and honour of the
    plaintiff, is enough for the accused to be declared guilty of defamation.

    3. The Sanctity and Security of Private Life

    Islam recognizes the right of every citizen of its state that there
    should be no undue interference or encroachment on the privacy of his
    life. The Holy Quran has laid down the injunction: "Do not spy on
    one another" (49:12). "Do not enter any houses except your own
    homes unless you are sure of their occupants' consent" (24:27). The
    Prophet has gone to the extent of instructing his followers that a man
    should not enter even his own house suddenly or surreptitiously. He
    should somehow or other inform or indicate to the dwellers of the
    house that he is entering the house, so that he may not see his mother,
    sister or daughter in a condition in which they would not like to be
    seen, nor would he himself like to see them in that condition. Peering
    into the houses of other people has also been strictly prohibited, so
    much so that there is the saying of the Prophet that if a man finds
    another person secretly peering into his house, and he blinds his eye or
    eyes as a punishment then he cannot be called to question nor will he
    be liable to prosecution. The Prophet has even prohibited people from
    reading the letters of others, so much so that if a man is reading his
    letter and another man casts sidelong glances at it and tries to read it,
    his conduct becomes reprehensible. This is the sanctity of privacy that
    Islam grants to individuals. On the other hand in the modern civilized
    world we find that not only the letters of other people are read and
    their correspondence censored, but even their photostat copies are
    retained for future use or blackmail. Even bugging devices are secretly
    fixed in the houses of the people so that one can hear and tape from a
    distance the conversation taking place behind closed doors. In other
    words it means that there is no such thing as privacy and to all practical
    purposes the private life of an individual does not exist.

    This espionage on the life of the individual cannot be justified on
    moral grounds by the government saying that it is necessary to know
    the secrets of the dangerous persons. Though, to all intents and
    purposes, the basis of this policy is the fear and suspicion with which
    modern governments look at their citizens who are intelligent and
    dissatisfied with the official policies of the government. This is exactly
    what Islam has called as the root cause of mischief in politics. The
    injunction of the Prophet is: "When the ruler begins to search for the
    causes of dissatisfaction amongst his people, he spoils them" (Abu
    Dawud). The Amir Mu'awiyah has said that he himself heard the
    Prophet saying: "If you try to find out the secrets of the people, then
    you will definitely spoil them or at least you will bring them to the
    verge of ruin." The meaning of the phrase 'spoil them' is that when
    spies (C.I.D. or F.B.I.agents) are spread all around the country to find
    out the affairs of men, then the people begin to look at one another with
    suspicion, so much so that people are afraid of talking freely in their
    houses lest some word should escape from the lips of their wives and
    children which may put them in embarrassing situations. In this manner
    it becomes difficult for a common citizen to speak freely, even in his
    own house and society begins to suffer from a state of general distrust
    and suspicion.

    4. The Security of Personal Freedom

    Islam has also laid down the principle that no citizen can be
    imprisoned unless his guilt has been proved in an open court. To arrest
    a man only on the basis of suspicion and to throw him into a prison
    without proper court proceedings and without providing him a reason-
    able opportunity to produce his defence is not permissible in Islam. It is
    related in the hadith that once the Prophet was delivering a lecture in
    the mosque, when a man rose during the lecture and said: "O Prophet
    of God, for what crime have my neighbours been arrested?" The
    Prophet heard the question and continued his speech. The man rose
    once again and repeated the same question. The Prophet again did not
    answer and continued his speech. The man rose for a third time and
    repeated the same question. Then the Prophet ordered that the man's
    neighbours be released. The reason why the Prophet had kept quiet
    when the question was repeated twice earlier was that the police officer
    was present in the mosque and if there were proper reasons for the
    arrest of the neighbours of this man, he would have got up to explain
    his position. Since the police officer gave no reasons for these arrests
    the Prophet ordered that the arrested persons should be released. The
    police officer was aware of the Islamic law and therefore he did not
    get up to say: "the administration is aware of the charges against the
    arrested men, but they cannot be disclosed in public. If the Prophet
    would inquire about their guilt in camera I would enlighten him." If
    the police officer had made such a statement, he would have been dis-
    missed then and there. The fact that the police officer did not give any
    reasons for the arrests in the open court was sufficient reason for the
    Prophet to give immediate orders for the release of the arrested men.
    The injunction of the Holy Quran is very clear on this point. "When-
    ever you judge between people, you should judge with (a sense of)
    justice" (4:58). And the Prophet has also been asked by God: "I have
    been ordered to dispense justice between you." This was the reason
    why the Caliph 'Umar said: "In Islam no one can be imprisoned except
    in pursuance of justice." The words used here clearly indicate that
    justice means due process of law. What has been prohibited and
    condemned is that a man be arrested and imprisoned without proof of
    his guilt in an open court and without providing him an opportunity
    to defend himself against those charges. If the Government suspects
    that a particular individual has committed a crime or he is likely to
    commit an offence in the near future then they should give reasons for
    their suspicion before a court of law and the culprit or the suspect
    should be allowed to produce his defence in an open court, so that the
    court may decide whether the suspicion against him is based on sound
    grounds or not and if there is good reason for suspicion, then he should
    be informed of how long he will be in preventive detention. This
    decision should be taken under all circumstances in an open court, so
    that the public may hear the charges brought by the government, as
    well as the defence made by the accused and see that the due process of
    law is being applied to him and he is not being victimized.

