why muslims fast the islamic way?, and how their fasting services the human Good?

[cleese]

This is Stone Age behavior. It is inexcusable. Nothing the Jews, Christians and Muslims have accomplished in the name of good is good enough to atone for these evils.The Muslim community is just as violent and aggressive. "

Fraggle Rocker:
sir,
again , it seems that you have never studied the religions you are talking about. just scratched the surface. if you like to keep that way, its up to you then.
sir , what you have not understood of what i said, is that you must distinguish between the teachings of a holy book of a nation, and the actual behavior of that nation. then i indicated how the most dangerous thing about judaism, is that making aggressions and bloody campaigns, breaching treaites ..... etc against the other, lies in that this is the teachings of their holy book and old testament. is this clear?

but let me tell you something (between many other things) that you dont know about the prophet of mercy , prophet muhammad. in the chapter of Muhammad in quran , chapter 47- verse 4

حَتَّى إِذَا أَثْخَنْتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّى تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ذَلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانْتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُمْ بِبَعْضٍ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَنْ يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

meaning :

((when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost. )) end

so , as you see , here again the worship of the muslim which is compulsive , when the combat is end , either you set them free for nothing (the first , and so the most preferred islamic choice) , or, substitute them for something in turn , but the first thing as muslim you are urged to do , is to set them free for nothing . (can you tell me where is the choice of killing the POW?). this is the way of prophet muhammad against people who waged wars and aggressions against him and against muslims.
you know what else ?

1400 years ago, before the fallacies and the lies of the UN, a quranic chapter called (The Man) , details how the muslim should treat people who made aggressions against him , kindly read

chapter 76 , verse 8 :

{8} وَيُطْعِمُونَ الطَّعَامَ عَلَى حُبِّهِ مِسْكِينًا وَيَتِيمًا وَأَسِيرًا​

meaning :

And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,

these are the quranic teachings and prophet Muhammad's teachings.
these ... are the worship of the muslim , and this is islam

have you ever met a religion or a philosophy, coerced its followers to treat the POW who started the aggression against them, the same way they treat the orphan and indignant ?
again , stop taking your knowledge from media, go read the lies of UN and the violent crimes of the holly bible , to see how prestigious islam between religions is , how supreme its teachings are.
go read more and learn before you talk sir ,
good luck

 

[cleese]

This is Stone Age behavior. It is inexcusable. Nothing the Jews, Christians and Muslims have accomplished in the name of good is good enough to atone for these evils.The Muslim community is just as violent and aggressive. The teachings of Mohammed, such as jihad, have been twisted into a commandment to wage holy war. Sharia is interpreted by many to justify making second-class citizens out of women. And, as I mentioned above, killing people for what they say, write or draw--what we Americans hold sacred in the name of "free speech."

fraggle rocker:
sir :
is it possible for you , to give the folks who are reading this thread, a proof that the term you mentioned, means in islam waging wars (not fighting back) against innocent peaceful nations , that are not making aggressions or already waging wars against a muslim country?
can you give this proof ?
i will be waiting

 

[cleese]

The Muslim community is just as violent and aggressive. The teachings of Mohammed, such as jihad, have been twisted into a commandment to wage holy war. Sharia is interpreted by many to justify making second-class citizens out of women. And, as I mentioned above, killing people for what they say, write or draw--what we Americans hold sacred in the name of "free speech."

fraggle rocker:
sir :
is it possible for you , to give the folks who are reading this thread, a proof that the term you mentioned, means in islam waging wars (not fighting back) against innocent peaceful nations , that are not making aggressions or already waging wars against a muslim country?
can you give this proof ?
i will be waiting

 

[Shadow1]

.

The Muslim community is just as violent and aggressive. The teachings of Mohammed, such as jihad, have been twisted into a commandment to wage holy war. Sharia is interpreted by many to justify making second-class citizens out of women. And, as I mentioned above, killing people for what they say, write or draw--what we Americans hold sacred in the name of "free speech."

tunisia? malysia? etc...?

 

[Shadow1]

.

blablabla, you're posts are filled with ignorance and b*lsh- intell you cann't even quote them or discuss about them, i tyred before, but for trying, you all started to attack me...no sir, i wan't do it again, you just don't worth to make an effort, in those threads...

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

these are the quranic teachings and prophet Muhammad's teachings. these ... are the worship of the muslim , and this is islam

People can read any holy book they want, but what matters is not what they read, but how they behave. The behavior of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, on the average over the course of existence of each of their religions, has been abominable. Sure there are always a few who honestly try to live up to the teachings of their prophets, but they are far outnumbered by the assholes. The little good they manage to do is not enough to balance out the massive, unspeakable evil done by the assholes.

You may find some clever argument that makes you feel comfortable claiming that Islam is better than Judaism or Christianity, and perhaps this makes you feel smug and superior to Jews and Christians, but judged by unbiased outsiders, you are all equally evil.

Perhaps you are one of the genuinely good ones. But how good can you be when you allow your religion to be led by evil people, when you consider them your brothers? Do you speak out against this evil? Do you devote your energy to fighting evil, reforming the assholes, making the Muslim community one that Mohammed would be proud of?

