All this talk about...

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Anatolian

Groupie

Joined: 12 September 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 67

Posted: 08 October 2007 at 11:36pm

Islamis peace you think I am making up Dar El Harb and Dar el Islam?
Remember I grew up in a majority muslim country and I've heard it my
whole
life. So save me the headache for searching it its an undeniable fact.

The war with the Byzantines began under the Caliphate of the Ummayads
around 633-634. I can sit here and find you sources in every major
historical book but this "tactic" of yours in demanding a certain source
and then refuting it citing western propaganda or whatever it is you claim
it to be, its sensless for me to locate it if you are ready to throw it back at
me and claim it to be a worthless. It first began as conflicts of trade
between the borders which finally resulted in all out war.

As for portraying the Muslim warriors as ferocious and courageous I
would have certain conflicting response to you. The Byzantine states as
well as the Persians had recently drained there military powers in there
wars. The military lines were stretched to the point where cross border
attacks by the Arabs were so common that it was pointless for the
Byzantines to inforce it. You claim that these warriors were the bravest
yet you forget to mention the Battle of Yarmuk where the Muslims were
being driven back and knew that loss was imminent, they sent in Hind bin
Utba, who was the wife of the Meccan chief, along with thousands of
other women straight into the Christian defenses screaming and hollering
to the point where the Byzantines were taken aback and had to draw
because they weren't used to this type of attack. Very courageous and
here i'll add a smiley face to

.

As for Muhammad sending his envoys to the Byzantines and the Persians
inviting them to Islam and if they refuse Allah's messanger they will feel
the might of Islam... Sounds very inviting both parties reacted Chosros
ripped apart the letter and Heraclius didnt even bother.

Before I answer your questions answer this for me:

1) Is it right to convert churches into mosques such as St. John's Church
in Damascus (Mar Yuhanna)? or Hagia Sofya in Constantinople?

I just want to see where you stand on this certain point.

Anatolian

Groupie

Joined: 12 September 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 67

Posted: 08 October 2007 at 11:58pm

Angela,

I completely agree regarding Ghandi. Right place, right time, right man.
He had geopolitical advantages yet his road wasnt as easy one and
actually took him close to 30 years in order to make his vision complete
(other then Pakistan of course). He could have used a much forcefull
stance yet chose pacifism.

As for the Crusades, you people act as if the Holy Land had always been
at the hands of the Muslims when in reality it was first attacked by Muslim
invaders AND then Europe sent in to recapture. If you want to use that
mentality where Muslims have a right to defend themselves so do the
Christians.

Yes I always read this Surah 5:32 here yet you fail to point out Surah 5:51
"O ye who believe, take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and
protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he
amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a
people injust."

Or this one: Surah 9:29

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last days...Nor acknowledge
the religion of truth even if they are People of the Book (Christians and
Jews), until they pay the Jizya (tax) with willing submission and feel
themselves subdued".

Now what will you say to this. It's not the right translation or it was
changed by one who hates Islam. No excuses need apply thank you in
advance...

Also Angela, save me your "I'm a Christian" routine I'm not buying it. You
can go ahead and say just because I am one doesnt mean I have to agree
with everything Anatolian says. I don't expect you to agree with me or
anybody else but what I do notice is a constant one sided argument from
your end ignoring the other historical facts that make up the course of
this clash of civilizations.

minuteman

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 March 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1642

Posted: 09 October 2007 at 2:39am

Anatolian is wrong. That is about history. The Muslims were very few and very weak. The Persians were powerful and had beaten the Romans initially in that time. King of persia took Shirin (christian lady) as a prize of victory.

The initial verses of chapter 30 (Sura Rum) were revealed. The Pagans of Arabia had friendly feelings with the persian pagans (fire worshippers). These Arabian Pagans were celebrating the victory of the Persians over the Romans (christians). Allah revealed to the prophet s.a.w.s. that even though the Romans have been subdued in the land, they will soon (within 1 to 9 years) regain their power and will be victorius over the Persians. Any one can see this prophesy in the Quran. It is also written in that prophesy that at time the Muslims will celebrate that victory with another victory. (i.e. the gaining control over Makkah). Both these events will coincide.