    The correct method of dealing with such cases in Islam is
    exemplified in the famous decision of the Prophet which took place
    before the conquest of Makkah. The Prophet was making preparations
    for the attack on Makkah, when one of his Companions, Hatib ibn Abi
    Balta'ah sent a letter through a woman to the authorities in Makkah
    informing them about the impending attack. The Prophet came to
    know of this through a Divine inspiration. He ordered 'Ali and Zubayr:
    "Go quickly on the route to Makkah, at such and such a place, you will
    find a woman carrying a letter. Recover the letter from her and bring it
    to me." So they went and found the woman exactly where the Prophet
    had said. They recovered the letter from her and brought it to the
    Prophet. This was indeed a clear case of treachery. To inform the
    enemy about a secret of an army and that too at the time of a war is a
    very serious offence tantamount to treachery. In fact one cannot think
    of a more serious crime during war than giving out a military secret to
    one's enemy. What could have been a more suitable case for a secret
    hearing; a military secret had been betrayed and common sense
    demanded that he should be tried in camera. But the Prophet
    summoned Hatib to the open court of the Mosque of the Prophet and
    in the presence of hundreds of people asked him to explain his position
    with regard to his letter addressed to the leaders of Quraysh which had
    been intercepted on its way. The accused said: "O God's Messenger
    (may God's blessings be on you) I have not revolted against Islam, nor
    have I done this with the intention of betraying a military secret. The
    truth of the matter is that my wife and children are living in Makkah
    and I do not have my tribe to protect them there. I had written this
    letter so that the leaders of Quraysh may be indebted to me and may
    protect my wife and children out of gratitude." 'Umar rose and respect-
    fully submitted: "O Prophet, please permit me to put this traitor to the
    sword." The Prophet replied: "He is one of those people who had
    participated in the Battle of Badr, and the explanation he has
    advanced in his defence would seem to be correct."

    Let us look at this decision of the Prophet in perspective. It was a
    clear case of treachery and betrayal of military secrets. But the Prophet
    acquitted Hatib on two counts. Firstly, that his past records were very
    clean and showed that he could not have betrayed the cause of Islam,
    since on the occasion of the Battle of Badr when there were heavy odds
    against the Muslims, he had risked his life for them. Secondly, his
    family was in fact in danger at Makkah. Therefore, if he had shown
    some human weakness for his children and written this letter, then this
    punishment was quite sufficient for him that his secret offence was
    divulged in public and he had been disgraced and humiliated in the eyes
    of the believers. God has referred to this offence of Hatib in the Holy
    Quran but did not propose any punishment for him except rebuke
    and admonition.

    The attitude and activities of the Kharijis in the days of the
    Caliph 'Ali are well-known to the students of Muslim history. They
    used to abuse the Caliph openly, and threaten him with murder. But
    whenever they were arrested for these offences, 'Ali would set them
    free and tell his officers "As long as they do not actually perpetrate
    offences against the State, the mere use of abusive language or the
    threat of use of force are not such offences for which they can be
    imprisoned." The imam Abu Hanifah has recorded the following saying
    of the Caliph 'Ali (A): "As long as they do not set out on armed
    rebellion, the Caliph of the Faithful will not interfere with them." On
    another occasion 'Ali was delivering a lecture in the mosque when the
    Kharijis raised their special slogan there. 'Ali said: "We will not deny
    you the right to come to the mosques to worship God, nor will we stop
    to give your share from the wealth of the State, as long as you are with
    us (and support us in our wars with the unbelievers) and we shall never
    take military action against you as long as you do not fight with us."
    One can visualize the opposition which 'Ali was facing; more violent
    and vituperative opposition cannot even be imagined in a present-day
    democratic State; but the freedom that he had allowed to the opposi-
    tion was such that no government has ever been able to give to its
    opposition. He did not arrest even those who threatened him with
    murder nor did he imprison them.
    5. The Right to Protest Against Tyranny

    Amongst the rights that Islam has conferred on human beings is
    the right to protest against government's tyranny. Referring to it the
    Quran says: "God does not love evil talk in public unless it is by some-
    one who has been injured thereby" (4:148). This means that God
    strongly disapproves of abusive language or strong words of condemna-
    tion, but the person who has been the victim of injustice or tyranny,
    God gives him the right to openly protest against the injury that has
    been done to him. This right is not limited only to individuals. The
    words of the verse are general. Therefore if an individual or a group of
    people or a party usurps power, and after assuming the reins of
    authority begins to tyrannize individuals or groups of men or the entire
    population of the country, then to raise the voice of protest against it
    openly is the God-given right of man and no one has the authority to
    usurp or deny this right. If anyone tries to usurp this right of citizens
    then he rebels against God. The talisman of Section 1444 may protect
    such a tyrant in this world, but it cannot save him from the hell-fire in
    the Hereafter.
    6. Freedom of Expression

    Islam gives the right of freedom of thought and expression to all
    citizens of the Islamic State on the condition that it should be used
    for the propagation of virtue and truth and not for spreading evil and
    wickedness. This Islamic concept of freedom of expression is much
    superior to the concept prevalent in the West. Under no circumstances
    would Islam allow evil and wickedness to be propagated. It also does
    not give anybody the right to use abusive or offensive language in the
    name of criticism. The right to freedom of expression for the sake of
    propagating virtue and righteousness is not only a right in Islam but an
    obligation. One who tries to deny this right to his people is openly at
    war with God, the All-Powerful. And the same thing applies to the
    attempt to stop people from evil. Whether this evil is perpetrated by an
    individual or by a group of people or the government of one's own
    country, or the government of some other country; it is the right of a
    Muslim and it is also his obligation that he should warn and reprimand
    the evil-doer and try to stop him from doing it. Over and above, he
    should openly and publicly condemn it and show the course of
    righteousness which that individual, nation or government should
    adopt.

