Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

event horizon wrote:I accept your challenge.

Let's start with a few classical scholars:

Ibn Abi Zayd al—Qayrawani (d. 996), Maliki jurist [11]

Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), Hanbali jurist [12]

Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).

From (primarily) the Hanafi school (as given in the Hidayah of Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali of Marghinan, d. 1196) [13]

It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war... If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.

al—Mawardi (d. 1058 ), Shafi'i jurist [14]

...The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al—Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them...in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun... Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger...it is forbidden to...begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached...


Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Sunni Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad: [15]

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/05/ ... des_1.html

does the quotes given by Bostom quoted above represent a reality (which loons say is true) that all Muslims are obligated by Islam to fight non-Muslims and get them to convert etc. If it were true, then we'd not be able to find an argument or examples that nullifies this interpretation.

The Quran is quite clear, though, that there is no compulsion in religion and that there is no conversion by force allowed. It is also quite clear that fighting is not allowed against those of other religions just because they happen to be non-Muslim.

This is not just a theory in the Quran, but a historical fact in that the non-Muslim state of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) was ruled by a Christian Negus and never was attacked by the Holy Prophet, pbuh.

Then they will contradict themselves and say that Abyssinia was not attacked by the Prophet, pbuh, because he made an exception and this was contradicting God's commandments in the Quran.

event horizon wrote:Ethiopia was attacked under the reign of the rightly guided caliphs

So - whilst the verses about Jihad are quite clear in context, his explicit example of NOT attacking the nearest Christian country, which was not hostile, clarifies any loon misinterpretation about the verses dealing with just wars.

his explicit example of NOT attacking the nearest Christian country, which was not hostile

Can you give me some details of this attack - I wasn't aware that any of the first 4 Khalifas (the 'rightly guided caliphs') attacked Abyssinia/Ethiopia.

The Bakt (or Baqt) was a treaty between the Christian state of Makuria and the Muslim rulers of Egypt. Lasting almost seven hundred years it is by some measures the longest lasting treaty in history. The name comes either from the Egyptian's term for barter or the Greco-Roman term for pact.

Despite its longevity not much is clear about the bakt and almost all the information about it comes from Muslim sources. The Bakt was signed after the 651 Muslim invasion of Egypt. That year Abdallah ibn Abi Sarh led an army south against the Christian kingdoms of Nubia. Later Islamic historians state that Nubia was not worth conquering and the expedition was simply to subordinate the region to Egypt. Earlier sources give the more likely story that the Arab armies met a rare defeat at the Battle of Dongola and only acceded to the Bakt when they realized that the conquest of the region would be difficult. The treaty was negotiated between Abi Sarh and the Makurian King Qalidurat.

There is no extant copy of the treaty they signed, and the earliest copies are several centuries after the fact and are quite varied. The treaty might not have been written at all and may have just been an oral agreement. Some sections of the bakt are clear:

* the Arabs would not attack Nubia and the Nubians would not attack Egypt
* the citizens of the two nations would be allowed to freely trade and travel between the two states and would be guaranteed safe passage while in the other nation
* immigration to and settlement in the other nation's lands was forbidden
* fugitives were to be extradited as were escaped slaves
* the Nubians were responsible for maintaining a mosque for Muslim visitors and residents
* the Egyptians had no obligation to protect the Nubians from attacks by third parties

The most important provision was that 360 slaves per year were to be sent to Egypt. These slaves had to be of the highest quality with no old ones or children, they were to be a mix of male and female. In some reports an extra forty were due which were distributed among notables in Egypt.

Ibn Abd al-Hakam, one of the first historians to discuss the treaty, gives two different versions of the treaty. The first has only Nubia sending slaves north, thus symbolizing its subservience to Egypt. The second version adds an obligation of the Egyptians to also send goods south including wheat and lentils in exchange for the slaves, this would put the two nations on a more equal footing.

