Pretty sure. And it’s one of the reasons beheading is such a prevalent punishment to this day in Islamic countries and throughout extremist groups.
“Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom 'til the war lay down its burdens. (47:4)”
I realize battle and murder are two different things but the specific call to kill for not believing as the reason seems a lot like murder to me. Without playing semantics very hard.
Yes and Netanyahou murdering its children and civilians in cold bold. Strategically bombing hospitals and residential areas , setting up check points , prevent travel. Backed by people who should and do know better. Assasinating journalists and entire families’ bloodlines .
Plus why should the population pay for corrupt politicians. That’s collective punishment.
I had interpreted the way he phrased his question to be seeking confirmation that Muhammad (saw) was doing that, but he did phrase it oddly and I wasn’t sure
By the way, the way you phrased it was different. Muhammad (saw) did give people that option at times after they had been defeated in battle. Beats killing them. I call that a guidance and a mercy, others can disagree. It does fall within the language you used. Didn’t seem to for the language he used earlier.
Highlighted further down. Sadly it’s not explicit in most constitutions. But as a party to the charters , agreement. Basic rights are recognised by those countries. So yes if you are American, your country recognised these rights. That’s partly why many countries have a welfare state especially in the Western World.
I thought they used trains. Are you thinking of the Japanese?
Source? Do you know what happened during the Blitz? Why would Germans warn about bombings when the British had the ability to use their fighters to shoot down bombers?
So he killed them if they didn’t convert then? I’m not seeing the disconnect.
For context, the “battles” they were in were kicked off by Muhammad attacking them for not being part his movement to begin with, yes?
So attack people for not being Muslim, kill them for not converting should they lose the battle but its mercy that he offered religious conversion…… or death instead of just death?
Are playing dumb and gaslighting related to taqiya?
They were living under Ottoman rule. The British took the land from the Ottomans and were within their rights to divide it however they pleased. Giving the Palestinians part of it to be their own free state was more than the Ottomans gave them. Let me ask you, who did the Palestinians uproot (as in massacre) to be there in the first place? They are the descendants of colonizers.
Oooh… My brother has a pair of McIntosh M30 amps that are so sweet sounding. And the old man was pretty slick with the sliderule too. I used to play with one, but that was when I was a toddler. No understanding of it at all.
Absolutely. I’m just trying to understand how picking a fight with nonbelievers over their non belief and then killing them for not converting isn’t murdering them over their non belief in the “prophet”. He makes it sound like “battle” was some illustrious crusade struggle between two willing ideologies, not a flat out attack on innocent people coerced in to conversion.
When the concentration camps were about to liberated, the Nazi took the prisoners on death marches. It is very well documented.
No warning for the Dresden bombings. Another war crime to be honest.
Cannot remember the source but leafletting was common before a lot of Nazi bombing. German TV cannot remember the source.
Not sure about the validity of rights to land by conquest. Ideally it should be mutual agreement. They had agreements but Israel have torn them up in other areas by new settlements and moving out Palestinians.
It is not an assumption, you are party to the UN convention on Human rights. The USA could choose not to be.
It chooses to be governed by international law.