    The Holy Quran has described this quality of the Faithful in the
    following words: "They enjoin what is proper and forbid what is
    improper" (9:71). In contrast, describing the qualities of a hypocrite,
    the Quran mentions: "They bid what is improper and forbid what is
    proper" (9:67). The main purpose of an Islamic Government has been
    defined by God in the Quran as follows: "If we give authority to these
    men on earth they will keep up prayers, and offer poor-due, bid what
    is proper and forbid what is improper" (22:41). The Prophet has said:
    "If any one of you comes across an evil, he should try to stop it with
    his hand (using force), if he is not in a position to stop it with his hand
    then he should try to stop it by means of his tongue (meaning he
    should speak against it). If he is not even able to use his tongue then he
    should at least condemn it in his heart. This is the weakest degree of
    faith" (Muslim). This obligation of inviting people to righteousness and
    forbidding them to adopt the paths of evil is incumbent on all true
    Muslims. If any government deprives its citizens of this right, and
    prevents them from performing this duty, then it is in direct conflict
    with the injunction of God. The government is not in conflict with its
    people, but is in conflict with God. In this way it is at war with God
    and is trying to usurp that right of its people which God has conferred
    not only as a right but as an obligation. As far as the government which
    itself propagates evil, wickedness and obscenity and interferes with
    those who are inviting people to virtue and righteousness is concerned,
    according to the Holy Quran it is the government of the hypocrites.
    7. Freedom of Association

    Islam has also given people the right to freedom of association and
    formation of parties or organizations. This right is also subject to
    certain general rules. It should be exercised for propagating virtue and
    righteousness and should never be used for spreading evil and mischief.
    We have not only been given this right for spreading righteousness and
    virtue, but have been ordered to exercise this right. Addressing the
    Muslims, the Holy Quran declares:

    You are the best community which has been brought forth for mankind.
    You command what is proper and forbid what is improper and you believe
    in God ... (3:110)

    This means that it is the obligation and duty of the entire Muslim
    community that it should invite and enjoin people to righteousness and
    virtue and forbid them from doing evil. If the entire Muslim community
    is not able to perform this duty then "let there be a community among
    you who will invite (people) to (do) good, command what is proper and
    forbid what is improper, those will be prosperous" (3:104). This clearly
    indicates that if the entire Muslim nation collectively begins to neglect
    its obligation to invite people to goodness and forbid them from doing
    evil then it is absolutely essential that it should contain at least a
    group
    of people which may perform this obligation. As has been said before
    this is not only a right but an obligation and on the fulfilment of which
    depends success and prosperity here as well as in the Hereafter. It is an
    irony with the religion of God that in a Muslim country the assembly
    and association that is formed for the purposes of spreading evil and
    mischief should have the right to rule over the country and the
    association and party which has been formed for propagating righteous-
    ness and virtue should live in perpetual fear of harassment and of being
    declared illegal. Conditions here are just the reverse of what has been
    prescribed by God. The claim is that we are Muslims and this is an
    Islamic State5 but the work that is being done is directed to spreading
    evil, to corrupt and morally degrade and debase the people while there
    is an active and effective check on the work being carried out for
    reforming society and inviting people to righteousness. Moreover the
    life of those who are engaged in spreading righteousness and checking
    the spread of evil and wickedness is made intolerable and hard to bear.

    8. Freedom of Conscience and Conviction

    Islam also gives the right to freedom of conscience and conviction
    to its citizens in an Islamic State. The Holy Quran has laid down the
    injunction: "There should be no coercion in the matter of faith"
    (2:256). Though there is no truth and virtue greater than the religion of
    Truth-Islam, and Muslims are enjoined to invite people to embrace
    Islam and advance arguments in favour of it, they are not asked to
    enforce this faith on them. No force will be applied in order to compel
    them to accept Islam. Whoever accepts it he does so by his own choice.
    Muslims will welcome such a convert to Islam with open arms and
    admit him to their community with equal rights and privileges. But if
    somebody does not accept Islam, Muslims will have to recognize and
    respect his decision, and no moral, social or political pressure will be
    put on him to change his mind.