This treaty was unprecedented in the history of the Arab conquests, being more similar to the arrangements the Byzantine Empire sometimes made with its neighbours. It is also unmatched in that it largely blocked the spread of Islam and the Arabs for half a millennium. The Baqt caused some controversy among Islamic theologians as there was controversy over whether it violated the duty to expand the borders of Islam. Spaulding reports that the exchange of goods was a common diplomatic arrangement in Northeast Africa and the Nubians would have had long experience with such agreements.

The Bakt was not always without controversy and conflicts between the neighbours were not unheard of. In the 830s, Egypt plunged into civil war and King Zacharias III of Makuria halted payment of the Bakt. When Ibrahim gained firm control of Egypt he demanded resumption of the Bakt, and payment of arrears. Unable or unwilling to pay this large sum Zacharias sent his son and heir Georgios on a long journey to Baghdad in 835 to negotiate directly with the Caliph. This expedition was a great success and the arrears were canceled and the Bakt was altered so that it only had to be paid every three years.

The closest relations were during the Fatimid period in Egypt. The Shi'ite Fatimids had few allies in the Arab world and Nubia was an important ally. The slaves sent from Nubia made up the backbone of the Fatimid army. Relations were worse under the Ayyubids and very poor under the Mamelukes, with full scale war eventually breaking out. Even after Makuria collapsed in the thirteenth century the Egyptians continued to insist upon its payment by the Muslim successor kingdoms in the region. The Bakt finally ended in the mid-fourteenth century with the complete collapse of organized government in the region.

Abyssinia was indeed not attacked/conquered and the reason was that they weren't a hostile nation.

This blows the loon interpretation of Islam (one not shared by Muslims) that ALL non-Muslim nations should be attacked and subjugated

and supports the true Islamic teachings that just wars are allowed in Islam and the fantasy that Islam says all non-Muslims need to be attacked is only an orientalist discredited notion that Spencer and Geller have ressurected.

Prophet, pbuh, was clear that the peaceful Abyssinia should not be attacked

I always enjoy how loon bloggers believe that they can speak to what Islam actually teaches and place their views above that of the Prophet, pbuh.

The choice is now clear, you haven't produced any new evidence for your views and haven't really addressed the simple fact that the Prophet, pbuh, actions in relation to Abysyinnia are in total agreement with Islamic theology, but contradicts the loon version of Islam.

The choice is therefore between the Prophet who brought the Quran, and a loon blogger who hasn't actually read the whole Quran. Far be it for me to say which one you should choose, but for me it is a clear choice.

As I said, should have new evidence that the Prophet, pbuh, was wrong and Spencer/Geller/you are right, then please present it.

As I said, should have new evidence that the Prophet, pbuh, was wrong and Spencer/Geller/you are right, then please present it.

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

Simple question eh, why should we believe a loon interpretation rather than what the Prophet, pbuh, actually taught.

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

shafique wrote:You have singularly failed to address a simple fact that the Prophet, pbuh, taught and demonstrated that Islam does NOT advocate Muslims attacking all non-Muslim states as a tenet of faith. Spencer's theory is punked - the injunctions allowing a just war can't be generalised, which is exactly why you insist on only looking at the elephant's trunk (your selective quotes).

This is a classic example of loon reasoning - relying on selective quotes and loon interpretations.

There is indeed a concept of just war in Islam.

Jihad, the lesser jihad, does indeed signify using military means to establish order and fight injustice. The greater Jihad is self-improvement, fighting against one's own bad thoughts/intentions and purifying one's soul.

When there is a need for a just war, then there is indeed an obligation for a Muslim state to act.

So, the question becomes - does the quotes given by Bostom quoted above represent a reality (which loons say is true) that all Muslims are obligated by Islam to fight non-Muslims and get them to convert etc. If it were true, then we'd not be able to find an argument or examples that nullifies this interpretation.

Specifically, we need to choose whether Spencer is right that ALL non-Muslims states should be attacked according to Islam, vs the practice of the Prophet, pbuh, clarified in practice and teaching.