Jihad In the Hadith

[quote]will to power wrote:
Sifu wrote:

Stoning of the Devil or stoning of the jamarat (Arabic: ramy al-jamar�?t) is part of the annual Islamic Hajj pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

Ah, I didn’t realise that. However, it’s meant to represent the struggle with your own internal demons.[/quote]

Yes, but this still doesn’t make stoning one of the five pillars of Islam. This is a ridiculous - and disingenuous -claim which no muslim or scholar, of any persuasion, would support.

Sacrifice is an important element of hajj - but nobody then goes on to call it one of the five pillars. Drinking from the well is a feature of hajj but is it one of the five pillars of Islam? Of course not…

The five pillars of Islam are the essentials of the religion. And now, we are trying to make punishment - and a specific mode at that - one of those ‘essentials’???

Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Koran…right?

What do they quote him as saying? “I was lying about the stoning thing?”

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

And that is true, he did take a stand against stoning. I’ll just go ahead and concede the whole old v new testament thing. So I suppose Christians will stop bashing gays now, right? Thats old testament garbage… nothing to do with Christ…

This is the ultimate in your display of ignorance. I thought I told you to sit down and shut up. You ignore my advice, and prove your own bigotry.

At some point in your worthless life, you will listen to me. [/quote]

You know, at some point your going to have to actually explain your insults.

Christians bash gays all the time. Are you telling me they aren’t “real” Christians?

Because that sounds an awful lot like the arguments Lixy makes about extremist Muslims not following Islam as they should.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

He was a threat to the power of the old Rabbis. Simple as that.

And that is true, he did take a stand against stoning. I’ll just go ahead and concede the whole old v new testament thing. So I suppose Christians will stop bashing gays now, right? Thats old testament garbage… nothing to do with Christ…

Stoning… part of the five pillars… you’ve lost me.

And for the record, all of my info of the Muslim views of Mohamed are coming from my Muslim friends/classmates (of whom I have 7). The Persian view of him is different than the Egyptian view which is different from the Pakistani view which is different from the Indian view, but they ALL agree he was just a man who heard the voice of God. And they ALL agree that the point of Islam is NOT to emulate Mohamed. [/quote]

You’re all over the map here. The Persian vs. Egyptian view of Islam is the difference of Shia vs. Sunni. About 85% of the Muslims are Sunni. You will find no Sunni (especially an Egyptian), that will say that the rulings of Al Azhar University are not authoritative in Sunni Islam. Islam itself claims that Mohammed is to be emulated. He is the uswa hasana. If individual Muslims claim otherwise, i.e. that he is NOT to be emulated, it begs the question, “According to who?” If according to your friends, Mohammed is not to be emulated, then they are the ultimate authorities of faith and practice, and not the Qur’an and Sunnah, and neither the rulings of the different juridical traditions. They are essentially a religion unto themselves and are living according to the dictates of their own consciences. But if they claim to be following the word of their god, why not obey mohammed? Their consciences and their desire to remain Muslims are then in conflict. They are living conflicted lives. Either their conscience is correct, and Mohammed did a lot of bad things and is not to be emulated (in which case, why trust the revelation he gave from Allah), or he is the ‘uswa hasana’ and a man of noble character to be emulated. Those are their choices.

If they do decide to side with their conscience, as many do, then they must then ask themselves why their conscience was more authoritative than the Qur’an and Sunnah. Everyone has a conscience, does everyone just do whatever they feel like according to their own conscience, or is their an absolute morality to be found? If the latter, where is it written down that they might read it? Happily, we have the example of Jesus, who kept the entire Law of God, and who sets a perfect example of faith and practice. His statements never changed to fit is political and military strength at a particular time: He had neither.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
=Beowolf wrote:

And that is true, he did take a stand against stoning. I’ll just go ahead and concede the whole old v new testament thing. So I suppose Christians will stop bashing gays now, right? Thats old testament garbage… nothing to do with Christ…

This is the ultimate in your display of ignorance. I thought I told you to sit down and shut up. You ignore my advice, and prove your own bigotry.

At some point in your worthless life, you will listen to me.

You know, at some point your going to have to actually explain your insults.

Christians bash gays all the time. Are you telling me they aren’t “real” Christians?

Because that sounds an awful lot like the arguments Lixy makes about extremist Muslims not following Islam as they should.[/quote]

You can start a thread that asks questions about the New Testament understanding of Israel and its moral and civil laws. I’d be happy to answer your questions. Christianity has nothing logically to do with Islam. One can discuss one without discussing the other.

The issue isn’t one of the orthopraxy of adherents of either faith, but of orthodoxy. What do the source documents of both faiths teach? Does Jesus command to “love your neighbor as yourself” mean everyone but gays? Does Mohammed’s command,

mean what it says, or something else? That is the question.

PRCalDude,

Are those Muhammad’s words, or are they Allah’s?

Kill them all, but hey, I’m merciful.

Sounds a tad like the amoral God of the Old Testament to me.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
PRCalDude,

Are those Muhammad’s words, or are they Allah’s?

Kill them all, but hey, I’m merciful.