    9. Protection of Religious Sentiments

    Along with the freedom of conviction and freedom of conscience,
    Islam has given the right to the individual that his religious sentiments
    will be given due respect and nothing will be said or done which may
    encroach upon this right. It has been ordained by God in the Holy
    Quran: "Do not abuse those they appeal to instead of God" (6:108).
    These instructions are not only limited to idols and deities, but they
    also apply to the leaders or national heroes of the people. If a group of
    people holds a conviction which according to you is wrong, and holds
    certain persons in high esteem which according to you is not deserved
    by them, then it will not be justified in Islam that you use abusive
    language for them and thus injure their feelings. Islam does not prohibit
    people from holding debate and discussion on religious matters, but it
    wants that these discussions should be conducted in decency. "Do not
    argue with the people of the Book unless it is in the politest manner"
    (29:46)-says the Quran. This order is not merely limited to the people
    of the Scriptures, but applies with equal force to those following other
    faiths.
    10. Protection from Arbitrary Imprisonment

    Islam also recognizes the right of the individual that he will not be
    arrested or imprisoned for the offences of others. The Holy Quran has
    laid down this principle clearly: "No bearer of burdens shall be made to
    bear the burden of another" (6:164). Islam believes in personal
    responsibility. We ourselves are responsible for our acts, and the
    consequence of our actions cannot be transferred to someone else. In
    other words this means that every man is responsible for his actions. If
    another man has not shared this action then he cannot be held
    responsible for it, nor can he be arrested. It is a matter of great regret
    and shame that we are seeing this just and equitable principle which has
    not been framed by any human being, but by the Creator and Nourish-
    er of the entire universe, being flouted and violated before our eyes. So
    much so that a man is guilty of a crime or he is a suspect, but his wife
    being arrested for his crime. Things have gone so far that innocent
    people are being punished for the crimes of others. To give a recent
    example, in Karachi (Pakistan), a man was suspected of being involved
    in a bomb throwing incident. In the course of police investigation he
    was subjected to horrible torture in order to extract a confession from
    him. When he insisted on his innocence, then the police arrested his
    mother, his wife, daughter and sister and brought them to the police
    station. They were all stripped naked in his presence and he was
    stripped naked of all his clothes before their eyes so that a confession
    of the crime could be extracted from him. It appears as if for the sake
    of investigation of crime it has become proper and legal in our country
    to strip the innocent women folk of the household in order to bring
    pressure on the suspect. This is indeed very outrageous and shameful.
    This is the height of meanness and depravity. This is not a mere hearsay
    which I am repeating here, but I have full information about this case
    and can prove my allegations in any court of law. I would here like to
    ask what right such tyrants who perpetrate these crimes against
    mankind have to tell us that they are Muslims or that they are conduct-
    ing the affairs of the state according to the teachings of Islam and their
    state is an Islamic State. They are breaching and flouting a clear law of
    the Holy Quran. They are stripping men and women naked which is
    strictly forbidden in Islam. They disgrace and humiliate humanity and
    then they claim that they are Muslims.

    11. The Right to Basic Necessities of Life

    Islam has recognized the right of the needy people that help and
    assistance will be provided for them. "And in their wealth there is
    acknowledged right for the needy and the destitute" (51:19). In this
    verse, the Quran has not only conferred a right on every man who asks
    for assistance in the wealth of the Muslims, but has also laid down that
    if a Muslim comes to know that a certain man is without the basic
    necessities of life, then irrespective of the fact whether he asks for
    assistance or not, it is his duty to reach him and give all the help that
    he
    can extend. For this purpose Islam has not depended only on the help
    and charity that is given voluntarily, but has made compulsory charity,
    zakat as the third pillar of Islam, next only to profession of faith and
    worship of God through holding regular prayers. The Prophet has
    clearly instructed in this respect that: "It will be taken from their rich
    and given to those in the community in need" (al-Bukhari and Muslim).
    In addition to this, it has also been declared that the Islamic State
    should support those who have nobody to support them. The Prophet
    has said: "The Head of state is the guardian of him, who has nobody to
    support him" (Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi). The word wali which has been
    used by the Prophet is a very comprehensive word and has a wide range
    of meanings. If there is an orphan or an aged man, if there is a crippled
    or unemployed person, if one is invalid or poor and has no one else to
    support him or help him, then it is the duty and the responsibility of
    the state to support and assist him. If a dead man has no guardian or
    heir, then it is the duty of the state to arrange for his proper burial. In
    short the state has been entrusted with the duty and responsibility of
    looking after all those who need help and assistance. A truly Islamic
    State is therefore a truly welfare state which will be the guardian and
    protector of all those in need.

    12. Equality Before Law

    Islam gives its citizens the right to absolute and complete equality
    in the eyes of the law. As far as the Muslims are concerned, there are
    clear instructions in the Holy Quran and hadith that in their rights and
    obligations they are all equal: "The believers are brothers (to each
    other)" (49:10). "If they (disbelievers) repent and keep up prayer and
    pay the Ipoor-due, they are your brothers in faith" (9:11). The
    Prophet has said that: "The life and blood of Muslims are equally
    precious" (Abu Dawud; Ibn Majjah). In another hadith he has said:
    "The protection given by all Muslims is equal. Even an ordinary man
    of them can grant protection to any man" (al-Bukhari; Muslim; Abu
    Dawud). In another more detailed Tradition of the Prophet, it has been
    said that those who accept the Oneness of God, believe in the Prophet-
    hood of His Messenger, give up primitive prejudices and join the Muslim
    community and brotherhood, "then they have the same rights and
    obligations as other Muslims have" (al-Bukhari; al-Nisa'i). Thus there is
    absolute equality between the new converts to Islam and the old
    followers of the Faith.

