Jump to content
Islamic Forum
wiseguy

Taliban Displays Its Reach With Attacks

Recommended Posts

The death of children is horrible !! What is worse is that their terrorist parents would have their kids with them when they attack N.A.T.O. troops, knowing N.A.T.O. would return fire !! Definitely NOT parent of the year material. And while five kids are too much, it's much less than the 50 or 60 that was originally claimed by the terrorists. That just goes to show you how the terrorists inflate civilian casualties for their twisted propaganda, while down-playing their own losses, which are in the tens of thousand and growing.

 

I am sure that you 'good n fruity' are insane for blaming and framing the innocent defenseless Afghan people. Why don't you read the news about the US-NATO forces terrorizing and massacring innocent Afghan infants, children, women, elderly people, unarmed men in Afghanistan. You are really sick mentally and physically for slandering Afghan patriots by calling them terrorists. The fact is the Geneva Convention, the Nuremburg Principle etc allow Afghan people to defend their country against the brutal US-NATO forces that are terrorizing Afghanistan and massacring innocent Afghan people. After all, the US-NATO forces have no right to attack, invade and occupy Afghanistan illegally. I am sure you would be glad if robbers occupy your home, rape your daughters and murder your sons.

 

If you invade my country, I would not hesitate to stop your aggression by using force etc.

 

I am sure Hitler, Bush, Mussolini, Sharon, Stalin etc love you very much for you like to condone their war crimes against humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
That's why I asked the question - doesn't the Koran instruct Muslims to invade countries that don't convert or pay the tax?

 

1) Accept Islam

 

if not:

 

2) Pay Jizyah and come under our protection

 

if not:

 

3) The Sword

 

 

P.S. This is to spread the Laws and legislation of Allah(swt)(i.e. the Islamic Government).. no person is ever forced to convert to Islam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women[/url]

 

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_islam.idcake.web.id/azzam/talibanfaqs.htm"]Taliban FAQ's[/url]

 

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_islam.idcake.web.id/azzam/talibanwomen.htm"]The Taliban and Women[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
war was the last resort and was used under the most extra ordinary circumstances when all other measures fail.

 

What are "all other measures"?

 

If you mean diplomatically and inviting them to Islam, etc...then obviously that takes place first before any Military confrontation.

 

accusing abu bakr ra of initiating conflict is a serious charge. you don't know the whole story.

 

From the book.. "The Sword of Allah" chapter 18, Page 1:

 

The fort of Nujair, the last stronghold of apostasy, had fallen to the Muslims in about the middle of February 633. Soon after, Abu Bakr wrote to Khalid, who was still at Yamamah: "Proceed to Iraq. Start operations in the region of Uballa. Fight the Persians and the people who inhabit their land. Your objective is Hira." Tabari: Vol. 2, pp. 553-4.

 

It was a big order. Abu Bakr was taking on the mightiest empire of the time, before which the world had trembled for more than a thousand years.

 

 

 

Page 4 - 5:

 

He would not fight the entire Persian Empire, for that would be too big an objective in present circumstances. He would just take the Iraq of the Arabs, which meant the region west of the Tigris. Thus he would enlarge the boundaries of Islam and spread the new faith. At home there was peace, for with the defeat of the Kinda at Fort Nujair, Islam had been re-established in the land of Arabia.

 

 

Islam is a religion of peace, but not the peace of the timid and the submissive. It believes in peace, but the peace of the just and strong. "Fight in the way of Allah", says the Quran, "against those who fight you, but do not transgress." [Quran 2:190]… "And fight them until mischief is no more and religion is all for Allah."[Quran 8:39]. And so it would be war with the fire-worshipping Persians.

 

Abu Bakr had made up his mind to invade Iraq; but he would have to proceed with great care, for the Arab feared the Persian-with a deep, unreasoning fear which ran in the tribal consciousness as a racial complex and was the result of centuries of Persian power and glory. In return the Persian regarded the Arab with contempt. It was important not to suffer a defeat, for that would confirm and strengthen this instinctive fear. To make certain of victory, Abu Bakr decided on two measures: (a) the invading army would consist entirely of volunteers; (b) Khalid would be the commander of the army.

