Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Islam regarding terrorism?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565 		  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Islam regarding terrorism?
    Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 10:10
You distracted my emphasis in independent Berbers (of Mauretania) focusing on the Exarchate of Africa, which had some important Berber populations but was of a more mixed nature since the very times of Carthage. You are still doing it, not adressing why the Caliphate attacked Berbers outside of the Exarchate.

Vatican can compare with luck to Mecca (actually it can compare better with the Great Mosque) but not to all Saudi Arabia. Anyhow, I wanted to emphasize how many muslim states, not just SA but the most "Islamic" ones in any case, do not accept freedom of religion even today.

You insist that "size doesn't matter" but actually it is very diferent to circunscribe a particular religious restiction to a building or even to a single city like Mecca than to a whole nation of middle size.

When we discuss if Islam is tolerant or not, we can refer to abstract theological elaborations or we can refer to facts. And facts are not (at least in many cases) in the side of tolerance. Of course, they are not either in the Christian case but that's why we have put them in a secondary private position, supressing most direct religious influence in public life. In general both Christianity and Islam (and other religions surely) have shown little tolerance, at least in many periods, therefore they should be watched with caution by defenders of civil rights.

On the issue of guilds, just an example that caught my eye, I took it from the book New History of Spain 6: Muslim Spain: Caliphate and Taifa Kingdoms, co-authored by 4 scholars of the Universities of Madrid (Complutense and Autnoma), EDAF editions, 1980. Book that I'm re-reading right now.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775 		  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 11:16

Originally posted by Maju

You distracted my emphasis in independent Berbers (of Mauretania) focusing on the Exarchate of Africa, which had some important Berber populations but was of a more mixed nature since the very times of Carthage. You are still doing it, not adressing why the Caliphate attacked Berbers outside of the Exarchate.

Maju, let us stop this blame game. It was a very simple thing, you said:

Originally posted by Maju

Again you're surely right in Monophisism being ahelp to the expansion of Islam. Yet, I can hardly see how Byzantium could prosecute them in lands it didn't control.

All what I did is I proved to you that Byzantium prosecuted them in lands they controlled.  Better now?

Now since you rephrased your statement to talk about Berbers out of the Exarchate, that means you have moved to a different point other than disputing if Byzentine controlled Berbers or not and prosecuted them or not.

Answering your question is very simple. First, speaking of the caliph conquered the following:

Map of Muslim Expansion in North Africa under the Umayyad Dynasty.

As you see, it is almost the exact map of the African Exarchate of Byzentine.  Why did he invaded further west (morocco) is a matter of taking opportunities. Most of the army of Muslims who entered Tangiers and Sussa were Berbers not Arabs. Also, you have to take Morocco in order to secure a grip on Northern Africa as conquering the whole area will mean isolating the Christian kingdoms of Iberia behind a sea wall. A military tactic no more.
Your Mauritianian berbers were not conquered by the Caliph.

Originally posted by Maju

Vatican can compare with luck to Mecca (actually it can compare better with the Great Mosque) but not to all Saudi Arabia.

Im not interested in the size. Im interested in the concept. If you think the holy vatican restriction of other religions is reasonable, anyone can argue similiarly that restriction of other religions in the holy land of Mecca Media and surrounding Hijaz areas. If you think it is not reasonable in the Vatican, then it is not reasonable in the Muslim holy land. You just have to be consistent.

Originally posted by Maju

Anyhow, I wanted to emphasize how many muslim states, not just SA but the most "Islamic" ones in any case, do not accept freedom of religion even today.

I don't think you brought something new here. I know many other Muslim states restrict religious freedom today. Maybe that explains the backwardness.

Originally posted by Maju

You insist that "size doesn't matter" but actually it is very diferent to circunscribe a particular religious restiction to a building or even to a single city like Mecca than to a whole nation of middle size.

You skipped my definition of the holy land. I did mention that it should not include the geographical todays' boundries because they are man-made. Anyhow, what is destructive to a city, is destructive to a nation. Size does not matter.  Bad is bad and good is good.

Originally posted by Maju

In general both Christianity and Islam (and other religions surely) have shown little tolerance, at least in many periods, therefore they should be watched with caution by defenders of civil rights.

Disagree, we talked about this before Maju. If you are a religious state (Saudi Arabia) or an athiest state (Albania), if you are a secular state (Turkey) or a non-secular state (Iran), if you are a capital state (USA) or a communist state (North Korea), all have severe human rights violations and civil rights must be always watched regardless. No correlation that the more religious a state is, the more oppressing it is. Prove it.

Originally posted by Maju

On the issue of guilds, just an example that caught my eye, I took it from the book New History of Spain 6: Muslim Spain: Caliphate and Taifa Kingdoms, co-authored by 4 scholars of the Universities of Madrid (Complutense and Autnoma), EDAF editions, 1980. Book that I'm re-reading right now.

I was not doubting that you faked the source. I just said I couldnt' find it. Meaning, would you like to explain more about it? maybe for us to learn?
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565 		  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 14:01
 Mauretania was then Central and Western Algeria (Mauretania Caesarea) and most of Morocco (Mauretania Tingitana). I never meant modern Mauritania, but the historical one, which was indeed conquered by Umayyads. The fact that they, Berbers or Mauri, mostly Christian then, were putting strong resistance forced the Caliphate to have there a strong army of about 40,000 men, which was partially used in the oportunist conquest of Spain.

In any case it's obvious that it was no self-defense war.

...

Vatican: I think the mere existence of Vatican state is abhorrent. Yet I do accept reasonable religious restrictions inside religious buidings such as mosques, cathedrals, etc.

...

So you support religious intolerance in Saudi Arabia but you surely reject it in non-Muslim nations. That's a horrible contradition that can only be backed with fanaticism. Religious freedom is good in the USA, France, China or Arabia equally.

...

There is no 1:1 correlation between religiousness and repression but, normally, there is a very close correlation between religious state (note: even oficially atheist states are religious in a sense) and repression of religious freedom.

...

When I end re-reading the book, I will try to write an article on the Caliphate of Cordoba. It's interesting and hopefully you can help with diferent complementary sources or with the correct transcription of the names.

While Abd al-Raman III period is very curious, I'm now reaching that of Al Mansur, who vowed to conquer the Christian states (and failed).

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775 		  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 16:26

Originally posted by Maju

 Mauretania was then Central and Western Algeria (Mauretania Caesarea) and most of Morocco (Mauretania Tingitana). I never meant modern Mauritania, but the historical one, which was indeed conquered by Umayyads.

So basically now you are talking about Central and Western Algeria and most of Morocco as they are non-Byzentine states and Berber lands owned by Berber autonomous states? You are basically asking why did the Muslim army attack those free berber states while it wasn't part of the Byzentine Empire?
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959 		  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 18:29
Originally posted by ok ge

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

I heard that Prophet Muhammed said it was okay for Muslims to convert Pagans, as long as they didnt try to convert Christians or Jews, because he viewed them as "people of the book". Converting people, even if they are Pagan, is forcefulness.


I couldn't understand your question well. Prophet Muhammed encouraged missionary work and conversion for all (pegans, people of the book..etc) forcefullessly. <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black"SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">In</SPAN/SPAN> fact, one of the most famous quotes of the Quran that restristriced forceful conversion (to all human beings) is almost known to every single Muslim.


"Let there be no compulsion <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black"SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN/SPAN> religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black"SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN/SPAN> Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things" Chapter 1, Verse 256


Originally posted by Maju

If all the battles of Islam were merely defensive, Azimuth, how come it ended conquering such large stretches of land.


True Maju, not every Islamic battle is a defensive battle. When we are talking about Islamic conquests, we are combining a wide range of subjects from defensive wars, expansion wars, political wars, even economic reasons. These were Islamic states that acted like today modern states too. Idealizing that every battle fought by Muslim is a defensive battle is incorrect as much as saying too that every battle they fought was to subjugate the conquered people. For instance, t<FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>he Christians of the Coptic Church <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black"SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN/SPAN> Egypt actually welcomed the Muslim Arabs as liberators from the oppression they suffered under Byzantine rule. That was the case too <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black"SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN/SPAN> the Levantine and other parts. Maybe that explains to you the fast expansion of those conquests.


Originally posted by Maju

I know that Islam attacked Christian Berbers and did the same <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black"SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN/SPAN> Spain. .


Well it is not exactly that Islam attacked the Christian Berbers and the Christians <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black"SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN/SPAN> Spain. <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black"SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">In</SPAN/SPAN> the conquest of North Africa, the fight was between the Ummayid forces and the Byzentine Empire. Some Berbers joined the Arab Muslim armies, other opposed them. Other fought against them to maintain their sovernity. It sounds to me more of a political clash rather than a religious clash. This explains why many berbers became Muslims before the Arab succeeded controlling North Africa.


<FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>The tribal Berbers had resisted Arab political domination and not Islam, they easily accepted Islam as most of the inhabitants were practicing Arianism, which is <FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>a unitarian form of Christianity that denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ. They were also a group prosecuted by the Byzentine empire. Since that they were already practicing a religion with Unitarian beliefs; the Islamic theory of "One God" was an easy concept for those practicing Arianism <FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>to grasp, thus facilitating the spread of Islam.


Regarding invading Spain, it is not that much of a different story here. First, that "invasion" is actually a political intervention here and a chance take. You probably know Maju that most of the Muslim armies who battled on Iberia were of berber Muslims and even their leader Tariq Ibn Ziyad and his Amir Musa Bin Nusair were berbers. That invasion came actually as an invitation by Count Julian of Cueta to invade Spain as an opponent to Roderick the Visigoth <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black"SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN/SPAN> 710 AD.


The bottom line, wether it is a spread for politics, invitation for intervention, or locals welcoming the Muslim armies, the fact that we shall focus on is, were their rights respected and protected much better than their previous lords for most of their history? I would say yes. Islam did not promise them a new era of a foriegn rulers, rather than a new era of religious freedom, some of them were fighting for initially.


Originally posted by OSMANLI

Now that i have proved the <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-: AR-SA">innocence </SPAN>of Islam i would not be surprised if this topic was to close.


You got to admit, Osmanli has good points with a touch of humor


Originally posted by Kentuckian

Ah but with a central authority there is the chance for a another Pope Urbane II. i admit there is this possibility <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black"SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN/SPAN> the Catholic Church still, but we all know the chances of that.


The idea of gathering Muslims under one caliph is a unity-approach idea rather than a religious unity proposal. I agree with you here that there is a chance of Pope Urban II for every religion that you combine its followers to a supposedly divine-guided human being. That is why I don't accept too the idea of centeralizing religious authority for Muslims as what happens for the Shia sect adopting this approach <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN> the Mullahism they practice.


I believe the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Also <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN> Islam, we do't believe <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN> divine guidance or holy spirit guidance to a religious figure. Ottoman the Turk was probably emphasizing the idea of political unity I assume. Remember that a Muslim Caliph is not a religious Imam. Something that this faith was blessed with is the recognition of a simple approach of the division of state authority and religious athority. Over most of the Islamic history, both were independant and they clashed even <SPAN id=google-navclient-hilite style="COLOR: black; : cyan">in</SPAN> many occasions.





The invasion of the former Byzantine Empire by the Muslim Arabs and later by the Turks was far from a defensive move by the Muslims.
Tolerance???? Sure people were given choices; convert, pay the poll tax and stay a jew or Christian(Dhimmi status) or die. At least they had the option to keep their faith unlike pagans; convert of die.
I agree that many Muslims are tolerant and peaceful but the overall ideaology of the religion is not.
Frankly, I would rather die fighting then cave into dhimmi status. It no wonder the Greeks and her allies in Constantiople refused to surrender in 1453.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595 		  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 19:05

Hello Eagle. How's it goin? I see that you are back.

The whole idea of defensive fighting is promoted in Islam. But as many have said before, offensive wars were conjured up for a variety of reasons.

I thought people who defend cities do so on account of continuing with their usual ways of life. "Darn those dreaded dhimmi mongers. Man your walls men!"

 
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565 		  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 21:23
Originally posted by ok ge

Originally posted by Maju

 Mauretania was then Central and Western Algeria (Mauretania Caesarea) and most of Morocco (Mauretania Tingitana). I never meant modern Mauritania, but the historical one, which was indeed conquered by Umayyads.

So basically now you are talking about Central and Western Algeria and most of Morocco as they are non-Byzentine states and Berber lands owned by Berber autonomous states? You are basically asking why did the Muslim army attack those free berber states while it wasn't part of the Byzentine Empire?



Yes that was my question all the time.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959 		  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2005 at 21:53
Originally posted by Seko

Hello Eagle. How's it goin? I see that you are back.


The whole idea of defensive fighting is promoted in Islam. But as many have said before, offensive wars were conjured up for a variety of reasons.


I thought people who defend cities do so on account of continuing with their usual ways of life. "Darn those dreaded dhimmi mongers. Man your walls men!"




You said it in a way that made me laugh Seko!!

I am trying to conjure up a good supplement thread but must be late. Maybe I need some Ginko to wake up.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775 		  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Nov-2005 at 22:12

Originally posted by eaglecap

Tolerance???? Sure people were given choices; convert, pay the poll tax and stay a jew or Christian(Dhimmi status) or die. At least they had the option to keep their faith unlike pagans; convert of die. .

Eaglecap, you sound as if you have landed on this thread exactly on your spot without even reading a single post. No one said every war in Muslims were in were defensive wars. Also, who told you pagans will be killed? Zoroastrians were paying taxes as the Dhimmis. And who told you these are unreasonable taxes? I have talked about it at at least twice at least and people just remain silent till someone comes back and make a big fuzz about it again. Kind of a boring repetitive cycle. Just go back to old posts and skim at least over some of them.

Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by ok ge

So basically now you are talking about Central and Western Algeria and most of Morocco as they are non-Byzentine states and Berber lands owned by Berber autonomous states? You are basically asking why did the Muslim army attack those free berber states while it wasn't part of the Byzentine Empire?

Yes that was my question all the time.

Maju, these you call "non-Byzentine states and berber lands owned by Berber atuonomous states" in "Western Algeria and most of Morocco " and attacked by the Muslims, they were also part of the Byzentine empire when Muslim attacked. So, for the second time, you got this wrong again, especially if you mean "western algeria and most of Morocco" which is the strip line parallel to the sea that Muslims took from Byzentine. Here is it for you in case you are interested from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_North_Afric a

"After this, Edward Gibbon writes, the fearless general "plunged into the heart of the country, traversed the wilderness in which his successors erected the splendid capitals of Fez and Morocco, and at length penetrated to the verge of the Atlantic and the great desert." In his conquest of the Maghreb (western North Africa) he took the coastal city of Bugia as well as Tingi or Tangier, overwhelming what had once been the Roman province of Mauretania Tingitana."

"Five years passed before Hassan received fresh troops from the caliph. Meanwhile the people of North Africa's cities chafed under a Berber reign of destruction. Thus Hassan was welcomed upon his return. Gibbon writes that "the friends of civil society conspired against the savages of the land; and the royal prophetess was slain in the first battle."

"By 698 the Arabs had taken most of North Africa back from the Byzantines. The area was divided into three provinces: Egypt with its governor at al-Fustat, Ifrikquiya with its governor at Kairouan, and the Maghreb (modern Morocco and Mauritania) with its governor at Fez."

Game over Maju?

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565 		  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Nov-2005 at 22:47
Well, I read the article and never says that Mauretania was part of the Empire but rather that Berbers of that province, united under a prophetess, defated the Arabs and drew them out not just from Mauretania but also from Africa (classical Roman provincial names: Mahgreb and Ifriqiya in Arabic).

And then is where the Caliphate forces attack again and "are welcomed" by some, according to Gibbon.

Mauretania, excepting for some time the cities of Tangiers and Ceuta, then anyhow in Visigothic hands, were independent under local Berber organization. I am ignorant if they acted as allies of Byzantium against the Arabs, as Gibbon seems to suggest but in any case they were independent from the Exarcate.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Jay. View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1207 		  Quote Jay. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Dec-2005 at 09:55
Everyone has different opinions, and it should stay like that.
Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava
Only Unity Can Save the Serb
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959 		  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 13:08
Originally posted by ok ge

Originally posted by eaglecap

Tolerance???? Sure people were given choices; convert, pay the poll tax and stay a jew or Christian(Dhimmi status) or die. At least they had the option to keep their faith unlike pagans; convert of die. .


Eaglecap, you sound as if you have landed on this thread exactly on your spot without even reading a single post. No one said every war in Muslims were in were defensive wars. Also, who told you pagans will be killed? Zoroastrians were paying taxes as the Dhimmis. And who told you these are unreasonable taxes? I have talked about it at at least twice at least and people just remain silent till someone comes back and make a big fuzz about it again. Kind of a boring repetitive cycle. Just go back to old posts and skim at least over some of them.


Originally posted by Maju

Originally posted by ok ge

So basically now you are talking about Central and Western Algeria and most of Morocco as they are non-Byzentine states and Berber lands owned by Berber autonomous states? You are basically asking why did the Muslim army attack those free berber states while it wasn't part of the Byzentine Empire?
Yes that was my question all the time.


Maju, these you call "non-Byzentine states and berber lands owned by Berber atuonomous states" in "Western Algeria and most of Morocco " and attacked by the Muslims, they were also part of the Byzentine empire when Muslim attacked. So, for the second time, you got this wrong again, especially if you mean "western algeria and most of Morocco" which is the strip line parallel to the sea that Muslims took from Byzentine. Here is it for you in case you are interested from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_North_Afric a


"After this, <A title="Edward Gibbon" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon">Edward Gibbon</A> writes, the fearless general "plunged into the heart of the country, traversed the wilderness in which his successors erected the splendid capitals of <A title=Fez href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fez">Fez</A> and <A title=Morocco href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco">Morocco</A>, and at length penetrated to the verge of the <A title=Atlantic href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic">Atlantic</A> and the <A title=Sahara href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara">great desert</A>." In his conquest of the <A title=Maghreb href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghreb">Maghreb</A> (western North Africa) he took the coastal city of <A title=Bugia href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugia">Bugia</A> as well as Tingi or <A title=Tangier href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangier">Tangier</A>, overwhelming what had once been the <A title=Roman href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman">Roman</A> province of <A title="Mauretania Tingitana" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauretania_Tingitana">Mauretania Tingitana</A>."


"Five years passed before Hassan received fresh troops from the caliph. Meanwhile the people of North Africa's cities chafed under a Berber reign of destruction. Thus Hassan was welcomed upon his return. Gibbon writes that "the friends of civil society conspired against the savages of the land; and the royal prophetess was slain in the first battle."


"By <A title=698 href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/698">698</A> the Arabs had taken most of North Africa back from the Byzantines. The area was divided into three provinces: Egypt with its governor at al-Fustat, Ifrikquiya with its governor at Kairouan, and the <A title=Maghreb href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghreb">Maghreb</A> (modern <A title=Morocco href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco">Morocco</A> and Mauritania) with its governor at <A title=Fez href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fez">Fez</A>."


Game over Maju?



I glanced through the posts but I rarely have time to read through them but I do not agree and life as a dhimmi under Islamic law was very oppressive and was basically 2nd class citizenship. I have seen the photo of my great great Grandfather (Greek) in Eastern Thrace (Turkey) with the traditional dhimmi clothes to distinguish him from believers (Muslims). It is something I would gladly fight against.
I know someone has posted this before but again; not all Muslims are terrorist but most terrorist are Muslims. I would add that the vast majority would not even dream of such an evil act upon themselves and others.
I am sure that there are many moral issues I would even agree with Muslims and I never ASSume someone is a terrorist because they are a Muslims but we have very very few Muslims in my area. It is mostly Protestant and Catholic here but when I meet Muslims I treat them no diferent than anyone else.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Hamoudeh View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 06-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 75 		  Quote Hamoudeh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 00:13

For those interested in the Islamic perspective on terrorism, the following writings can be helpfull:

Muslim sacred texts condemning wanton destruction and indiscriminate killing by Suheil Laher, recommended by Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad

Islamic stance regarding kidnappings and killings in Iraq and Russia by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani

Bombing without moonlight: the origins of suicidal terrorism by Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad, recommended by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani

Superficial demonization of Islam by Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad

Islam denouncing terrorism by Harun Yahya

On terrorism by Shaykh Abdal Qadir al-Sufi

Martyrs or murderers: terrorism and suicide bombings by Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Shaykh Khalid Abul Fadl

There are evidently many more writings available, this is only a very limited selection of articles that reflect mainstream views of scholars. If we were to summarize the orthodox and mainstream view on matter related to terrorism, a few points can be made:

1) In order for any military engagements to take place anywhere, proper jurisdiction is necessary. This jurisdiction has lacked in all the attacks that have taken place in the US, in Brittain, in Spain, in Russia, in Jordan, in Egypt, in Sa`udi Arabia, in Morocco, in Indonesia and so on. There is no difference of opinion on this, but consensus.

2) When the jurisdiction for military action exists, such as for example in Palestine and in Iraq, these actions are only permitted when they are in adherence to the regulations concerning warfare. There is no difference of opinion on this, but consensus.

3) There exists differences of opinion on 3 matters only, the first would be civillians. The general rule is that they are not targetted, but the difference of opinion exists in the extent of how they are defined. The strictest views are the ones that prevail and are most relied upon. The second would be the collateral damage. The general rule is that such is avoided to be avoided, the difference of opinion exists in how far it is acceptable. The strictest views are the ones that prevail and are most relied upon. The third is the subject of suicide, and here as well it is the strictest view that prevails and is most relied upon.

It should be mentioned that in all three cases where some difference of opinion exists, the general trend is that the strictest views are closest to orthodoxy while more lenient views are often influenced by other methodologies. It is to be emphasized that the complete reforming of all the principles, as we can often see in terrorist attacks, are completely ascribable to secterian ideologies. From the orthodox perspective, most if not all those who have engaged in the infamous attacks both in the West as in the Muslim world, one might remember Algeria, are part of a sect that has existed from the beginning and has fought against the Caliphate of Ali, and they are called the Khawarij (seceders). They are of the most extreme amongst those who are called Ahlul Bid'a wa-l-Dalaala, or the people of innovation and misguidance, opposed to those who are called Ahlus Sunnah wa-l-Jama`a, or the people of the way of the Prophet and the community.

I hope this helped.



Edited by Hamoudeh
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030 		  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 01:01
And not only from men, but also from God - from the source, the Koran:

"You may fight in the cause of GOD those who fight you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors." (2:190)

"...if you are attacked, then you shall attack by the same equivalence. And reverence GOD and know that GOD is with the righteous" (2:194)

"And if you punish, you shall inflict an equivalent punishment. But if you resort to patience (instead of revenge), it would be better for the patient ones. (16:26)

"If they seek peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient. (8:61)

"...anyone who kills any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he killed all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people..." (5:32)
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
Hamoudeh View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 06-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 75 		  Quote Hamoudeh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 01:16
If you wish to incorporate secterian views into this subject by presenting it in the context of "from men and from God", which by the way is evidently included in the articles linked if you would only have looked into them, then you might want to start with your translator because the Qur'an was not revealed in English.
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030 		  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 01:37
That's fine with me. I've seen the same verses listed in Bosnian-language and English-language websites, posted by Arabs who have certainly read the verses in Arabic. 
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
Hamoudeh View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 06-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 75 		  Quote Hamoudeh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 02:22
I thought you were commanded to verify everything, but I suppose that is only of importance when such command has a rhetorical value to you. Good it's fine with you, I'm fine with relying on what comes "from men" as well.  
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030 		  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 09:50
Well I'm glad you think Muslims who read the Koran not in Arabic are... whatever it is you're saying I am.

That covers 85% of the world's Muslims. So now you're more a minority than you ever were.
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979 		  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 10:08

The Quran is Arabic, if you read the Translation of the words of the Quran you read the Translation of the the words of the Quran NOT the Quran.

 
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030 		  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 10:12
I'd be willing to beat that me reading a "translated Koran" is a lot closer to the truth than you lot reading "Arabic hadiths".
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.105 seconds.