    This religious brotherhood and the uniformity of their rights and
    obligations is the foundation of equality in Islamic society, in which the
    rights and obligations of any person are neither greater nor lesser in any
    way than the rights and obligations of other people. As far as the non-
    Muslim citizens of the Islamic State are concerned, the rule of Islamic
    Shari'ah (law) about them has been very well expressed by the Caliph
    'Ali in these words: "They have accepted our protection only because
    their lives may be like our lives and their properties like our properties"
    (Abu Dawud). In other words, their (of the dhimmis) lives and
    properties are as sacred as the lives and properties of the Muslims.
    Discrimination of people into different classes was one of the greatest
    crimes that, according to the Quran, Pharaoh used to indulge in: "He
    had divided his people into different classes," ... "And he suppressed
    one group of them (at the cost of others)" (28:4).
    13. Rulers Not Above the Law

    Islam clearly insists and demands that all officials of the Islamic
    State, whether he be the head or an ordinary employee, are equal in
    the eyes of the law. None of them is above the law or can claim
    immunity. Even an ordinary citizen in Islam has the right to put
    forward a claim or file a legal complaint against the highest executive of
    the country. The Caliph 'Umar said, "I have myself seen the Prophet,
    may God's blessings be on him, taking revenge against himself
    (penalizing himself for some shortcoming or failing)." On the occasion
    of the Battle of Badr, when the Prophet was straightening the rows of
    the Muslim army he hit the belly of a soldier in an attempt to push him
    back in line. The soldier complained "O Prophet, you have hurt me
    with your stick." The Prophet immediately bared his belly and said: "I
    am very sorry, you can revenge by doing the same to me." The soldier
    came forward and kissed the abdomen of the Prophet and said that this
    was all that he wanted.

    A woman belonging to a high and noble family was arrested in
    connection with a theft. The case was brought to the Prophet, and
    it was recommended that she may be spared the punishment of theft.
    The Prophet replied: "The nations that lived before you were destroyed
    by God because they punished the common men for their offences and
    let their dignitaries go unpunished for their crimes; I swear by Him
    (God) who holds my life in His hand that even if Fatimah, the daughter
    of Muhammad, has committed this crime then I would have amputated
    her hand." During the caliphate of 'Umar, Muhammad the son of 'Amr
    ibn al-'As the Governor of Egypt, whipped an Egyptian. The Egyptian
    went to Medina and lodged his complaint with the Righteous Caliph,
    who immediately summoned the Governor and his son to Medina.
    When they appeared before him in Medina, the Caliph handed a whip to
    the Egyptian complainant and asked him to whip the son of the
    Governor in his presence. After taking his revenge when the Egyptian
    was about to hand over the whip to 'Umar, he said to the Egyptian:
    "Give one stroke of the whip to the Honourable Governor as well. His
    son would certainly have not beaten you were it not for the false pride
    that he had in his father's high office." The plaintiff submitted: "The
    person who had beaten me, I have already avenged myself on him."
    'Umar said: "By God, if you had beaten him (the Governor) I would
    not have checked you from doing so. You have spared him of your own
    free will." Then he ('Umar) angrily turned to 'Amr ibn al-'As and said:
    "O 'Amr, when did you start to enslave the people, though they were
    born free of their mothers?" When the Islamic State was flourishing in
    its pristine glory and splendour, the common people could equally
    lodge complaints against the caliph of the time in the court and the
    caliph had to appear before the qadi to answer the charges. And if the
    caliph had any complaint against any citizen, he could not use his
    administrative powers and authority to set the matter right, but had to
    refer the case to the court of law for proper adjudication.
    14. The Right to Avoid Sin

    Islam also confers this right on every citizen that he will not be
    ordered to commit a sin, a crime or an offence; and if any govern-
    ment, or the administrator, or the head of department orders an
    individual to do a wrong, then he has the right to refuse to comply with
    the order. His refusal to carry out such crime or unjust instructions
    would not be regarded as an offence in the eyes of the Islamic law. On
    the contrary giving orders to one's subordinates to commit a sin or do a
    wrong is itself an offence and such a serious offence that the officer
    who gives this sinful order whatever his rank and position may be, is
    liable to be summarily dismissed. These clear instructions of the Prophet
    are summarized in the following hadith: "It is not permissible to dis-
    obey God in obedience to the orders of any human being" (Musnad of
    Ibn Hanbal). In other words, no one has the right to order his
    subordinates to do anything against the laws of God. If such an order
    is given, the subordinate has the right to ignore it or openly refuse to
    carry out such instructions. According to this rule no offender will be
    able to prove his innocence or escape punishment by saying that this
    offence was committed on the orders of the government or superior
    officers. If such a situation arises then the person who commits the
    offence and the person who orders that such an offence be committed,
    will both be liable to face criminal proceedings against them. And if an
    officer takes any improper and unjust measures against a subordinate
    who refuses to carry out illegal orders, then the subordinate has the
    right to go to the court of law for the protection of his rights, and he
    can demand that the officer be punished for his wrong or unjust orders.
    15. The Right to Participate in the Affairs of State