So the Muslim believers will have double happiness.

It happened like that. The Romans and Persians had a fight (war) and the Persians were badly beaten by the Romans. So, please understand that the Romans were more powerful than the Persians and the persians were the weaker party... Continued... in next post.

minuteman

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 March 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1642

Posted: 09 October 2007 at 3:11am

Part2. When the prophet s.a.w.s. (as described by Islampeace) wrote letters to the various kings in the area inviting them to peace i.e. Islam, they replied differently. That was before Makkah was liberated. Some kings replied in good manner, even they sent back gifts for the prophet. Some replied harshly (specially the king of Persia tore the letter of the prophet). I have to mention this important thing because it is another prophesy. The prophet s.a.w.s. said that the kingdom of Persia will be torn into pieces the way the persian king has torn my letter.

That is exactly what happened after about 15 years during the time of Khalifah Umar r.a. It is the special honor and duty of the prophets to prophesise. If what he foretold come true then he is a true prophet of God. If it does not come true then he is a false prophet (See OT Bible Deut. 18:20).

When the Muslims had some victories, the nearby powers became careful and even tried to attack the newly formed state of Islam at Madinah. Anatolian should bear in mind that this newly formed state was very weak and had just had a little rest from the pagan wars etc. They were in no position to go and attack any one. They had no means to do that. But they had the spirit and new message of peace from God with them. They were told to convey that message of peace very peacefully to other nations of the world.

Even before they could do that, one of the christian lords gathered a large force to attack the Muslims. For that, the prophet himself had to lead a force of Muslims to repel the expected aggression, in a very hot weather, at a far away border. The Muslim army went there and was ready to fight the enemy but the enemy did not advance or attack. So the prophet had to come back to Madinah without a war.

Anatolian should take notes please, of the aggressive behaviour of the neighboring chrisrian power. The war was being imposed upon the Muslims. Anatolian should leave the interpretation of the verses of the Quran to the Muslims please. WE see those verses applicable in that time and that situation only.

Later, it was peaceful and there were inter-trade missions. Unarmed Muslims were preaching the message of peace in the christian country and the people there killed the preachers. Why?? Was it because the church was the owner of the minds of the people there?? It is proved that there was no liberty and no freedom of thought. The christian high ups there were the enemy of mankind.

That made the Caliph attack that country. That is how the wars started. Now here is another point, a miracle. Just see the Muslims without any war material and trained organised experienced army. They had to fight the stronger of the two enemies, i.e. the Romans on the western front, not the weaker of the two on the eastern side.

So when the Muslim army routed the organised Roman army, the Persians must have been surprised and could have seen their own fate in jeopardy in the near future.

It is a false blame on the Muslims that they picked a fight first. That is wrong. Of course there is no harm in peaceful preaching and that is what they did. But the Romans and persians did not like it. All these matters had been fortold in the bible OT too. The prophesies of the victory of the Arabs are mentioned in the OT.

Peace. Salaam.

Hayfa

Senior Member
Senior Member

Female
Joined: 07 June 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2368

Posted: 09 October 2007 at 3:51am

If you want to discuss why Islam is or is not you need to go to the Quran and Hadiths.

The actions of various people are not Islam. Going on about this and that of people who did this or that throughout history. Humans are imperfect, God is not.

You asked why Islam discusses captives etc. People told you why. Cause there are bad people and they do bad things and people have a right to self-defense and an obligation to defend the poor.

If you see that this is true, and then we are given guidelines as to how to behave in this situation. Don't you think that it is good to help give guidelines?

If someone makes war on you, you can defend yourself. Otherwise you should live with them in peace. If you do not then you will answer to Allah on the Day of Judgement. If you create war, and hurt others without just cause well then.

