U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-16-2014, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
In most nations the indigenous people still survive, if they adapt to the ruling norm.
And the ruling norm is the local majority. No ruling from an external entity. All taxes etc stay within the nation all Government officials are



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
In Islamic countries the specific enemies are the jews and Christians, but in many cases they too, are allowed to survive, under Dhimine status..
While you disagree with the concept of Dhimmi it was a workable system and did provided protection for non-Muslims. Similar rules occur in every nation when part of the Nation consists of non-citizens Dhimmitude seems to have been the fairest.

Does a nation have the right to establish citizenship requirements?

Does a Nation have the right to establish residency requirements for not citizens?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
However it takes a ruling by the powers that be, to protect them, because Allah wants them dead, and when the country suffers an internal takeover, the jews, christians, and other non-believers, are the first to go.
Does an internal takeover reflect a religious teaching?
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2014, 02:26 PM
 
1,727 posts, read 1,082,597 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
And the ruling norm is the local majority. No ruling from an external entity. All taxes etc stay within the nation all Government officials are





While you disagree with the concept of Dhimmi it was a workable system and did provided protection for non-Muslims. Similar rules occur in every nation when part of the Nation consists of non-citizens Dhimmitude seems to have been the fairest.

Does a nation have the right to establish citizenship requirements?

Does a Nation have the right to establish residency requirements for not citizens?



Does an internal takeover reflect a religious teaching?

First of all, why would non-muslims need protection in the first place..

Because the religion of Islam orders them killed or subjugated.


Yes, any nation has a right to make the rules, that does not make them right, and in Islam's case, they are immoral and wrong. But, the orders come from God.


The nations orders come from Islam.

Islam says to kill them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
First of all, why would non-muslims need protection in the first place..

Because the religion of Islam orders them killed or subjugated.

Historically the people that most often sought refuge in Islamic nations have been Jews. Followed closely by Orthodox Christians.

Some Examples

HERE

HERE


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
Yes, any nation has a right to make the rules, that does not make them right, and in Islam's case, they are immoral and wrong. But, the orders come from God.
Perhaps, but a Nation is not going to last unless the majority support it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
The nations orders come from Islam.

Islam says to kill them.
The laws/orders of every nation have a source. What makes it wrong for the source to be Islam?

There are no commands to kill anyone simply because they are not Muslims.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 08:39 PM
 
1,727 posts, read 1,082,597 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post



Perhaps, but a Nation is not going to last unless the majority support it.


.

I agree with this 100%, you need a common denominator, a religion to establish the common law.

This can be good or evil, and it will still work, and hold the country on an even level.


If I was confined to the scripture of the Abrahamic religions, I would chose christianity as a common one, the lesser of the evils.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 08:43 PM
 
1,727 posts, read 1,082,597 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post



The laws/orders of every nation have a source. What makes it wrong for the source to be Islam?

There are no commands to kill anyone simply because they are not Muslims.

What is wrong for the source to be Islam, as opposed to just about everything, is the nature of the written doctrine.


And yes, there are commands to subjugate or kill, all non-muslims, with some loopholes, and I have posted several of them.

I should not have to keep posting them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
What is wrong for the source to be Islam, as opposed to just about everything, is the nature of the written doctrine.


And yes, there are commands to subjugate or kill, all non-muslims, with some loopholes, and I have posted several of them.

I should not have to keep posting them.
What you have posted numerous times are not commands to kill anyone simply because they are not Muslim. Every one of them was the retelling of a Battle or the consequences of violating a treaty.

Nearly all of them are from Surah 9 or a reference to Surah 9.

To think of them as commands is similar to reading a historical account of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and coming to the conclusion that Americans are commanded to kill all Japanese.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 10:29 AM
 
1,727 posts, read 1,082,597 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
What you have posted numerous times are not commands to kill anyone simply because they are not Muslim. Every one of them was the retelling of a Battle or the consequences of violating a treaty.

Nearly all of them are from Surah 9 or a reference to Surah 9.

To think of them as commands is similar to reading a historical account of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and coming to the conclusion that Americans are commanded to kill all Japanese.

Islam is for all time and cannot change, this is repeated in many ways within the sunnah.

Islam has orders to fight until all the world is muslim,

I have posted several verses regarding this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 10:43 AM
 
1,727 posts, read 1,082,597 times
Reputation: 531
Muhammad commanded: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57), and the alleged “numerous verses in the Koran” that “guarantee freedom of belief” have not prevented all the sects of Islam and all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite, from teaching that apostates should be killed.


Once these alleged verses are looked at, one realizes they are taken out of context, or are abrogated and no longer valid.


I get a kick out of the apologists quoting the verse, "You have your religion, I have mine", and while many muslims themselves actually believe this is an indication that muhammed allowed all religions.

Upon reading it in it's correct context, it is far from that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2014, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,274,304 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
Muhammad commanded: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57), and the alleged “numerous verses in the Koran” that “guarantee freedom of belief” have not prevented all the sects of Islam and all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite, from teaching that apostates should be killed.


Once these alleged verses are looked at, one realizes they are taken out of context, or are abrogated and no longer valid.


I get a kick out of the apologists quoting the verse, "You have your religion, I have mine", and while many muslims themselves actually believe this is an indication that muhammed allowed all religions.

Upon reading it in it's correct context, it is far from that.
The whole surah reads

109. Surah Al-Kaafiroon (The Disbelievers)

In the Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, Most Merciful

1. Say to these Mushrikun and Kafirun): "O Al-Kafirun
2. "I worship not that which you worship,
3. "Nor will you worship that which I worship.
4. "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.
5. "Nor will you worship that which I worship.
6. "To you be your religion, and to me my religion

Mauududi's Tafsir on it reads

Quote:
Period of Revelation

Hadrat Abdullah bin Mas'ud, Hadrat Hasan Basri and Ikrimah, say that this Surah, is Makki, while Hadrat Abdullah bin Zubair says that it is Madani. Two different views have been reported from Hadrat Abdullah bin Abbas and Qatadah, first that it is Makki, and second that it is Madani. However, according to the majority of commentators, it is a Makki Surah, and its subject- matter itself points to its being a Makki revelation.
Historical Background

There was a time in Makkah when although a storm of opposition had arisen in the pagan society of Quraish against the message of Islam preached by the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace), yet the Quraish chiefs hall not yet lost hope that they would reach some sort of a compromise with him. Therefore, from time to time they would visit him with different proposals of compromise so that he accepted one of them and the dispute between them was brought to an end. In this connection, different traditions have been related in the Hadith.

According to Hadrat Abdullah bin Abbas, the Quraish proposed to the Holy Prophet; "We shall give you so much of wealth that you will become the richest man of Makkah; we shall give you whichever woman you like in marriage; we are prepared to follow and obey you as our leader, only on the condition that you will not speak ill of our gods. If you do not agree to this, we present another proposal which is to your as well as to our advantage."When the Holy Prophet asked what it was, they said that if he would worship their gods, Lat and Uzza, for a year, they would worship his God for the same space of time. The Holy Prophet said: "Wait awhile; let me see what my Lord commands in this regard."Thereupon the revelation came down: Qul ya-ayyuhal- kafirun... and: Qul afa-ghair Allahi... (Az-Zumar: 64): "Say to them: ignorant people do you bid me to worship others than Allah?" (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Tabarani). According to another tradition from Ibn Abbas, the Quraish said to the Holy Prophet: "O Muhammad, if you kiss our gods, the idols, we shall worship your God."Thereupon, this Surah was sent down. (Abd bin Humaid).
For the whole thing read HERE
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 01:05 PM
 
1,727 posts, read 1,082,597 times
Reputation: 531
And what was happening when this verse was written.

It is manipulated to say muhammed tolerated all religions,

However, it was written when he was thrown out of Mecca, and sought refuge with the Jews of yathrub


He had no authority, and a dozen people.


He was on their turf, and kept his religion to his people, and the jews apparently allowed it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top