    According to Islam, governments in this world are actually
    representatives (khulafa') of the Creator of the universe, and this
    responsibility is not entrusted to any individual or family or a particular
    class or group of people but to the entire Muslim nation. The Holy
    Quran says: "God has promised to appoint those of you who believe
    and do good deeds as (His) representatives on earth" (24:55). This
    clearly indicates that khilafah is a collective gift of God in which the
    right of every individual Muslim is neither more nor less than the right
    of any other person. The correct method recommended by the Holy
    Quran for running the affairs of the state is as follows: "And their
    business is (conducted) through consultation among themselves"
    (42:38). According to this principle it is the right of every Muslim that
    either he should have a direct say in the affairs of the state or a
    representative chosen by him and other Muslims should participate in
    the consultation of the state. Islam, under no circumstance, permits or
    tolerates that an individual or a group or party of individuals may
    deprive the common Muslims of their rights, and usurp powers of the
    state. Similarly, Islam does not regard it right and proper that an
    individual may put up a false show of setting up a legislative assembly
    and by means of underhand tactics such as fraud, persecution, bribery,
    etc., gets himself and men of his choice elected in the assembly. This is
    not only a treachery against the people whose rights are usurped by
    illegal and unfair means, but against the Creator Who has entrusted the
    Muslims to rule on this earth on His behalf, and has prescribed the pro-
    cedure of an assembly for exercising these powers. The shura or the
    legislative assembly has no other meaning except that:

    (1) The executive head of the government and the members of the
    assembly should be elected by free and independent choice of the
    people.

    (2) The people and their representatives should have the right to
    criticize and freely express their opinions.
    (3) The real conditions of the country should be brought before
    the people without suppressing any fact so that they may be able to
    form their opinion about whether the government is working properly
    or not.
    (4) There should be adequate guarantee that only those people
    who have the support of the masses should rule over the country and
    those who fail to win this support should be removed from their
    position of authority.


    CIVITATVS CVM AVGVSTVS XVI, MMVI
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites SVB MareNostrum SVB Quintus Maximus
    Want to know more about Rome II Total Realism ? Follow us on Twitter & Facebook

  16. #16
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default

    (a) "You who believe, do not let one (set of) people make fun of
    another set.
    (b) Do not defame one another.
    (c) Do not insult by using nicknames.
    (d) And do not backbite or speak ill of one another" (49:11-12).
    This obviously considers only believers.

    Islam gives its citizens the right to absolute and complete equality
    in the eyes of the law. As far as the Muslims are concerned, there are
    clear instructions in the Holy Quran and hadith that in their rights and
    obligations they are all equal: "The believers are brothers (to each
    other)" (49:10). "If they (disbelievers) repent and keep up prayer and
    pay the Ipoor-due, they are your brothers in faith" (9:11). The
    Prophet has said that: "The life and blood of Muslims are equally
    precious" (Abu Dawud; Ibn Majjah). In another hadith he has said:
    "The protection given by all Muslims is equal. Even an ordinary man
    of them can grant protection to any man" (al-Bukhari; Muslim; Abu
    Dawud). In another more detailed Tradition of the Prophet, it has been
    said that those who accept the Oneness of God, believe in the Prophet-
    hood of His Messenger, give up primitive prejudices and join the Muslim
    community and brotherhood, "then they have the same rights and
    obligations as other Muslims have" (al-Bukhari; al-Nisa'i). Thus there is
    absolute equality between the new converts to Islam and the old
    followers of the Faith.
    False, as the payment of taxes is different for believers and People of the Book, and the relevance of witness is different, and women have less rights than men, People of the Book of Muslims, etc.

    What is reserved to non-muslims, may at best be clemency, not equality.

  17. #17
    AngryTitusPullo's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur
    Posts
    13,018

    Default

    From the RIGHTS OF ENEMIES AT WAR


    After dealing with the rights of the citizens of an Islamic State, I
    would like to briefly discuss the rights which Islam has conferred on its
    enemies. In the days when Islam came into focus the world was
    completely unaware of the concept of humane and decent rules of war.
    The West became conscious of this concept for the first time through
    the works of the seventeenth century thinker, Grotius. But the actual
    codification of the 'international law' in war began in the middle of the
    nineteenth century. Prior to this no concept of civilized behaviour in
    war was found in the West. All forms of barbarity and savagery were
    perpetrated in war, and the rights of those at war were not even
    recognized, let alone respected. The laws which were framed in this
    field during the nineteenth century or over the following period up to
    the present day, cannot be called 'laws' in the real sense of the word.
    They are only in the nature of conventions and agreements and calling
    them 'international law' is actually a kind of misnomer, because no
    nation regards them binding when they are at war, unless, of course,
    when the adversaries also agree to abide by them. In other words, these
    civilized laws imply that if our enemies respect them then we shall also
    abide by them, and if they ignore these human conventions and take
    recourse to barbaric and cruel ways of waging war, then we shall also
    adopt the same or similar techniques. It is obvious that such a course
    which depends on mutual acceptance and agreement cannot be called
    'law'. And this is the reason why the provisions of this so-called 'inter-
    national law' have been flouted and ignored in every way, and every
    time they have been revised, additions or deletions have been made in
    them.
    Law of War and Peace in Islam:

    The rules which have been framed by Islam to make war civilized
    and humane, are in the nature of law, because they are the injunctions
    of God and His Prophet which are followed by Muslims in all circum-
    stances, irrespective of the behaviour of the enemy. It is now for the
    scholars to find out how far the West has availed of the laws of war
    given by Islam thirteen hundred years ago; and even after the adapta-
    tion of some of the laws of Islam how far the West attained those
    heights of civilized and humane methods of warfare which Muslims
    reached through the blessings of Islam. Western writers have often
    asserted that the Prophet had borrowed everything in his teachings
    from the Jews and the Christians. Instead of saying anything in its
    refutation I will only recommend the reader to refer to the Bible6 so
    that he can see which methods of war are recommended by the sacred
    Book of these Western claimants to civilization and culture.