I was reading a book on a seriel killer. He was a very good Church going guy. Went to Church, had family and tortured and murdered around a dozen people. And what is he said was that in Lutheran church, or his church particularly, they don't believe your actions mean anything, as long as you beleive in Jesus Christ as your savior. You are forgiven for your sins..

Of course in Islam that is not the case...so the rules for war, captives, etc are very helpful if you are held accountable for all of your actions. makes sense to me

When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi

peacemaker View Drop Down

Moderator Group

Male
Joined: 29 December 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3057

Posted: 09 October 2007 at 10:58am

Angela: I wanted to reply to your PM, but couldn't. It seems you have reached the maximum limit of inbox messages, so any further incoming message is being bounced.

Another thing is that you frequently take part here in Islam for non-Muslim section to reply matters related to Islam. While your sincerity is not doubted, the fact remains that you are a non-Muslim, and therefore, please don�t respond here. If you have a question, please ask here by starting a thread. But, once a non-Muslim has asked a question, please let Muslims respond. The problem is that if you are allowed to answer here, other non-Muslims too should be allowed because rules are for everyone. I hope you won�t mind.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7684& ;PN=1

Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13

Angela

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2555

Posted: 09 October 2007 at 2:44pm

Sorry... perhaps I just won't respond anywhere. I've been here 2 years and over 2000 posts.

Driving isn't an ISLAMIC ONLY issue and neither is WAR.

I hate seeing people ignore the history of my people (The Christians) and use history to bash your people.

And I'm not arguing one sided Anatolian, its you who refuses to see the secular forces at work in the middle east and the religious forces of mideval europe and the modern neo-conservative right.

islamispeace View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187

Posted: 09 October 2007 at 3:10pm

Brother peacemaker,

I see no problem in allowing Angela to post here. She may not be Muslim, but she does defend Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and that is something every Muslim should appreciate and respect. There is no reason why she should be prohibited from posting in this section or any other section. If she makes a mistake with regard to Islamic teachings, we can always correct her. There is no need to prohibit her from posting.

Anatolian, I will respond to your weak arguments as soon as I can. Probably in a couple of hours. See you then!

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Anatolian Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Groupie Joined: 12 September 2007 Status: Offline Points: 67	Posted: 08 October 2007 at 11:36pm
	Islamis peace you think I am making up Dar El Harb and Dar el Islam? Remember I grew up in a majority muslim country and I've heard it my whole life. So save me the headache for searching it its an undeniable fact. The war with the Byzantines began under the Caliphate of the Ummayads around 633-634. I can sit here and find you sources in every major historical book but this "tactic" of yours in demanding a certain source and then refuting it citing western propaganda or whatever it is you claim it to be, its sensless for me to locate it if you are ready to throw it back at me and claim it to be a worthless. It first began as conflicts of trade between the borders which finally resulted in all out war. As for portraying the Muslim warriors as ferocious and courageous I would have certain conflicting response to you. The Byzantine states as well as the Persians had recently drained there military powers in there wars. The military lines were stretched to the point where cross border attacks by the Arabs were so common that it was pointless for the Byzantines to inforce it. You claim that these warriors were the bravest yet you forget to mention the Battle of Yarmuk where the Muslims were being driven back and knew that loss was imminent, they sent in Hind bin Utba, who was the wife of the Meccan chief, along with thousands of other women straight into the Christian defenses screaming and hollering to the point where the Byzantines were taken aback and had to draw because they weren't used to this type of attack. Very courageous and here i'll add a smiley face to . As for Muhammad sending his envoys to the Byzantines and the Persians inviting them to Islam and if they refuse Allah's messanger they will feel the might of Islam... Sounds very inviting both parties reacted Chosros ripped apart the letter and Heraclius didnt even bother. Before I answer your questions answer this for me: 1) Is it right to convert churches into mosques such as St. John's Church in Damascus (Mar Yuhanna)? or Hagia Sofya in Constantinople? I just want to see where you stand on this certain point.