 

With this in view, he sent orders to Khalid to invade Iraq and fight the Persians. He further instructed Khalid to call to arms those who had fought the apostates and remained steadfast in their faith after the death of the Messenger of Allah, and to exclude from the expedition those who had apostatised. Finally, he added (referring to the soldiers): "Whoever wishes to return to his home may do so." Ibid: Vol. 2, p. 553.

 

 

When Khalid announced to his troops that the Caliph had given them permission to return home if they wished to do so, he was shocked by the result: thousands of his army left the army and returned Madinah and other places whence they had come. Whereas at the Battle of Yamamah he had commanded an army of 13,000 men, he was now left with only 2,000 men. Khalid wrote in haste to the Caliph, informing him of this alarming state of affairs and asking for reinforcements. When the letter reached Abu Bakr, he was sitting among his friends and advisers. He read the letter aloud so that all present might hear what it said. Then he sent for a young stalwart by the name of Qaqa bin Amr.

 

The young man arrived in the presence of the Caliph, armed and equipped for travel. The Caliph ordered him to proceed forthwith to Yamamah as a reinforcement to the army of Khalid. The Companions stared in amazement at the Caliph. "Are you reinforcing one whose army has left him, with one man?" they asked. Tabari: Vol. 2, pp. 553-4.

 

Abu Bakr looked for a moment at Qaqa. Then he said, "No army can be defeated if its ranks possess the likes of this man." Ibid. And Qaqa bin Amr rode away to reinforce the army of Khalid!

 

But this was not the only action that Abu Bakr took to build up Khalid's forces. He also wrote to Muthanna and Mazhur bin Adi (an important chief in North-Eastern Arabia), instructing them to muster their warriors and consider themselves and their men under the command of Khalid for the invasion of Iraq.

 

 

Having issued these instructions, Abu Bakr sat back and relaxed. He had given Khalid his mission to invade Iraq and fight the Persians; he had laid down a starting-point for the campaign, the region of Uballa; he had given Khalid his objective - Hira; and he had placed under Khalid's command whatever force he could muster. There was nothing else that he could do. It was up to Khalid to accomplish his mission. And Khalid, now in the forty-eighth year of his life, set about the conquest of Iraq.

Edited by Abu Hafsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Accept Islam

 

if not:

 

2) Pay Jizyah and come under our protection

 

if not:

 

3) The Sword

P.S. This is to spread the Laws and legislation of Allah(swt)(i.e. the Islamic Government).. no person is ever forced to convert to Islam

So what about when the prophet struck the 10 year peace deal with Quraish?

 

Islam is NOT if then statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what about when the prophet struck the 10 year peace deal with Quraish?

 

Islam is NOT if then statements.

 

 

Yeah its called a peace treaty.. listen if you have some proof of what u say then say it and bring ur proof...otherwise don't just type what YOU think Islam is without proof.. U waste ur time as well as others. So let's see some daleel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Accept Islam

 

if not:

 

2) Pay Jizyah and come under our protection

 

if not:

 

3) The Sword

 

No to all three. Come and get me.

Btw, even if I were considering Islam, I would flat out refuse after seeing this disgraceful list. Reducing your religion to a protection racket is perverse. No non-muslim would ever accept to paying a tax for the right to think differently from you, nor should they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No to all three. Come and get me.

Btw, even if I were considering Islam, I would flat out refuse after seeing this disgraceful list. Reducing your religion to a protection racket is perverse. No non-muslim would ever accept to paying a tax for the right to think differently from you, nor should they.

 

The three options are given to the Non-Muslim govts. since they represet the people..and the fight is not against the general populace. Just against the govts.

 

Jizyah is the tax for non-muslims.. Zakah is the tax that Muslims pay. Everyone pays a tax. Just like everyone pays taxes to the western govt.s of today.. What's the prob with that?

 

As for the laws and legislations of Allah.. Refuse all u want.. This Earth belongs to Allah and not you.. So Allahs laws WILL be implemented on his property.

Edited by Abu Hafsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..and the fight is not against the general populace. Just against the govts.

sounds like a baseless argument. you should be consistent with the use of your own source. it said:

 

Soon after, Abu Bakr wrote to Khalid, who was still at Yamamah: "Proceed to Iraq. Start operations in the region of Uballa. Fight the Persians and the people who inhabit their land. Your objective is Hira." Tabari: Vol. 2, pp. 553-4.

 

or maybe you are just trying to appease russ?

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The three options are given to the Non-Muslim govts. since they represet the people..and the fight is not against the general populace. Just against the govts.

 

If governments represent the people as you say, then doesn't it follow that the people would have to be mostly muslim for a muslim government to truly represent them?

 

Jizyah is the tax for non-muslims.. Zakah is the tax that Muslims pay. Everyone pays a tax. Just like everyone pays taxes to the western govt.s of today.. What's the prob with that?

 

Why are there two seperate taxes then, if it is so much like western govt's?

 

As for the laws and legislations of Allah.. Refuse all u want.. This Earth belongs to Allah and not you.. So Allahs laws WILL be implemented on his property.

 

Then let Him come down and impose it. History teaches me that no one else can truly be entrusted to carry out God's law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No to all three. Come and get me.

Btw, even if I were considering Islam, I would flat out refuse after seeing this disgraceful list. Reducing your religion to a protection racket is perverse. No non-muslim would ever accept to paying a tax for the right to think differently from you, nor should they.

 

Russ of Vespuccia,

 

Muslims and non-Muslims are required to pay tax in Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Is it a protection racket? If your government ask you to pay tax, is your government a protection racket? Your government may use your money to build WMDs to destroy all mankind or to attack, invade and occupy Muslim countries illegally.

 

In Muslim countries, Muslims and non-Muslims also pay tax for the benefit and betterment of Muslims and non-Muslims. The tax jizyah was indeed taken from the defeated people after a battle. The wisdom behind the tax/jizyah paid by non-Muslims to the Islamic state was fairness. This is for two reasons:

 

First, Muslims were paying zakah (the annual charity) to the Islamic state, which was used for all sorts of services and social welfare. Zakah is an Islamic act of worship, but it is only for Muslims. It was fair to make non-Muslim citizens of the same state pay a similar (in fact, smaller) amount as a tax, since zakah is not taken from them as it is taken from Muslims. Jizyah was calculated in different ways throughout different eras (a certain amount of money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the zakah, which every Muslim had to pay anyway.

 

In addition to that, this tax was paid in exchange of protection of these non-Muslim communities (i.e., military protection) and exemption of their men from joining the Islamic army. At that time, this was a necessary and fair measure given all the wars that the Islamic state was going through based on religious divides. It was not fair to ask these non-Muslim citizens to fight with Muslims against fellow believers of their same religion.

 

Non-Muslims who are poor are exempted from paying jizyah.

 

However, the concept of citizenship has developed in our current political culture to include people from all religions and it is no longer purely based on religion. Therefore, scholars no longer apply the rule of jizyah or exempt non-Muslims from serving their countries’ armies. The context now is different and therefore, the ruling differs and jizyah no longer applies.

 

Islam is better than Christianity etc. For example, the rights of Non-Muslims in Muslim Spain are respected by Muslim government and they were allowed to practise their beliefs and way of life freely. They were also tolerated and treated fairly by Muslims. On the contrary, when Muslim Spain fell into Christian hands, Muslims and Jews were persecuted,tortured, terrorized, raped, murdered or massacred and their properties were seized by Christians. The Christians also forced them to convert to Christianity at the swords' points. The Christians also seized Masjids and turned them into churches.

 

The Bible does not respect religious freedom: "Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place." (Deuteronomy 12:2-3)

 

The Bible, here commands the destruction of all the places where people worship other gods. There appears not a shred of religious tolerance here!

 

On the contrary, the Holy Quran respects religious freedom:

 

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. " (Qur'an 2:256)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sounds like a baseless argument. you should be consistent with the use of your own source. it said:

or maybe you are just trying to appease russ?

 

wassalam,

y

 

Yasnov.. Fighting is officially against the government. What i meant was that we do not go up to the general population and give them the three options.. we go to the Govt. Since they represent the people.

 

I am getting the feeling that you do not agree with the sources or you do not agree with anything i have posted... in that case can you bring us facts about how Islam spread? and about the things we talked about above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If governments represent the people as you say, then doesn't it follow that the people would have to be mostly muslim for a muslim government to truly represent them?

 

No

 

 

Why are there two seperate taxes then, if it is so much like western govt's?

 

Because Jazah is revealed in the Quran and is mandatory on Muslims... if we made the non-muslims pay that.. they would cry and say that we are forcing them to follow our religion! You dont want to follow our religion do you? Since zakah is like fasting or praying 5 times a day!

 

 

 

Then let Him come down and impose it. History teaches me that no one else can truly be entrusted to carry out God's law.

 

He has sent his Prophets and Messengers and Nations who will implement His laws on Earth. Allah does not need us nor needs to come down to put his laws on earth. He is all powerful and can do what he wants. This is what he has ordered us to do. Weather anyone likes it or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also as Brother ###### has explained beautifully about the Jizyah and Zakah.. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am getting the feeling that you do not agree with the sources or you do not agree with anything i have posted... in that case can you bring us facts about how Islam spread?

i don't agree with the conclusion that you reached. that's all.

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) and the leaders of Islamic governments had sent countless Islamic missionaries to propagate Islam among non-Muslims peacefully. However some non-Muslims with the support of the Byzantine government etc tortured and murdered the Islamic missionaries so the Islamic governments sent Muslim armies to punish the murderers and the people who were behind the murders. The enemies of Islam were given choices by the Muslim armies: Accept Islam or pay Jizyah and come under Muslim protection or war.

 

If the enemies of Islam chose war rather than peace, Muslim armies would not hesitate to fight against the enemies of Islam. When the enemies of Islam were defeated and punished by the Muslim armies, non-Muslims were allowed to practise their beliefs and their human rights were respected by Muslims. And the non-Muslims had to pay Jizyah for the benefits of the non-Muslims themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And also as Brother ###### has explained beautifully about the Jizyah and Zakah.. Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

I agree. He actually gave me some good information for once. Sans the second part of his post, of course.

 

However, the concept of citizenship has developed in our current political culture to include people from all religions and it is no longer purely based on religion. Therefore, scholars no longer apply the rule of jizyah or exempt non-Muslims from serving their countries’ armies. The context now is different and therefore, the ruling differs and jizyah no longer applies.

 

So Jizyah would no longer be a part of an Islamic government? And it would not be purely based on religion, or is this just your opinion? Don't get me wrong, it's a fine opinion; it has a more equal and egalitarian view of citizenship than has been described thus far. But us this the consensus of the Islamic scholars, or are these just your musings?

 

Obviously, if Jizyah is no longer a part of Muslim/Non-Muslim relations, than this arguement is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. He actually gave me some good information for once. Sans the second part of his post, of course.

So Jizyah would no longer be a part of an Islamic government? And it would not be purely based on religion, or is this just your opinion? Don't get me wrong, it's a fine opinion; it has a more equal and egalitarian view of citizenship than has been described thus far. But us this the consensus of the Islamic scholars, or are these just your musings?

 

Obviously, if Jizyah is no longer a part of Muslim/Non-Muslim relations, than this arguement is over.

 

I dont think jizyah can be taken out.. it will only be abolished when Jesus(as) returns... then he will only give 2 options:

 

1) Islam

or

2) The Sword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Quranic verse about Jizyah has a historical context which is a certain battle at the time of the Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him), and this tax was indeed taken from the defeated people after the battle. The interpretation of the Quranic verse that dealt with certain historical contexts should take into account that historical context, based on which scholars decide whether that context should or should not be extended to our context now. Given that this ruling was in particular political circumstances, it actually served a pure practical purpose. And if these circumstances and purpose no longer exist, then the ruling ceases to exist, too.

 

The historical context of the verse made it extendable to other similar situations throughout the Islamic history. Thus, similar taxes were taken from non-Muslims during the caliphates that followed the prophetic era. However, the concept of citizenship has developed in our current political culture to include people from all religions and it is no longer purely based on religion. Therefore, scholars no longer apply the rule of jizyah or exempt non-Muslims from serving their countries’ armies. The context now is different and therefore, the ruling differs and jizyah no longer applies.

 

However, Jizyah is not abolished. Jizyah is still applicable if similar situations exist.

 

Al-Bukhari and Muslim record that the Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, stated:

 

By Him in Whose hand is my life, the son of Mary (may peace be upon him) will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will break crosses, kill swine and abolish Jizyah and the wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yasnov.. Fighting is officially against the government. What i meant was that we do not go up to the general population and give them the three options.. we go to the Govt. Since they represent the people.

is this approach still applicable now?

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is this approach still applicable now?

 

wassalam,

y

 

The 3 options? There's no Khilafah... so there's no Offensive Jihad.. its all Defensive Jihad.. So obviously we are not able to do this.. But if tomorrow for example the Khilafah returns then it will be applicable.. Because when we have a State we can undertake offensive Jihad and spread Islam.. Today we are still defending ourselves.. and currently in the process of re-establishing the Khilafah.. inshAllah

 

May Allah aid the Ummah and bring victory soon.. Ameen

Edited by Abu Hafsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 3 options? There's no Khilafah... so there's no Offensive Jihad.. its all Defensive Jihad.. So obviously we are not able to do this..

assuming there is a khilafah today, what will happen?

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
assuming there is a khilafah today, what will happen?

 

wassalam,

y

 

I just said this above.. of course its applicable if there was a khilafah today.

 

If a Caliphate is re-established today.. then the duty of the Muslims is to firstly free all Muslim lands from Nationalistic govts. ...liberate all former Islamic lands ..India.. Spain.. etc etc... then liberate the rest of the world..spread Islam to the world.. and make Allah's deen victorious over all other deens

 

 

Have you heard of the Hadith where the Prophet (saw) talked about the Conquest of Rome? That Constantinople will be liberated first..then Rome?

Edited by Abu Hafsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a Caliphate is re-established today.. then the duty of the Muslims is to firstly free all Muslim lands from Nationalistic govts. ...

let's say indonesians do not want to be freed from its nationalistic leaders that they have elected, what will you do?

 

liberate all former Islamic lands ..India.. Spain.. etc etc... then liberate the rest of the world..spread Islam to the world.. and make Allah's deen victorious over all other deens

by liberate do you mean let's make war against those people who are now living in peace in a land that once were occupied by muslims?

 

Have you heard of the Hadith where the Prophet (saw) talked about the Conquest of Rome? That Constantinople will be liberated first..then Rome?

i guess so .. what about it?

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"let's say indonesians do not want to be freed from its nationalistic leaders that they have elected, what will you do?"

 

Shariah will be established.. Its not a popularity contest and wether people want to follow it or not.. Especially being Muslim.. How can a Muslim call himself a Muslm when he rejects the laws of Allah??

 

Nationalism is haram anyway..

 

"by liberate do you mean let's make war against those people who are now living in peace in a land that once were occupied by muslims?"

 

Peaceful? Firstly the whole world is against Islam.. India.. Spain.. Whatever.. they have their armies killing Muslims so let's cut this peaceful talk..

 

Secondly, those lands belong to the Muslims.. and not to anyone else..

 

And this earth earth belongs to Allah.. Not the kuffar.. Allah has sent this religion to Spread al haqq to the world and stamp out evil.. And inshAllah I will get proof and show you soon.. About the above mentioned things

And what about when Isa(as) comes back and he will only give the people the option of Islam or the Sword .. No jizyah.. What do you say to that? If in fact you do not agree that we should establish shariah on earth.. And leave ppl to live by man made kufr laws..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×