Have you loudly and actively spoken out against the pious Muslim asshole who assassinated Theo Van Gogh, or the pious Muslim assholes who call for the death of Matt Stone and Trey Parker? Have you publicly denounced as apostates the pious Muslim assholes who tried to set off bombs in Manhattan and on a U.S. airliner, the pious Muslim asshole who murdered his comrades at Fort Hood, the pious Muslim assholes who are setting off bombs in flooded Pakistan when the people are already in grief? Have you publicly shunned the pious Muslim assholes who bombed subway stations, the pious Muslim assholes who crashed the planes that killed 3,000 people on 9/11, the pious Muslim assholes who signed the fatwa against Salman Rushdie?

These are the people who define your religion. These are the Muslims who are shaping history.

Do you, at the very least, counsel all of your friends and family to be careful which Islamic charities they send money to, to make sure the charities aren't giving some of it to organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah or the Taliban, organizations led by some of the world's most evil assholes, who will use the money for acts of violence?

If you just sit by quietly, reading the Koran, and calling yourself a good person because you love Allah and Mohammed, you're not really much of a good person. Good people try to put an end to evil, and Abrahamic religion reeks of evil.

Attempting to share that religion with others, as you are doing here, without attempting to cleanse it of its evil and not allowing it to be represented by assholes, accomplishes nothing except to spread the evil more widely.

So don't start telling me what I should be reading. You have a lot of work to do before you earn anyone's respect.

 

[cleese]

People can read any holy book they want, but what matters is not what they read, but how they behave. The behavior of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, on the average over the course of existence of each of their religions, has been abominable. Sure there are always a few who honestly try to live up to the teachings of their prophets, but they are far outnumbered by the assholes. The little good they manage to do is not enough to balance out the massive, unspeakable evil done by the assholes.


Have you loudly and actively spoken out against the pious Muslim asshole who assassinated Theo Van Gogh, or the pious Muslim assholes who call for the death of Matt Stone and Trey Parker? Have you publicly denounced as apostates the pious Muslim assholes who tried to set off bombs in Manhattan and on a U.S. airliner, the pious Muslim asshole who murdered his comrades at Fort Hood, the pious Muslim assholes who are setting off bombs in flooded Pakistan when the people are already in grief? Have you publicly shunned the pious Muslim assholes who bombed subway stations, the pious Muslim assholes who crashed the planes that killed 3,000 people on 9/11, the pious Muslim assholes who signed the fatwa against Salman Rushdie?

These are the people who define your religion. These are the Muslims who are shaping history.

Do you, at the very least, counsel all of your friends and family to be careful which Islamic charities they send money to, to make sure the charities aren't giving some of it to organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah or the Taliban, organizations led by some of the world's most evil assholes, who will use the money for acts of violence?

Fraggle Rocker:
first of all ,
i expected to read from your writing, that you now know that quran and islam and the genuine teachings of prophet of mercy, prophet muhammad, are extremely peaceful and noble . but for sorrow , i am disappointed.
i am familiar with this i admit, no matter how the westerns claim that they are civilized (although am have western) , but they just see the lies , when it comes to admit the truth, they omit it .
any way , how can you sir say that most muslims have been deviated from the quranic course ? or as evil as christians and jewish?
i wish you had some more time to study how muslims civilized the whole world around them .. and how they declined when felt comfortable to what they achieve , then saw no need for more sticking to their religion's teachings.
as to speaking loudly , if you are talking about binladin and his clown Alazawahry, these two represent the enemy of my religion. they made many aggressions to innocent people , whether muslims in their countries, or innocent non-muslims world wide. Alzawahry is a murderer and a criminal that will end up (like hitler, musolini, churchil, .....etc) in the garbage of the history .
but to be fair, should not you deny loudly too, what the USA has been doing to the muslim countries? have you ever seen what the american weapons and support did to the hungry and the weak palestinian people? have you illustrated the lies that led to the death of 3 millions in both iraq and afganistan based on lies ? guess not as usual.
the plain superemecy of islam , specially if compared to christianity and judaism or to Geneva treaty, is shown in making all these noble behaviors as the worship that the muslim will be judged for in the hereafter. if you knew that quran tells muslims that Man is created for worship , they you understand how important these noble worships to the existence of the muslim. the change that quran has made is enormous . USA has spent millions in waged colossal internal wars at the beginning of the last century, when the american law banned wines. but with quran , just a verse led people who have kept calling wines "the drink of honor" for the entire of their existence (1000 year) to spill all their wines once they hear that verse, so the Madena swims in rivers of wines. (this is a small fruit of fasting the islamic way).
dont compare the behavior of few criminals with the pure teachings. the difference here that you must see, is the difference between how violent and bloody the bible is with the other , while how peaceful quran has been with him .
take care

 

[Michael]

Is Slavery allowed under Islam?

Michael :
in a short answer : yes

So Slavery is immoral? It's against Islam?

yes

That's interesting, cleese says Slavery is Islamic and Shadow1 says that it's against Islam.



My question now is to cleese: If Slavery is morally repugnant and the Qur'an is a perfect guide towards enlightened society then why was Slavery a perfectly respectable thriving industry in Islamic countries? I mean, if the teachings in the Qur'an were supposed to lead society out of the Bronze Age and into an Enlightened Age why were Muslims still Slaving up until it was legally banned BY Christian Europeans?


Historically, if one of the moral prerogatives of the Qur'an was to lead society away from Slavery, then on that account, we can all agree the Qur'an was an utter failure because for 1400 years Muslims were Slavers.

Do you agree?


Of course not, I'll now await on the apologetic whereby either one of the following fallacies are pulled out the ass...
(1) Historical Fallacy: Why Muslims didn't "Slave" - it never happened, that's all a CIA conspiracy theory!!
(2) No True Scotsman Fallacy: it's all the people's fault .... they no learn right - no "real" Muslim (kind of like Communism - it also creates the perfect society, if only people would follow it! [So to Harry Potterism.])
(3) Moral Fallacy: Oh, Islamic Slavery is "Good Slavery", "Kind Slavery" you know, these people were being brought the like of Islamic Ideal... you know, like Slavery! (nothing like "Western Slavery" [this one is a sick tipping point and I feel ill now ])
(4) Islamic Fallacy: Slavery is Godly, it's from Allah.
(5) Shadow1 Fallacy: Slavery is Evil, it's not from Allah.
(6) No-one-knows-what-the-hell-this-f*cking-Qur'an-is-trying-to-say-anyway-Fallacy-Oh-But-It's-as-Clear-as-day-because-it-says-it-is-Double-Fallacy: This one aligns itself well with Harry Potterism.


So? Which one is it cleese?


Don't mind if I take the mickey out of you cleese, I'm just teasing you a bit


I do want to know though: As we all agree that Slavery is morally repugnant and given the notion that the Qur'an 'is a perfect guide towards enlightened society' then why was Slavery a perfectly respectable thriving industry in Islamic countries for 1400 years?

SIR :
have you read the original thread ? have you read the answers islam provided?

While this was to Fraggle, I just wanted to reiterate to cleese: I specifically asked you one enlightened precept that you learned from the Qur'an and the first thing you wrote about was the taking of POWs and their treatment (which apparently is sometimes to make them Slaves).

What I am saying is this: THAT was your enlightenment cleese. I asked and that's what you wrote. Why? I have no idea and frankly I thought it was a little weird. But, meh... each to their own.

Lastly, since YOU brought up POWs, I also want to know: Under Islam, following a war, can women POWs be taken as Slaves?

 

[cleese]

That's interesting, cleese says Slavery is Islamic and Shadow1 says that it's against Islam.



My question now is to cleese: If Slavery is morally repugnant and the Qur'an is a perfect guide towards enlightened society then why was Slavery a perfectly respectable thriving industry in Islamic countries? I mean, if the teachings in the Qur'an were supposed to lead society out of the Bronze Age and into an Enlightened Age why were Muslims still Slaving up until it was legally banned BY Christian Europeans?

first of all i would like to thank you for coming back to this thread
second , allow me to remind you of the following saying "every book, no matter how complete its pages are, lacks one page, a page that you write with your own", this missing page is your bahavior michael and how your life style is faithfully affected by the principles you claim that you are stick to. so accept it or not , if the muslim (or any person of a principle) did not stick to the islamic teachings (or his claimed principles), he is not representing islam (or the claimed principle) then.
Crime will never vanish from our life michael, because it has a very precious mission in that life. the existence of Evil, is what gives you that precious Value: freedom of choice. if Evil does not exist, where is your freedom of choice then? where is your responsibility towards the existence and towards life? where is the place of Virtue and how can you distinguish the honorable role that the virtuous people play (in the same time the other type of people sell them selves to Evil and ignorance) ? . so as long as the meaning of freedom of choice lasts and keeps avialable to Man, Evil will last side by side with Good.

why islam did not ban what so-called slavery from the begining ?
1 - first of all , you should remember how totally different islam managed that matter , and how its honorable and virtuous way differed in treating the POWs. few lines in the same page or the page before you will read in brief , how nobel islam is .
2 - islam is a very practical and ideal religion in the same time , and here resides its supremecy and mastery. it neither say that "my kingdom is not from this world", nor say "my kingdom is this world ". it is the golden middle . where all virtues and niceties become very practicale and applied as the muslim's worship. where it comprehends almostly every thing and the keys of all sciences and knowledge. it organizes with its practicality and nobleness every thing even wars, and make such organization the worship or the muslim. so in answering your inquiry , why islam did not ban it from the beginning ?. the answer is that "the principle of treating the same way". there might be a state that firmly decides not to make any aggression against any other state (quran states that principle to muslims: (chapter 2, verse 190) :

{190} وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ

meaning :
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

but this can not defuse the possiblity of a war or wars being waged against that state. so what if mulism fall into captivity during fighting back ? .do you remember how Mr Richard the lion heart killed southands of muslim POWs, in the same moment during which Salah aldin set christian soldiers who waged the crusades against the muslim countries free? (he has no other choice by the way, because this was the quran's command : chapter 47- verse 4
""""""""""""حَتَّى إِذَا أَثْخَنْتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّى تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ذَلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانْتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُمْ بِبَعْضٍ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَنْ يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

meaning :
((when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost. )) end

so , as you see , here again the worship of the muslim which is compulsive , when the combat is end , either you set them free for nothing (the first , and so the most preferred islamic choice) , or, substitute them for something in turn , but the first thing as muslim you are urged to do , is to set them free for nothing . (can you tell me where is the choice of killing the POW?)."""""""

can you remember what the armies of the roman empire, alexander the mean, napolion , hitler, churchil, mosolini , stalin, isreal, slobodan milesevich....etc , did to their POWs. have you heared the last news about how the USA and the Nato did to the civilians in iraq and in afghanistan , where they killed civilians for nothing and then kept parts of their organs and bodies as souvenirs ?. guess you dont hear or know about such things.
with the practical aspect of islam, what would happen if the enemy that is in the state of war against islam captured muslim POWs michael?
again, its the principle of treating the same way, o'you the enemies of islam who hold muslim pows, you should know that you too have pows held by muslims (despite the total different and noble, islam treats its POWs). thats why islam could not ban it totally. but in the same time , it confined it only to the pows of war. (kindly review how prophet muhammad commanded muslims to have their subordinates set to the same table of food , and be dressed the same clothes , and never do what the muslim cant do, and if the muslim made any aggression to his subordinate (slapping him e.g , according the prophet command) he must set him free. and how islam did not distinguish between the muslims and non-muslims in that way of treatment.

islam has assigned emancipation of people from slavery , an atonment for many sins that a muslim might commit. and made this a great beloved islamic warship to Allah. and when the west claimed (i say claimed) that it wishes to ban slavery, the ottoman empire did not hesitate and signed that treaty.

chapter 8, verse 61 of quran says :

وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ​

meaning :
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that Heareth and Knoweth (all things).
so , you see the quranic command : your worship as a muslim when your enemies who are fighting you offer you peace , is to compulsively accept their offer. its not your freedom of choice , its your worship to do that .


kindly give a brief look at the way that hypocrate west acted since ever.
islam has already led muslims with its teachings out of bronze age michael, and changed the face of life entirely .
for shadow1, he should not have talked about something he has not studied .
any way , i am about to post a brief and comprehensive reseach, about what so called slaver from the islamic perspective, and i promise you, you will be amazed.
and i am asking you kindly , to read my replies to posts of the colleagues here. it will give a more wide view about that religion of tolerance .

thank you

 

[cleese]

That's interesting, cleese says Slavery is Islamic and Shadow1 says that it's against Islam.

first of all michael , i did not say that slavery is islamic
second neither what you said nor what shadow1 said is correct
islam banned all forms of slavery (even its name) , and kept one possibility of it , when an aggression or war being waged against it . then organized it with its noble way i simply explained, making emancipation as an atonement of sins committed by muslims , and also a separate, independent and very beloved islam worship in it self .
thanks

 

[Michael]

Crime will never vanish from our life michael, because it has a very precious mission in that life. the existence of Evil, is what gives you that precious Value: freedom of choice. if Evil does not exist, where is your freedom of choice then? where is your responsibility towards the existence and towards life? where is the place of Virtue and how can you distinguish the honorable role that the virtuous people play (in the same time the other type of people sell them selves to Evil and ignorance) ? . so as long as the meaning of freedom of choice lasts and keeps avialable to Man, Evil will last side by side with Good.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly? Are you saying that in order for people to appreciate being free, Slavery should exist?

why islam did not ban what so-called slavery from the begining ?

Not just from the beginning - ever. Islam never made Slavery illegal.


That's a Historic fact cleese. Don't get me wrong, Christians lived with a blessed God-sanctioned Slavery as well. But, again, Islam never made Slavery illegal. Some Imam's think Slavery should still be legal! That's crazy!

BUT, get this, Shinto Buddhist Japanese made Slavery illegal. Native Americans didn't have Slavery either. Isn't THAT interesting cleese? Japanese and Native Americans didn't have "the benefit of the Qur'an or Bible" yet, despite missing out on this wonderful book of God's own personal advice, they were able to see that Slavery was immoral - and made it illegal.

Some may even think it was because they didn't have a God condoning Slavery, that they were able to socially make it unacceptable. Imagine if they had the Qur'an? Perhaps they would have accepted Slavery?

Isn't that interesting? Perhaps the Qur'an and Bible actually CAUSE society to retain Slavery as a socially respectable practice. :shrug:

1 - first of all , you should remember how totally different islam managed that matter , and how its honorable and virtuous way differed in treating the POWs. few lines in the same page or the page before you will read in brief , how nobel islam is .

OK, I have two questions:
(1) Can women POWs be made Slaves?


(2) Can POW men be killed after they have surrendered?

so in answering your inquiry , why islam did not ban it from the beginning ?. the answer is that "the principle of treating the same way". there might be a state that firmly decides not to make any aggression against any other state (quran states that principle to muslims: (chapter 2, verse 190) :

cleese, I'm not sure if we're on the same page: you do know that Islam never banned Slavery right?

It's not that Islam didn't ban it "in the beginning", it's that Islam just never banned Slavery.

You do know that right?

islam has assigned emancipation of people from slavery , an atonment for many sins that a muslim might commit. and made this a great beloved islamic warship to Allah. and when the west claimed (i say claimed) that it wishes to ban slavery, the ottoman empire did not hesitate and signed that treaty.

cleese, think about what you are saying. Islam could have banned Slavery but instead it was made illegal by pressure from the Europeans. cleese, we're talking about millions of Islamic Slaves for over one thousand years. Not from war either with Europeans either. Slavers were buying and selling Slaves on the open market. Hindu Indians, Africans, even Arabs.


New Question: Why didn't Muslims take the moral high ground and ban Slavery?

kindly give a brief look at the way that hypocrate west acted since ever.

I agree that the West was horrific, especially regarding colonization, however, this wasn't a hypocritical act - but a Christian one. They thought destroying other people's Temples was doing God's work.




Get this, IMO the worse were the Spanish. I wonder why? Do you think that maybe it was their culture? Why were the Spanish, in particular, so religious?

islam has already led muslims with its teachings out of bronze age michael, and changed the face of life entirely

I'm still not convinced. I feel like you spent a large amount of time convincing me (and Shadow1) that Slavery is somehow good?

Can you forgive me for still thinking Slavery is evil? Also, we know that the Japanese did not have Slavery, and they weren't guided by God at all - they worshiped multiple Nature Deities.


Don't you find it weird that polytheistic Japanese banned Slavery, but Muslims didn't? Why do you suppose is the case?

for shadow1, he should not have talked about something he has not studied .

Well, that's Shadow1's upbringing I suppose? :shrug:

any way , i am about to post a brief and comprehensive reseach, about what so called slaver from the islamic perspective, and i promise you, you will be amazed.
and i am asking you kindly , to read my replies to posts of the colleagues here. it will give a more wide view about that religion of tolerance .

thank you

OK, but I have to tell you, I'm against Slavery. I see NOTHING good in Institutionalizing Slavery. Also, I am curious as to why you think polytheistic Japanese were socially able to find Slavery repugnant but Muslims and Christians for the most part, thought Slavery was blessed.

I curious about that comparison and your opinion.

 

[cleese]

michael
1 - this will be my last reply about the slavery, till i have posted the comprehensive research about what so-called slavery, and how islam dealt with it .
about the vanishing of Evil. i am sorry to read such a sentence like that one you posted . either you did not read what i wrote, or you need to re-think again about some matters. but i take it as an offense when some one replies to me that way. the existence of Evil side by side to Good, is what gives you the freedom to choose. otherwise (please use your mind) what would you choose between ? Good and Good? where would lie the widest margin of human freedom of choice, where they choose between Good and Best, or, when they can do so in addition to the widest margin that encompasses choosing between Best and Worst, not only Good and Evil, or Good and Best? . this indicated to the evil actions that some muslims commit , as opposed to the Quranic teachings, that are clear enough even for the blind , to read it the Brile way.

chapter 47- verse 4

حَتَّى إِذَا أَثْخَنْتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّى تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ذَلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانْتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُمْ بِبَعْضٍ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَنْ يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

meaning :
((when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity (meaning to set them free for nothing in turn) or ransom (exchange them with your pows, or ask them to teach ten of illiterate muslims how to read and write just as the prophet was doing, to set them free in turn-cleese) : until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost. )) end


2 - why islam did not ban what so-called slavery from the beginning, not just made that huge change in treating it ?
a - islam already banned all forms of slavery and restricting human freedom except when another country wage an aggression against a muslim country
b - i wrote :
what would happen if the enemy that is in the state of war against islam captured muslim POWs michael?

b- o'you the enemies of islam who hold muslim pows, you should know that you too have pows held by muslims (despite the total different and noble, islam treats its POWs)

c - islam has assigned emancipation of people from slavery , an atonment for many sins that a muslim might commit. and made this a great beloved islamic warship to Allah. and when the west claimed that it wishes to ban slavery, the ottoman empire did not hesitate and signed that treaty.

chapter 8, verse 61 of quran says :
وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ​

meaning :
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that Heareth and Knoweth (all things).
so , you see the quranic command : your worship as a muslim when your enemies who are fighting you offer you peace , is to compulsively accept their offer. its not your freedom of choice , its your worship to do that .

3 - you said :
OK, I have two questions:
(1) Can women POWs be made Slaves?
(2) Can POW men be killed after they have surrendered?

the answer: if the enemies of the muslim country, who are waging the aggression against it taken female POWs (remember chychinia? remember Bosina? remember the crusades how noble salah aldin treated the christian POWs while the lion heart meanly treated the muslim POWs?) , so muslims are allowed to treat them the same way . and when the west claimed (i say claimed) that it wishes to ban slavery, the ottoman empire did not hesitate and signed that treaty.

kindly understand how islam did not distinguish in treatment between the muslim and the pow who is not muslim.

4 - Slavers were buying and selling Slaves on the open market. Hindu Indians, Africans, even Arabs.

this is what i meant to tell you in point 1. no matter how noble your religion in its core is . as long you you have freedom of choice , there will be persons who stick to principles , and others who will buy them in the market of slavery to money even before selling their slaves (here lies the freedom of choice, and also the examination that distinguishes between the virtue and the mean). if you dont or cant understand after all that richness, its up to you michael.

5 - you said : I'm still not convinced. I feel like you spent a large amount of time convincing me (and Shadow1) that Slavery is somehow good?


do i need to convince you of any thing?
its your freedom of choice. you want to ban slavery at all ? fine , go tell the enemies of the muslim countries (and kindly , go free the innocent muslim POWs unfairly locked in guantanamo, bagram, secret jails of CIA in the hypocrate europe) , not to wage any aggressions to muslims countries and not to take any Pows of us




lastly, you said :
Not just from the beginning - ever. Islam never made Slavery illegal.

i dont know whether you have read history, especially about centuries about the hypocrite west presses (as you said it) for banning slavery. so it seems to me that you lack knowledge about how that west, with its mean Roman Empire, or the other evil Persian one were acting with their enemies . this exactly when islam emerged. islam did not emerge in the 19th century at the time of that treaty. so it had to have something in its clean hand, to protect his Pows that fall in captivity and held by its enemies.


i remind you for the last time , and kindly , this thread is confined on fasting only from now on :

and when the west claimed (i say claimed) that it wishes to ban slavery, the ottoman empire (on behalf of the whole islamic world) did not hesitate and signed that treaty.




thanks



[/COLOR]

 

[Michael]

cleese there are so many various points you are making and verses you quote that I sometimes walk away unsure of the point you are trying to make and when I read your post I end up feeling that you are an Islamic apologist.

As of now I feel you think Islam is superior to other ideologies. But, I don't know why you think this is so. I mean, you have not made a very good case.

Take this for example:
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that Heareth and Knoweth (all things).


What is more enlightened, the above post, or this: Turn the other cheek?

See, in your post I see a few things that I can see as perpetuating animosity and indefinite war
(1) there's an identifiable "enemy". Presumable non-Muslim. Well, that's always going to be the case.
(2) I wonder if this enemy isn't sometimes non-Muslims living in an "Islamic" country? This then becomes a justification for harming citizens who no longer want to be Islamic (which could be seen as sewing mischief in the land).
(3) what if the "enemy" doesn't want peace? As in, suppose you label a Hindu an enemy because they don't want to pay tax for being Hindu and they don't want to live under Islamic Law. Now you just justified fighting them until they do want peace (aka: submit to Islam).


now, stop and think about this and then go back to: turn the other cheek. While I'm not a Christian, I'd say: Turn the other cheek is a much better bit of advice. It's actually a deeper understanding of humanity and the human condition. The person who quoted: Turn the other cheek understood that humans will always seek ways to label someone an "enemy" and attack them. It's at least a little more difficult when you say: turn the other cheek because now you're in some small sense trying to treat the "enemy" as a "friend" and try to forgive them.


I know you don't understand but that's my point of view.



One path seems to lead to modern Civilization and the other to the Bronze Age. Think about modern Civilization. Is it built on Islamic precepts? Is modern Japan built on Islamic ideology? Or something else? You say that Islam brought people out of the Bronze Age, but, I look back and see the beautiful art and wonderful staged plays PRE-Islam (in say Syria and Egypt) and think, no, it's actually regressed back to the Bronze Age or even before.


As a student of History, I'd say the exact same thing happened to Europe under Conservative Christiandom (which I see Islam as a great example of). The so-called "Dark Ages" were initiated when Justinian closed the last of the Greek Academies and claiming Christianity as the sole moral and social prerogative.

 

[Michael]

3 - you said :
OK, I have two questions:
(1) Can women POWs be made Slaves?
(2) Can POW men be killed after they have surrendered?

the answer: if the enemies of the muslim country, who are waging the aggression against it taken female POWs (remember chychinia? remember Bosina? remember the crusades how noble salah aldin treated the christian POWs while the lion heart meanly treated the muslim POWs?) , so muslims are allowed to treat them the same way . and when the west claimed (i say claimed) that it wishes to ban slavery, the ottoman empire did not hesitate and signed that treaty.

OK, cleese, I'd still a little confused. Please don't get pissed off at me here. You just have to know that I think Slavery is evil and that we do not need Slavery to exist in order to know good.

As a matter of fact, Slavery doesn't exist and we know good from evil. You're argument seems to be this: In order to know Slavery is evil, we need to experience Slavery first hand. It's like saying, in order to know Murdering babies is evil we need to sanction the murdering of babies (at least in the beginning) and then later (much much much later .... say 1400 year later) when the other guys says murdering babies is no longer evil, THEN we will sign a contract saying as much.

Forgive me if I'm dense on this one, but, surely one could take the moral highroad and ban the murdering of babies (or Slavery)?

Surely so?


I just want to make sure I have this correctly. You seem to be saying IF the enemies take female POWs as Slaves then under Islam Muslims can take female POWs as Slaves too? Is that correct?

Two last questions: If the enemy is destroyed, say the enemy was a village, suppose the entire village was defeated. So, there's no more enemy at all. None. They are ALL conquored. OK. Now, here are my two questions:

(I) Is it Islamic to take the Women POWs as Islamic Slaves? Is that sanctioned under Islam correct?

(II) For the male POWs that are captured after the battle. Is it sanctioned under Islam to murder them AFTER they surrender?

(remember, the village is destroyed and so there are no more enemy).

 

[cleese]

Michael
first of all , i expressed my desire to confine replies here on the main post "why muslims fast the islamic way?", and you should have respected the wish of the poster.

second : you said :OK, cleese, I'd still a little confused. Please don't get pissed off at me here. You just have to know that I think Slavery is evil and that we do not need Slavery to exist in order to know good.

As a matter of fact, Slavery doesn't exist and we know good from evil. You're argument seems to be this: In order to know Slavery is evil, we need to experience Slavery first hand. It's like saying, in order to know Murdering babies is evil we need to sanction the murdering of babies (at least in the beginning) and then later (much much much later .... say 1400 year later) when the other guys says murdering babies is no longer evil, THEN we will sign a contract saying as much.

have i ever said so , or indicated something similar ?
either you dont read carefully, or there is another invisible issue . the only purpose for mentioning Evil here , is to tell you that its what gives you the freedom of choice . no Evil, no freedom of choice. so if the muslim (or a person) acted as opposed quranic teachings (or against his claimed principle), then this is his freedom of choice, no blame should be cast on quran or the principle. the existence of evil person is what gives the existence of good ones its meaning . its the examination that distinguishes between who would choose the principle , and who would act as opposed to it . no Evil..... no Good nor Virtue.

for the last time , i will aid you to understand , so kindly , either you read carefully , or dont read at all :
1 - islam banned making any form of aggression against any part no matter who he is , where he lives, whats his color or his religion , (chapter 2, verse 190) :

{190} وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ

meaning :
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
(Note : how quran attached defending back to Allah, so the muslim knows that its a worship, and he is stick to its virtue and niceties) .

2 - islam banned all the forms of slavery (so it was many steps - 1400 years - ahead of west) , and kept one possibility of it (you should understand here how totally different islam managed this single possibility) , this possibility is when an aggressor wages an aggression against a muslim country . then confined the fighting back on the aggressors, with no permission for similar aggression,

3 - the first alternative quran gives the muslim who captured a POW, is to generously set him free (for nothing in turn), disregarding if the enemy holds pows of muslims or not , just the way Salah Aldin did, meanwhile the europian Richard Lionheart slaughtered 10.000 muslim pow ,

4 - if the first alternative is not the most suitable alternative according to the situation , the second quranic alternative is to exchange the pow with a ransom (either with a muslim pow, or to ask him to teach 10 illiterate muslims how to read and write , as the prophet used to do ),

5- if the enemy insisted to hold the muslim pow , here applies the principle of the treating the same way (meaning : holding pows only, not to treat them the same way the enemy treats the muslim pows) . since islam coerced the muslim who captured POWs of the aggressor, to treat that pow the same way the muslim treats the orphan and indignant, and did not distinguish between the treatment the muslim receives and the non-muslim pow receives. should eat from the same table, get dressed from the same clothes ..... so on

6- no form of aggression against the subordinate is allowed, e.g, if the muslim slapped the pow , he is coerced to set him free in turn of nothing , according to the prophet command .

so , although islam called it the principle of the treating the same way , it made it a very noble way of treatment (kindly refer to the previous posts to know the details)

this is why islam could not ban it from the beginning . to assure the aggressor that if he takes muslim pows , that muslims too hold his pows. do you understand ?

so , when the west expressed his intention to ban slavery for ever, neither in the case of war, nor in any other case , the Ottoman empire, on behalf of islam and the whole muslim world did not hesitate to sign that treaty .
chapter 8, verse 61 of quran says :
وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ
meaning :
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that Heareth and Knoweth (all things).

why the muslim world waited till the west attempt to ban that matter ? because the west represented (since the Roman empire) the aggressor who is fighting and trying to exterminate the islamic existence , and has been ever since taking muslim pows . so in any war sir , if your mother , daughter, brother , relatives , were taken pows and held by the enemy , how in the world you are able to restore them , or at least guarantee that they are treated well there ?.

(let me give the islamic answer: do as the quranic alternatives dictated, and the way Salah Aldin generously did... set them free from nothing).

use your logic : do you want to ban it totally ?, ok fine, i agree with you .
dont make aggression against a muslim country .
a fair deal ?

kindly . dont post any other views about the slavery here. its not fair to make this discussion under a post titled "why muslims fast the islamic way?"
and i dont accept another breach of the poster request .

by the way , why dont you take a deeper look about that religion here :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103976

thanks

 

[cleese]

Civiliztion .......!
i wonder how many people that talk about civilization know what it is .
maybe you mean then Roman Empire , or Greek empire ..... etc .
what a pity then michael .
for sorrow , we need to re-think about what civilization means . i dont consider those who built the Pyramids civilized at all (although they are considered one of the greatest civilizations in ancient ages) , because the real civilized human , is that one who invented the needle , who invented the wheel and the one who invented scissors. those are the real noble ones , not the idiot who used the power of millions of worker to built a damn cemetery for his body and a safe for his treasures , nor those Romans or Greeks who did the same to memorize their crimes (wars against other nations) nor temples to glorify a god who was personified in a statue of a cat or a dog. nor the criminals who burned millions with one of the most advanced technology the modern civilization secreted , do you know what i am talking about ....? , its atomic bomb . remember the people of hiroshima and nagazaki ?
but this has been considered a civilization. what a sorrow
i believe in that quranic principle : chapter 13 (chapter of the thunder) , verse 17

{17} أَنْزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَسَالَتْ أَوْدِيَةٌ بِقَدَرِهَا فَاحْتَمَلَ السَّيْلُ زَبَدًا رَابِيًا وَمِمَّا يُوقِدُونَ عَلَيْهِ فِي النَّارِ ابْتِغَاءَ حِلْيَةٍ أَوْ مَتَاعٍ زَبَدٌ مِثْلُهُ كَذَلِكَ يَضْرِبُ اللَّهُ الْحَقَّ وَالْبَاطِلَ فَأَمَّا الزَّبَدُ فَيَذْهَبُ جُفَاءً وَأَمَّا مَا يَنْفَعُ النَّاسَ فَيَمْكُثُ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَذَلِكَ يَضْرِبُ اللَّهُ الْأَمْثَالَ​

He sends down water from the skies, and the channels flow, each according to its measure: but the torrent bears away the foam that mounts up to the surface. Even so, from that (ore) which they heat in the fire, to make ornaments or utensils therewith, there is a scum likewise. Thus doth Allah (by parables) show forth Truth and Vanity. For the scum disappears like froth cast out; while that which is for the good of mankind remains on the earth. Thus doth Allah set forth parables.

and verse 18 , the direct following verse says :
{18} لِلَّذِينَ اسْتَجَابُوا لِرَبِّهِمُ الْحُسْنَى وَالَّذِينَ لَمْ يَسْتَجِيبُوا لَهُ لَوْ أَنَّ لَهُمْ مَا فِي الْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا وَمِثْلَهُ مَعَهُ لَافْتَدَوْا بِهِ أُولَئِكَ لَهُمْ سُوءُ الْحِسَابِ وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمِهَادُ

For those who respond to their Lord, are (all) good things. But those who respond not to Him, even if they had all that is in the heavens and on earth, and as much more, (in vain) would they offer it for ransom. For them will the reckoning be terrible: their abode will be Hell, what a bed of misery!

so my dear human , japan , usa , .....etc , are not the only form of civiliation. maybe they are not civilizations at all ... they are just the greatest workshops and manufactories ever been .

thanks

 

[IamJoseph]

why muslims fast the islamic way?, and how their fasting services the human Good?

Its not a fast. Fasting means not drinking or eating for minimum 24 hours. A human can live for 50 years by the islamic fast mode. It is the lack of water that afflicts the soul after a critical period of time.

 

[IamJoseph]

Is it Islamic to take the Women POWs as Islamic Slaves? Is that sanctioned under Islam correct?

Negative, according to the Hebrew bible, which contains the largest data on the issue of slaves. A woman must either be married or set free - unless she was an active participant in the war.

(II) For the male POWs that are captured after the battle. Is it sanctioned under Islam to murder them AFTER they surrender?[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Negative. One is obligated to make a peace offer prior to war, and this gives the surrenderer guaranteed life.

 

[cleese]

mr joseph
although i welcome your involvement , i have to tell you sir , that you should have respected the poster's request , and did not add any further views about what so-called slavery .
discussing that matter under the title "why muslims fast the islamic way?", is no more allowed . hope even if we disagree in our views , act in a civilized way , and show respect to the rules .

as to fasting :
i doubt that you have read the the whole post carefully , although i thank you for the time you spent here . fasting the Islamic way , meant to push the human limits further , and open the doors for behavioral progress in many means . (by the way , Muslims are allowed to continue their refrain , from dawn to near next dawn only. so as you see , there is a wide margin for those who want more) .
islam aims at training you through its fasting (which could be for 50% of the year's days , but no more than this ) , to control your self , physically , and morally , not to torture your self , hurt it or refrain from the pleasures of life . these pleasure were created for you , and enjoying them would widen your experience and sensation of life . for that joseph, what so-called civilized nations, aim to make these pleasures available to the majority of their people.
that way - i mean fasting the islamic way - you are able to behave in such a civilized way , in the face of the of hardships and the seductions of victories as well . but if the training became such a severe training (the way you suggested) no one - willingly - would love to practice it . and so , it will lose its touch on the majority of the population. that majority which represents the main stream , and which produces the main action in every situation, whether peaceful or aggressive . and so ....., that mass of people is the most important, and so, it is the most targeted .
having said that all, i really dont suggest all the police men to become special forces joseph ... , this suits only (to be practical) few of them (who are that fit) . and Islam , would never lose its practical aspect , for an ideal imaginary and slight result.

thank you

 

[cleese]

just a wonder

any body wishes to furnish us with his own reflections ?