Sounds a tad like the amoral God of the Old Testament to me. [/quote]

http://www.islamicvoice.com/november.2000/religion.htm

The guy’s pretty funny too:

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
PRCalDude,

Are those Muhammad’s words, or are they Allah’s?

Kill them all, but hey, I’m merciful.

Sounds a tad like the amoral God of the Old Testament to me.

http://www.islamicvoice.com/november.2000/religion.htm

The guy’s pretty funny too:

Quoting verses out of context - Reply to allegations - YouTube [/quote]

This interpretation of Islam which will allow for Muslims to coexist peacefully with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis, without implementing any endeavor to impose Sharia, continues to be the great unicorn Lixy rants about ad naseam, but no one has actually seen.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
PRCalDude,

Are those Muhammad’s words, or are they Allah’s?

Kill them all, but hey, I’m merciful.

Sounds a tad like the amoral God of the Old Testament to me.

http://www.islamicvoice.com/november.2000/religion.htm

The guy’s pretty funny too:

This interpretation of Islam which will allow for Muslims to coexist peacefully with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis, without implementing any endeavor to impose Sharia, continues to be the great unicorn Lixy rants about ad naseam, but no one has actually seen.[/quote]

Except in the old Islamic empires. Oh, and it exists to all of us with Muslim friends as well. And considering Lixy hasn’t tried to implement sharia law on T-Nation, I think it exists here too.

Which old Islamic empire do you speak about? The one who waged war against the Africans, the Turks, the Asians, or the Indians?

There was no “great” peaceful Islamic Empire. Their history was one of constant warfare among one another and against outsiders.

Much like the history of ALL people everywhere.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
PRCalDude,

Are those Muhammad’s words, or are they Allah’s?

Kill them all, but hey, I’m merciful.

Sounds a tad like the amoral God of the Old Testament to me. [/quote]

I’m more than willing to discuss the Old Testament. The God of the Old is the same as that of the New. I think it should be a separate thread though. There were definitely commands to drive out or wipe out Canaanites. No question.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
PRCalDude,

Are those Muhammad’s words, or are they Allah’s?

Kill them all, but hey, I’m merciful.

Sounds a tad like the amoral God of the Old Testament to me.

http://www.islamicvoice.com/november.2000/religion.htm

The guy’s pretty funny too:

This interpretation of Islam which will allow for Muslims to coexist peacefully with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis, without implementing any endeavor to impose Sharia, continues to be the great unicorn Lixy rants about ad naseam, but no one has actually seen.

Except in the old Islamic empires. Oh, and it exists to all of us with Muslim friends as well. And considering Lixy hasn’t tried to implement sharia law on T-Nation, I think it exists here too.[/quote]

I’m sure that there was a day when folks in Britain swallowed that peaceful co-existence platitude hook line and sinker. I’d wager to say they feel different now.

Such a peaceful lot.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Which old Islamic empire do you speak about? The one who waged war against the Africans, the Turks, the Asians, or the Indians?

There was no “great” peaceful Islamic Empire. Their history was one of constant warfare among one another and against outsiders.

Much like the history of ALL people everywhere.[/quote]

Did I say peaceful? Nope.

Tolerant. They let Jews and Christians practice their religions without persecution other than a tax (to make up for the alms Muslims are required to pay anyway).

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
PRCalDude,

Are those Muhammad’s words, or are they Allah’s?

Kill them all, but hey, I’m merciful.

Sounds a tad like the amoral God of the Old Testament to me.

http://www.islamicvoice.com/november.2000/religion.htm

The guy’s pretty funny too:

This interpretation of Islam which will allow for Muslims to coexist peacefully with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis, without implementing any endeavor to impose Sharia, continues to be the great unicorn Lixy rants about ad naseam, but no one has actually seen.

Except in the old Islamic empires. Oh, and it exists to all of us with Muslim friends as well. And considering Lixy hasn’t tried to implement sharia law on T-Nation, I think it exists here too.

I’m sure that there was a day when folks in Britain swallowed that peaceful co-existence platitude hook line and sinker. I’d wager to say they feel different now.

Such a peaceful lot. [/quote]

�??The behaviour of some Muslims is failing miserably to meet these commands.�??

About 50 activists held the meeting in the same town where terrorist Parviz Khan, 36, plotted to behead a British soldier.

50… such a huge number. How many Muslims live in GB again?

These guys are the equivalent to the super-crazy born-agains in the US. In that they exist, but they’ll probably never get as much steam as everyone is afraid of.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Which old Islamic empire do you speak about? The one who waged war against the Africans, the Turks, the Asians, or the Indians?

There was no “great” peaceful Islamic Empire. Their history was one of constant warfare among one another and against outsiders.

Much like the history of ALL people everywhere.

Did I say peaceful? Nope.

Tolerant. They let Jews and Christians practice their religions without persecution other than a tax (to make up for the alms Muslims are required to pay anyway).[/quote]

This is not true. Their were many other requirements to their dhimma as well, but the poll tax Jews and Christians had to pay was much higher than the 2.5% zakat the Muslims paid:

[quote]Islam’s persecution of non-Muslims is in no way limited to jihad, even though that is the basic relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world. After the jihad concludes in a given area with the conquest of infidel territory, the dhimma, or treaty of protection, may be granted to the conquered “People of the Book” – historically, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. The dhimma provides that the life and property of the infidel are exempted from jihad for as long as the Muslim rulers permit, which has generally meant for as long as the subject non-Muslims – the dhimmi – prove economically useful to the Islamic state. The Quran spells out the payment of the jizya (poll- or head-tax; Sura 9:29), which is the most conspicuous means by which the Muslim overlords exploit the dhimmi. But the jizya is not merely economic in its function; it exists also to humiliate the dhimmi and impress on him the superiority of Islam. Al-Maghili, a fifteenth century Muslim theologian, explains:

" On the day of payment {of the jizya} they {the dhimmi} shall be assembled in a public place like the suq {place of commerce}. They should be standing there waiting in the lowest and dirtiest place. The acting officials representing the Law shall be placed above them and shall adopt a threatening attitude so that it seems to them, as well as to others, that our object is to degrade them by pretending to take their possessions. They will realize that we are doing them a favor in accepting from them the jizya and letting them go free. (Al-Maghili, quoted in Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, 361.)"

Islamic law codifies various other restrictions on the dhimmi, all of which derive from the Quran and the Sunnah. Several hundred years of Islamic thought on the right treatment of dhimmi peoples is summed up by Al-Damanhuri, a seventeenth century head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most prestigious center for learning in the Muslim world:

"�?� just as the dhimmis are prohibited from building churches, other things also are prohibited to them. They must not assist an unbeliever against a Muslim �?� raise the cross in an Islamic assemblage �?� display banners on their own holidays; bear arms �?� or keep them in their homes. Should they do anything of the sort, they must be punished, and the arms seized. �?� The Companions [of the Prophet] agreed upon these points in order to demonstrate the abasement of the infidel and to protect the weak believer's faith. For if he sees them humbled, he will not be inclined toward their belief, which is not true if he sees them in power, pride, or luxury garb, as all this urges him to esteem them and incline toward them, in view of his own distress and poverty. Yet esteem for the unbeliever is unbelief. (Al-Damanhuri, quoted in Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, 382.)"

The Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian peoples of the Middle East, North Africa, and much of Europe suffered under the oppressive strictures of the dhimma for centuries. The status of these dhimmi peoples is comparable in many ways to that of former slaves in the post-bellum American South. Forbidden to construct houses of worship or repair extant ones, economically crippled by the jizya, socially humiliated, legally discriminated against, and generally kept in a permanent state of weakness and vulnerability by the Muslim overlords, it should not be surprising that their numbers dwindled, in many places to the point of extinction. The generally misunderstood decline of Islamic civilization over the past several centuries is easily explained by the demographic decline of the dhimmi populations, which had provided the principle engines of technical and administrative competence.

Should the dhimmi violate the conditions of the dhimma – perhaps through practicing his own religion indiscreetly or failing to show adequate deference to a Muslim – then the jihad resumes. At various times in Islamic history, dhimmi peoples rose above their subjected status, and this was often the occasion for violent reprisals by Muslim populations who believed them to have violated the terms of the dhimma. Medieval Andalusia (Moorish Spain) is often pointed out by Muslim apologists as a kind of multicultural wonderland, in which Jews and Christians were permitted by the Islamic government to rise through the ranks of learning and government administration. What we are not told, however, is that this relaxation of the disabilities resulted in widespread rioting on the part of the Muslim populace that killed hundreds of dhimmis, mainly Jews. By refusing to convert to Islam and straying from the traditional constraints of the dhimma (even at the behest of the Islamic government, which was in need of capable manpower), the dhimmi had implicitly chosen the only other option permitted by the Quran: death.[/quote]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
PRCalDude,

Are those Muhammad’s words, or are they Allah’s?

Kill them all, but hey, I’m merciful.

Sounds a tad like the amoral God of the Old Testament to me.

http://www.islamicvoice.com/november.2000/religion.htm

The guy’s pretty funny too:

This interpretation of Islam which will allow for Muslims to coexist peacefully with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis, without implementing any endeavor to impose Sharia, continues to be the great unicorn Lixy rants about ad naseam, but no one has actually seen.

Except in the old Islamic empires. Oh, and it exists to all of us with Muslim friends as well. And considering Lixy hasn’t tried to implement sharia law on T-Nation, I think it exists here too.

I’m sure that there was a day when folks in Britain swallowed that peaceful co-existence platitude hook line and sinker. I’d wager to say they feel different now.

Such a peaceful lot.

â¿¿The behaviour of some Muslims is failing miserably to meet these commands.â¿¿

About 50 activists held the meeting in the same town where terrorist Parviz Khan, 36, plotted to behead a British soldier.

50… such a huge number. How many Muslims live in GB again?

These guys are the equivalent to the super-crazy born-agains in the US. In that they exist, but they’ll probably never get as much steam as everyone is afraid of.
[/quote]

Your argument would play great with the victims of the London train and bus bombings. “Just a few of them,”. Sadly, your analogy comparing them to the ass hat religious zealots falls a bit short. The trend is not positive. Almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror.

Denial is not a strategy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml