Posted on 06/23/2002 8:10:17 AM PDT by swarthyguy
As we notice recently brutal attacks being displayed against mosques everywhere, making them an easy target of hate crimes, something that is totally alien to the history of Islam vis-à-vis other religions, we'd like you scholars to enlighten us on how Islam shows keenness on preservation of places of worship without discrimination as to religion, race or culture.
As regard your question, we’d like to make it clear that Islam’s teachings as regard non-Muslims and its keenness on granting them full protection is not confined to the sphere of worship. Rather, Islam’s mercy and great concern for non-Muslims cover all aspects of life. But here we will tackle only the point referred to in your question, revealing the shinning history of Islam with non-Muslims, and how their places of worship are given full protection.
Islam establishes a relationship with the people of different faith on the basis of tolerance, justice, benevolence, and mercy. The basis of this relationship is Allah’s saying in the Qur’an: “Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.” (Al-Mumtahina: 8- 9)
According to the Qur’an, Muslims are required to deal with all people kindly and justly as long as they do not oppose or oppress Muslims or place obstacles in the way of spreading Islam.
Of non-Muslims, Islam gives special consideration for the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians, whether they reside in a Muslim society or not.
Being a divine religion revealed to guide all mankind, Islam tackles all aspects of man's life, regardless of whether he believes in it or not. That is why we see it granting many rights and privileges to non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Muslims are ordered to show full consideration to this injunction and give due respect to non-Muslims' places of worship, which are part and parcel of their property enjoying full protection in Islam.
Protection of property:
The Islamic government is bound to protect the properties of non-Muslims. In his book Al-Kharaj, Abu Yusuf sheds light on the Prophet’s contract with the people of Najraan: “Najraan and its neighboring area are in the security of Allah, the Almighty, and His Messenger. The property, religions and churches of the inhabitants, as well as properties, whether much or little, are under the protection of the Prophet.”
`Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, in his letter to to Abu `Ubaydah Ibn Al-Jarrah, may Allah be pleased with them both, wrote: “Prevent Muslims from wronging or causing harm to them (non-Muslims) or taking their property illegally.”
Freedom of worship:
This means the freedom to practice any religion or ideology and not to be forced to adopt a certain faith or compelled to convert to Islam. This is based on the verse:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.” (Al-Baqarah: 256)
Commenting on the verse, the famous exegete Ibn Katheer states: “Don’t force anyone to embrace Islam as it is clear and self-evident in its proofs and realities and does not need to exert force to be accepted.”
Islam protects the places of worship of non-Muslims, and allows them to observe their religious ceremonies. Allah says:
“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;- (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).” (Al-Hajj: 39-40)
In the reign of `Umar of Ibn Al-Khattab, the religious freedom of the citizens of Ilya (Jerusalem) and the sanctity of their synagogues and places of worship were confirmed: “This is the protection which the slave-servant of Allah, `Umar, the Commander of the Believers, extends to the people of Ilya: The safeguarding of their lives, properties, churches, crosses, and of their entire community. Their churches cannot be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched. They will never be forced to abandon their religion, nor will they be oppressed. None of the Jews will live with them in Ilya….” (At-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol III, p. 609, ed. Dar Al-Ma`arif, Egypt.)
Khalid Ibn Al-Waleed, in his covenant with the People of `Anat, wrote: “They are allowed to ring the bells at any time of the day or night, except in the time of the Islamic prayer times. They are allowed to bear their crosses in their festivals.” (Abu Yusuf, Al-Kharaj, p. 146)
Muslims not only allowed non-Muslims to enjoy the freedom of their faith, but also let them follow their way even though some of their practices might conflict with the religion of the majority. Actually, this is the highest degree of tolerance. Muslims tolerated the religious practices of their minorities by not prohibiting even those practices which were contrary to the state ideology.
History bears witness to the fact that Muslims accepted and applied the Islamic laws to an extent that has no parallel in the history of mankind. The fair and tolerant approach they show to other faiths are no secret.
Asserting the tolerance of Muslims, Tritton says:
“Muslim rulers frequently went beyond what was required of them in their relations with non-Muslims. The best example of this is the presence of churches and other (non-Muslim) places of worship in purely Arab (Muslim) cities. Government departments always had Christians and Jewish officials who were sometimes given very sensitive and influential posts. Some non-Muslims thus acquired great wealth. In addition, Muslims were accustomed to sharing with Christian their festivals.” (Khartubali, Hasan Ali, Islam and Ahl Adh-Dhimmah, p. 256)
Based on Al-Qaradawi’s book Ghayr Al-Muslimeen fil Mujtama` Al-Islami (Non-Muslims in the Islamic Society) .
What about the others.
Divide and Rule -- If they get enough people believing this crap, they can rid of or convert everyone real slowly and nicely.
This is the same who's been quoted as saying some fairly nasty stuff; but islamonline plays the softshoe game very well and tries to pass off this guy as some kind of a 'moderate'.
"According to the Qur’an, Muslims are required to deal with all people kindly and justly as long as they do not oppose or oppress Muslims or place obstacles in the way of spreading Islam."
Now isn't practicing your religion "placing obstacles in the way of spreading Islam"?
"Of non-Muslims, Islam gives special consideration for the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians, whether they reside in a Muslim society or not."
What about atheists, Hindus and Buddhists? You either have freedom of religion and tolerance or you don't.
Non-Muslims are subject the Dhimmitude, that is you must pay special taxes, you can't ride a horse, Jews were confined to ghettos and required to walk barefoot or with sandals made of straw. A non-Muslim in a Muslim society exists at the decision of that society. There are no rights. The Ottomans forbid the construction of new churches or synagogues, so when the mob rioted at the mere existence of Christians or Jews and burnt down the church/synagogue, you couldn't re-build. There were numerous pogroms, riots, taxes, legal humiliations of non-Muslims throughout the history of Islam.
Mohammed himself had 900 Jews slaughtered in one day and had their wives and children sold into slavery after raping the women. That's the religious leader of Islam. That's life to be imitated.
Mohammed supported tolerance when he was weak and in the minority, when he was strong and in the majority, that soft cr*p went out the window.
I keep hearing this, and don't doubt that it is true. But does anyone have a specific, definitive source for this statement?
And finally, in direct contridiction of this article:
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold...
(followed by)
...Don’t force anyone to embrace Islam as it is clear and self-evident in its proofs and realities and does not need to exert force to be accepted.”
So,
There is no compulsion but islam WILL be accepted.
So where would that leave anyone who does not want to willingly fall in line?
According to the quotes, acceptance is inevitable and refusal to accept is 'evil'.
What's the book say about people who are 'evil'?
Parsing Islam is a lot like parsing Klinton; it all depends on your definition of 'peaceful'.
3. The Destruction of the Banu Quraydhah.
The Banu Quraydhah, quartered in a sector to the east of Medina, were the last to go but in an extreme way. During the siege of Medina by the Quraysh and the Confederates, a pact was made with them by the Banu Quraydhah which seriously exposed the eastern flank of the city. The Jews acted treasonably but, with the fate of the other two tribes fresh in the memory, their gamble was hardly surprising.
Muhammad succeeded in creating distrust between the Quraysh and the Jews and, when the former withdrew, he promptly laid siege to the latter's quarter. Twenty-five days later the tribe surrendered and sought to be exiled like the other two before them. It was agreed, however, that one of the Aus tribe, traditionally the allies of the Jews, should decide their fate. Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, one of the few Muslims injured during the siege of Medina who was shortly to succumb to his wounds, was appointed their judge. (Some say the Jews themselves requested him). What followed is recorded in a matter of-fact way by an early biographer:
The ruthless execution of nearly a thousand men has been generally denounced by Western writers while Muslim writers have, as is to be expected, sought to justify the massacre. The following are typical examples of the spirit of Western criticism of the slaughter:
There followed the massacre of the Banu Quraizah which marks the darkest depth of Muslim policy, a depth which the palliatives suggested by modern Muslim historians quite fail to measure. (Cragg, The Call of the Minaret, p. 87).
But the indiscriminate slaughter of eight hundred men, and the subjugation of the women and children of the whole tribe to slavery, cannot be recognised other than as an act of monstrous cruelty...In short, the butchery of the Coreitza casts an indelible blot upon the life of Mahomet. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 312).
One shudders at the recital of this horrible transaction. (Stobart, Islam and its Founder, p. 165).
Muslim writers invariably claim that such authors are prejudiced against Islam but the following quote comes from a Western author who wrote a fervent apology on behalf of Muhammad and whose book has been widely acclaimed and reprinted in the Muslim world:
In contrast let us examine a few quotes by Muslim writers in support of Muhammad's action to see the nature of the defence that they raise on his behalf:
It was the Divine Will that the judgment should be left to Sa'd, and it was the Divine Will that moved Sa'd to pronounce the judgment that he did, which was in accordance with Deuteronomy 20.10-14. It was also the Divine Will that this terrible judgment, which the treachery and rebellion of Banu Quraidhah had earned, should not be pronounced by the Holy Prophet himself, but that he should be bound to carry it through to the full. (Zafrulla Khan, Muhammad: Seal of the Prophets, p. 186).
A recent Muslim writer has questioned whether this whole story is historically genuine. "A detailed scrutiny indicates that the whole story of this massacre is of a very doubtful nature" (Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews, p. 85). He argues that the narratives contain contradictions about it and that it was right out of character with Muhammad's general magnanimity towards his defeated foes, if not always individually, at least in the main (as at the conquest of Mecca where almost the whole city was spared). There seems to be some support for the latter contention - more of his enemies were slain on that one day than in all the other battles Muhammad was engaged in during his lifetime. The contradictions between the narratives are, however, typical of those found in almost all the historical records of his life and do not affect the main story.
Ahmad takes the words of Surah 33.26, "Some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners" as the foundation of his theory that, while some of the more serious offenders may have been proscribed, the bulk of the tribe was probably exiled like the others. At first sight it does seem strange that Muhammad should despatch the whole tribe while he had let the others go free, but there is concrete evidence that he had intended to execute the Banu Qaynuqa in the same way.
According to Ibn Sa'd (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 32-33), when the tribe surrendered, Muhammad ordered his companions to tie the men's hands behind their backs to prepare them for beheading. It was only the remonstrances of Abdullah ibn Ubayy, then still too influential to be refused that made him abandon their execution and order their banishment instead.
What is most significant about Ahmad's assessment of the historical genuineness of the massacre is that, in querying it, he finds himself free from the need to justify Muhammad and accordingly treats it for what it really was - an unjustifiable atrocity. He says:
To behold the slaughter of many men in battle is indeed one thing - to unemotionally witness the execution of a whole tribe is another entirely. Ahmad continues:
Ahmad has challenged a story whose historical accuracy has hitherto never been questioned and, while the external evidences may weigh against him, he is to be commended for seeing the tragedy for what it truly was - in his own words, a "massacre" and a "holocaust".
In their determination to exonerate Muhammad the Muslims have found themselves in an awkward situation. If they admit the story, they find themselves obliged to counter the suggestion that it had the nature of an atrocity. If, however, this is conceded, they strive to challenge the reliability of the narratives! Either way none dares admit that Muhammad was the leading figure, or at least a willing accomplice, in a "holocaust".
Shortly before the conquest of Mecca Muhammad attacked the remaining Jewish fortress at Khaibar and, while not gaining an outright victory, nevertheless brought it into subjection. Here he was poisoned by a Jewish woman. Although she did not succeed in killing him, Muhammad complained to the day of his death of the effects of her act of revenge. Ibn Sa'd says she was put to death (Vol. 2, p. 249), but this is disputed by Bukhari who states that Muhammad refused to sanction her execution (Vol. 3, p. 475). Which of the two is true, "God only knows".
By the end of his life Muhammad's relationship with the Jews had deteriorated to the point of irreconcilable hostility. We have not spoken of his relationships with the Christians, which seem to have been a bit more amicable though much less frequent, but his contacts with their armies during his latter days seems to have hardened his heart against them also. The later passages of the Qur'an breathe out denunciations of both groups in vehement language. This tradition tells its own story:
This same Umar, on becoming Caliph just two years after Muhammad's death, proceeded dutifully to put this injunction into effect and by the end of his reign all the Jews in the Hijaz had duly been expelled, never to return.
A band of militiant terrorists holed themselves up in the Church of the Nativity for a month and proceded to use the place as one giant bathroom.
They urinated on its floors, ate lunch upon its altars, grafittied its walls, and left the place in one big stinking mess.
Can anyone imagine what this guy would be saying if somebody did that to the Mosque of Mecca? Can you imagine what would happen if a militia of terrorist westerners pushed their way into the Mosque of Mecca, urinated and littered all over that open area where they kneel and do their praying, grafittied the kabaah, and went inside to prepare lunch on top of that asteroid thing they all pray toward?
It would be an all out holy war waged by them against anything and everything non-muslim. Yet they can march into Christian holy sites and use them as public restrooms, only to turn around a month later and proclaim that they "respect" the holy sites of other religions and would never desecrate them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.