    We have examined in some detail the basic human rights that Islam
    has conferred on man. Let us now find out what rights and obligations
    Islam recognizes for an enemy.
    The Rights of the Non-Combatants:

    Islam has first drawn a clear line of distinction between the
    combatants and the non-combatants of the enemy country. As far as
    the non-combatant population is concerned such as women, children,
    the old and the infirm, etc., the instructions of the Prophet are as
    follows: "Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu
    Dawud). "Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the
    people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).

    During a war, the Prophet saw the corpse of a woman lying on the
    ground and observed: "She was not fighting. How then she came to be
    killed?" From this statement of the Prophet the exegetists and jurists
    have drawn the principle that those who are non-combatants should not
    be killed during or after the war.
    The Rights of the Combatants:

    Now let us see what rights Islam has conferred on the combatants.

    1. Torture with Fire

    In the hadith there is a saying of the Prophet that: "Punishment by
    fire does not behove anyone except the Master of the Fire" (Abu
    Dawud). The injunction deduced from this saying is that the adversary
    should not be burnt alive.
    2. Protection of the Wounded

    "Do not attack a wounded person"-thus said the Prophet. This
    means that the wounded soldiers who are not fit to fight, nor actually
    fighting, should not be attacked.
    3. The Prisoner of War Should not be Slain

    "No prisoner should be put to the sword"-a very clear and
    unequivocal instruction given by the Prophet (S).

    4. No one Should be Tied to be Killed

    "The Prophet has prohibited the killing of anyone who is tied or
    is in captivity."

    5. No Looting and Destruction in the Enemy's Country

    Muslims have also been instructed by the Prophet that if they
    should enter the enemy's territory, they should not indulge in pillage or
    plunder nor destroy the residential areas, nor touch the property of
    anyone except those who are fighting with them. It has been narrated
    in the hadith: "The Prophet has prohibited the believers from loot and
    plunder" (al-Bukhari; Abu Dawud). His injunction is: "The loot is no
    more lawful than the carrion" (Abu Dawud). Abu Bakr al-Siddiq used
    to instruct the soldiers while sending them to war, "Do not destroy the
    villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and
    do not slaughter the cattle." The booty of war which is acquired from
    the battleground is altogether different from this. It consists of the
    wealth, provisions and equipment captured only from the camps and
    military headquarters of the combatant armies.
    6. Sanctity of Property

    The Muslims have also been prohibited from taking anything from
    the general public of a conquered country without paying for it. If in a
    war the Muslim army occupies an area of the enemy country, and is
    encamped there, it does not have the right to use the things belonging
    to the people without their consent. If they need anything, they should
    purchase it from the local population or should obtain permission from
    the owners. Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, while instructing the Muslim armies
    being despatched to the battlefront would go to the extent of saying
    that Muslim soldiers should not even use the milk of the milch cattle
    without the permission of their owners.
    7. Sanctity of a Dead Body

    Islam has categorically prohibited its followers from disgracing or
    mutilating the corpses of their enemies as was practised in Arabia
    before the advent of Islam. It has been said in the hadith: "The Prophet
    has prohibited us from mutilating the corpses of the enemies" (al-
    Bukhari; AbC Dawud). The occasion on which this order was given is
    highly instructive. In the Battle of Uhud the disbelievers mutilated the
    bodies of the Muslims, who had fallen on the battlefield and sacrificed
    their lives for the sake of Islam, by cutting off their ears and noses, and
    threading them together to put round their necks as trophies of war.
    The abdomen of Hamzah, the uncle of the Prophet, was ripped open by
    Quraysh, his liver was taken out and chewed by Hind, the wife of Abu
    Sufyan, the leader of the Meccan army. The Muslims were naturally
    enraged by this horrible sight. But the Prophet asked his followers not
    to mete out similar treatment to the dead bodies of the enemies. This
    great example of forbearance and restraint is sufficient to convince any
    reasonable man who is not blinded by prejudice or bias, that Islam is
    really the religion sent down by the Creator of the universe, and that if
    human emotions had any admission in Islam, then this horrible sight on
    the battlefield of Uhud would have provoked the Prophet to order his
    followers to mutilate the bodies of their enemy in the same manner.

    8. Return of Corpses of the Enemy

    In the Battle of Ahzab a very renowned and redoubtable warrior
    of the enemy was killed and his body fell down in the trench which the
    Muslims had dug for the defence of Medina. The unbelievers presented
    ten thousand dinars to the Prophet and requested that the dead body of
    their fallen warrior may be handed over to them. The Prophet replied
    "I do not sell dead bodies. You can take away the corpse of your fallen
    comrade."