Anatolian Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Groupie Joined: 12 September 2007 Status: Offline Points: 67	Posted: 08 October 2007 at 11:58pm
	Angela, I completely agree regarding Ghandi. Right place, right time, right man. He had geopolitical advantages yet his road wasnt as easy one and actually took him close to 30 years in order to make his vision complete (other then Pakistan of course). He could have used a much forcefull stance yet chose pacifism. As for the Crusades, you people act as if the Holy Land had always been at the hands of the Muslims when in reality it was first attacked by Muslim invaders AND then Europe sent in to recapture. If you want to use that mentality where Muslims have a right to defend themselves so do the Christians. Yes I always read this Surah 5:32 here yet you fail to point out Surah 5:51 "O ye who believe, take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people injust." Or this one: Surah 9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last days...Nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya (tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued". Now what will you say to this. It's not the right translation or it was changed by one who hates Islam. No excuses need apply thank you in advance... Also Angela, save me your "I'm a Christian" routine I'm not buying it. You can go ahead and say just because I am one doesnt mean I have to agree with everything Anatolian says. I don't expect you to agree with me or anybody else but what I do notice is a constant one sided argument from your end ignoring the other historical facts that make up the course of this clash of civilizations.

minuteman Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 25 March 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1642	Posted: 09 October 2007 at 2:39am
	Anatolian is wrong. That is about history. The Muslims were very few and very weak. The Persians were powerful and had beaten the Romans initially in that time. King of persia took Shirin (christian lady) as a prize of victory. The initial verses of chapter 30 (Sura Rum) were revealed. The Pagans of Arabia had friendly feelings with the persian pagans (fire worshippers). These Arabian Pagans were celebrating the victory of the Persians over the Romans (christians). Allah revealed to the prophet s.a.w.s. that even though the Romans have been subdued in the land, they will soon (within 1 to 9 years) regain their power and will be victorius over the Persians. Any one can see this prophesy in the Quran. It is also written in that prophesy that at time the Muslims will celebrate that victory with another victory. (i.e. the gaining control over Makkah). Both these events will coincide. So the Muslim believers will have double happiness. It happened like that. The Romans and Persians had a fight (war) and the Persians were badly beaten by the Romans. So, please understand that the Romans were more powerful than the Persians and the persians were the weaker party... Continued... in next post.

minuteman Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 25 March 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1642	Posted: 09 October 2007 at 3:11am
	Part2. When the prophet s.a.w.s. (as described by Islampeace) wrote letters to the various kings in the area inviting them to peace i.e. Islam, they replied differently. That was before Makkah was liberated. Some kings replied in good manner, even they sent back gifts for the prophet. Some replied harshly (specially the king of Persia tore the letter of the prophet). I have to mention this important thing because it is another prophesy. The prophet s.a.w.s. said that the kingdom of Persia will be torn into pieces the way the persian king has torn my letter. That is exactly what happened after about 15 years during the time of Khalifah Umar r.a. It is the special honor and duty of the prophets to prophesise. If what he foretold come true then he is a true prophet of God. If it does not come true then he is a false prophet (See OT Bible Deut. 18:20). When the Muslims had some victories, the nearby powers became careful and even tried to attack the newly formed state of Islam at Madinah. Anatolian should bear in mind that this newly formed state was very weak and had just had a little rest from the pagan wars etc. They were in no position to go and attack any one. They had no means to do that. But they had the spirit and new message of peace from God with them. They were told to convey that message of peace very peacefully to other nations of the world. Even before they could do that, one of the christian lords gathered a large force to attack the Muslims. For that, the prophet himself had to lead a force of Muslims to repel the expected aggression, in a very hot weather, at a far away border. The Muslim army went there and was ready to fight the enemy but the enemy did not advance or attack. So the prophet had to come back to Madinah without a war. Anatolian should take notes please, of the aggressive behaviour of the neighboring chrisrian power. The war was being imposed upon the Muslims. Anatolian should leave the interpretation of the verses of the Quran to the Muslims please. WE see those verses applicable in that time and that situation only. Later, it was peaceful and there were inter-trade missions. Unarmed Muslims were preaching the message of peace in the christian country and the people there killed the preachers. Why?? Was it because the church was the owner of the minds of the people there?? It is proved that there was no liberty and no freedom of thought. The christian high ups there were the enemy of mankind. That made the Caliph attack that country. That is how the wars started. Now here is another point, a miracle. Just see the Muslims without any war material and trained organised experienced army. They had to fight the stronger of the two enemies, i.e. the Romans on the western front, not the weaker of the two on the eastern side. So when the Muslim army routed the organised Roman army, the Persians must have been surprised and could have seen their own fate in jeopardy in the near future. It is a false blame on the Muslims that they picked a fight first. That is wrong. Of course there is no harm in peaceful preaching and that is what they did. But the Romans and persians did not like it. All these matters had been fortold in the bible OT too. The prophesies of the victory of the Arabs are mentioned in the OT. Peace. Salaam.

Hayfa Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Female Joined: 07 June 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2368	Posted: 09 October 2007 at 3:51am
	If you want to discuss why Islam is or is not you need to go to the Quran and Hadiths. The actions of various people are not Islam. Going on about this and that of people who did this or that throughout history. Humans are imperfect, God is not. You asked why Islam discusses captives etc. People told you why. Cause there are bad people and they do bad things and people have a right to self-defense and an obligation to defend the poor. If you see that this is true, and then we are given guidelines as to how to behave in this situation. Don't you think that it is good to help give guidelines? If someone makes war on you, you can defend yourself. Otherwise you should live with them in peace. If you do not then you will answer to Allah on the Day of Judgement. If you create war, and hurt others without just cause well then. I was reading a book on a seriel killer. He was a very good Church going guy. Went to Church, had family and tortured and murdered around a dozen people. And what is he said was that in Lutheran church, or his church particularly, they don't believe your actions mean anything, as long as you beleive in Jesus Christ as your savior. You are forgiven for your sins.. Of course in Islam that is not the case...so the rules for war, captives, etc are very helpful if you are held accountable for all of your actions. makes sense to me
	When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi

peacemaker Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Moderator Group Male Joined: 29 December 2005 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3057	Posted: 09 October 2007 at 10:58am
	Angela: I wanted to reply to your PM, but couldn't. It seems you have reached the maximum limit of inbox messages, so any further incoming message is being bounced. Another thing is that you frequently take part here in Islam for non-Muslim section to reply matters related to Islam. While your sincerity is not doubted, the fact remains that you are a non-Muslim, and therefore, please don�t respond here. If you have a question, please ask here by starting a thread. But, once a non-Muslim has asked a question, please let Muslims respond. The problem is that if you are allowed to answer here, other non-Muslims too should be allowed because rules are for everyone. I hope you won�t mind. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7684& ;PN=1
	Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Qur'an 55:13

Angela Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 11 July 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2555	Posted: 09 October 2007 at 2:44pm
	Sorry... perhaps I just won't respond anywhere. I've been here 2 years and over 2000 posts. Driving isn't an ISLAMIC ONLY issue and neither is WAR. I hate seeing people ignore the history of my people (The Christians) and use history to bash your people. And I'm not arguing one sided Anatolian, its you who refuses to see the secular forces at work in the middle east and the religious forces of mideval europe and the modern neo-conservative right.

islamispeace Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 01 November 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2187	Posted: 09 October 2007 at 3:10pm
	Brother peacemaker, I see no problem in allowing Angela to post here. She may not be Muslim, but she does defend Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and that is something every Muslim should appreciate and respect. There is no reason why she should be prohibited from posting in this section or any other section. If she makes a mistake with regard to Islamic teachings, we can always correct her. There is no need to prohibit her from posting. Anatolian, I will respond to your weak arguments as soon as I can. Probably in a couple of hours. See you then!
	Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)