    9. Prohibition of Breach of Treaties

    Islam has strictly prohibited treachery. One of the instructions
    that the Prophet used to give to the Muslim warriors while sending
    them to the battlefront was: "Do not be guilty of breach of faith."
    This order has been repeated in the Holy Quran and the hadith again
    and again, that if the enemy acts treacherously let him do so, you
    should never go back on your promise. There is a famous incident in
    the peace treaty of Hudaybiyyah, when after the settlement of the
    terms of the treaty, Abu Jandal, the son of the emissary of the
    unbelievers who had negotiated this treaty with the Muslims, came,
    fettered and blood-stained, rushing to the Muslim camp and crying for
    help. The Prophet told him "Since the terms of the treaty have been
    settled, we are not in a position to help you out. You should go back
    with your father. God will provide you with some other opportunity to
    escape this persecution." The entire Muslim army was deeply touched
    and grieved at the sad plight of Abu Jandal and many of them were
    moved to tears. But when the Prophet declared that "We cannot break
    the agreement", not even a single person came forward to help the
    unfortunate prisoner, so the unbelievers forcibly dragged him back to
    Makkah. This is an unparalleled example of the observance of the terms
    of agreement by the Muslims, and Islamic history can show many
    examples of a similar nature.
    10. Rules About Declaration of War

    It has been laid down in the Holy Quran: "If you apprehend
    breach of treaty from a people, then openly throw the treaty at their
    faces" (8:58). In this verse, Muslims have been prohibited from opening
    hostilities against their enemies without properly declaring war against
    them, unless of course, the adversary has already started aggression
    against them. Otherwise the Quran has clearly given the injunction to
    Muslims that they should intimate to their enemies that no treaty exists
    between them, and they are at war with them. The present day 'inter-
    national law' has also laid down that hostilities should not be started
    without declaration of war, but since it is a man-made rule, they are
    free to violate it whenever it is convenient. On the other hand, the laws
    for Muslims have been framed by God, hence they cannot be violated.

    Conclusion:

    This is a brief sketch of those rights which fourteen hundred years
    ago Islam gave to man, to those who were at war with each other and to
    the citizens of its state, which every believer regards as sacred as law.
    On the one hand, it refreshes and strengthens our faith in Islam when
    we realize that even in this modern age which makes such loud claims
    of progress and enlightenment, the world has not been able to produce
    juster and more equitable laws than those given 1400 years ago. On the
    other hand it hurts one's feelings that Muslims are in possession of such
    a splendid and comprehensive system of law and yet they look forward
    for guidance to those leaders of the West who could not have dreamed
    of attaining those heights of truth and justice which was achieved a long
    time ago. Even more painful than this is the realization that throughout
    the world the rulers who claim to be Muslims have made disobedience
    to their God and the Prophet as the basis and foundation of their
    government. May God have mercy on them and give them the true
    guidance.
    Since it's past 3.30 am here, I guess I might stop here and go back to my modding.

    Peace & salam . :original:


    CIVITATVS CVM AVGVSTVS XVI, MMVI
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites SVB MareNostrum SVB Quintus Maximus
    Want to know more about Rome II Total Realism ? Follow us on Twitter & Facebook

  18. #18
    Ummon's Avatar Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,146

    Default

    In any case an interesting article, which I suggest people to read. If not for other reasons, to discern what arguments are honest, and what aren't.

    Enjoy your modding.

  19. #19

    Default

    Holy crap, no way am I reading all that, I just woke up.

    I think I know the gist of it anyway..."blah blah blah religion, blah blah blah Allah, blah blah blah B.S." :laughing:


    Seriously, I dont believe any of this stuff...text thats been around for thousands of years is hella unreliable and hella altered. Not to mention that its text based on something wholly unbelievable....so...yeah. Religion is my kryptonite. I pity the fool who reads that and believes what it says, or some of what it says.

    I can write a holy book too, here's page 1, reafy? Ok...


    "Krull the Conquerer was a simple man, a man born of low stock. Krull had been searching for meaning in his lonely existence, finding pleasure in the grisly world of soldiering. One day he came upon a burning lamb, and the lamb said unto him: Lambchops! Lambchops, discount price!"

    The moral of the story is that soldiers who eat burning lamb, will burn their tongue.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RZZZA
    Holy crap, no way am I reading all that, I just woke up.

    I think I know the gist of it anyway..."blah blah blah religion, blah blah blah Allah, blah blah blah B.S." :laughing:


    Seriously, I dont believe any of this stuff...text thats been around for thousands of years is hella unreliable and hella altered. Not to mention that its text based on something wholly unbelievable....so...yeah. Religion is my kryptonite. I pity the fool who reads that and believes what it says, or some of what it says.

    I can write a holy book too, here's page 1, reafy? Ok...


    "Krull the Conquerer was a simple man, a man born of low stock. Krull had been searching for meaning in his lonely existence, finding pleasure in the grisly world of soldiering. One day he came upon a burning lamb, and the lamb said unto him: Lambchops! Lambchops, discount price!"

    The moral of the story is that soldiers who eat burning lamb, will burn their tongue.

    Nevermind
    ON the matter of the dead some luaghed but other said we will see thee on this matter again.
    Member of S.I.T

    Dawm athiests have stolen my potatoes- morol of this story athiest steal potatoes and they suck

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •