Jihad vs. Holy War - Page 3

niranjan · 06-11-2007, 02:02 PM

Check out this as well...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003309.php

http://antidhimmi321.blogspot.com/search/label/Norway

http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemede...MuslimRape.htm

http://pre-eurabia-english.blogspot....archive.html(( Rape of chinese non-muslims, swedish , norwegian,french, pakistani christian ladies and girls by islamic terrorists )

http://amkha.blogspot.com/

sisterX · 06-11-2007, 02:14 PM

You have done alot of work Nir so here is my response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by niranjan

There is much good in hinduism. It produced the buddha itself. Buddhism, jainism and sikhism are sects of hinduism.

Vivekananda, mahatma gandhi, ramana maharshi, j.krishnamurthy, ramakrishna, krishna and other enlightened masters of India have influenced millions all over the world.

Raja ram mohan roy is a vedic scholar who put an end to sati.

I love challenges.

Here goes.....

Here are a few verses from the Quran that deals with terror.

1. (Koran 8:12) "Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

This is God talking about how HE wil punish disbelievers, not giving permission for muslims to instill terror. Muslims have no right to do such a thing. After all all non-muslims are potential muslims

2. (Koran 2:216) "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not."

This is Jihad in self defence. Muslims are told not to be the oppressors but when opresses fight back in war against those who fight you. I have already given you verses which say that

3. (Koran 69:30-37) "It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful."

this is a wrong quotation, give me the correct verse and chapter please

4. (Koran 69:30-37) "(It will be said) Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. Lo! he used not to believe in God the tremendous, and urged not on the feeding of the wretched. Therefore hath he no lover hear this day nor any food save filth which none but sinners eat."

Again this is talking about the punishment in Hell not giving rigts to muslims to kill and slaughter anyone

5. (Koran 5: 33-34) "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is forgiving, merciful."

Yes "those who make war with Allah and His messengers", notice it is not advising that the Muslims make war. Again self defence.

6. (Koran 22: 19-22) "These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning."

Again I dont see any incitement to murder and slaughter non muslims, this is talking about the punishment of Hell.

7. (Koran 76: 4) "Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers chains, yokes and a blazing fire."

Again a description of Hell

8. So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…. (Koran 9:5)

This verse has been taken out of context, you have to read the verses coming after it and put it into context

(Quran 9:6-7)
6. If one amongst the Pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

7. How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom you made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand you true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.

This verse says if they fight you fight them, if they ask for assylum grant it.

The only punishment of those that wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut-off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned…. (Koran 5:33)

Again you have taken the verse out of context you have to read the verses before and after the verse.

33. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

34. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

35. Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

These punishments are for those who punishe others in such a way.

9."Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allah unless it is done to guard (Takeyya) yourselves against them, guarding carefully. And Allah cautions you against His retribution. And to Allah is the eventual coming." (Koran 3:27)

the verse does not incite murder rape or terror, t simply says take believers as helpers and friends rather than disbelievers

10.Sura 47:4-6,15 "Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers (in fight), smite them at their necks.At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them).

This is when at war with disbelievers, why did you nit quote the full verse?
the full verse says:
4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

11.Sura 61:4,11-13 "Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure ... that ye believe in God and His Apostle, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the cause of God, with your property and your persons. That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to gardens beneath which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in gardens of eternity. That is indeed the supreme achievement. And another (favour will He bestow), which ye do love - help from God and a speedy victory. So give the glad tidings to the believers."

Yes fight to defend Islam not to oppress innocents

12.Sura 9:29-31 "Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Again those who fight you not innocents

13.Sura 5:54 "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."

actually the right verse is 51 not 54. Where does it say kill them?

sisterX · 06-11-2007, 03:19 PM

Yes the Quran allows taking as slaves captive men and women but it does not allow the raping of them. The captive women only become slaves when taken back to Islamic territory, their marriage does not become nullified if they are stil in non-muslim territory and they do not become slave girls if they are captured with their husbands.

The Quran also says to teach them Islam and release them. A slave girl cannot be a concubine for more that one man and that man does not have the right to rape her.
If she has a child, she and the child have rights and she is automatically freed at the death of her master.

Muslims took captive at times of war but so did the enemies of Muslims, that is what happened at those times, it was nothing new. It was however new that slaves should be bought to be freed which is what Muslims did, including Muhammed. They would buy slaves just to free them. This is how even tually Slavery became abolished in most Muslims countries.

niranjan · 06-11-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sisterX

Yes the Quran allows taking as slaves captive men and women but it does not allow the raping of them. The captive women only become slaves when taken back to Islamic territory, their marriage does not become nullified if they are stil in non-muslim territory and they do not become slave girls if they are captured with their husbands..

Ha, ha, ha....

So you admit again the your 'noble' quran condones slavery, which is considered repugnant by all civilized nations and political systems.

And I feel very angry that you are still justifying the enslavment of ladies, just because they belong to other religions.

And I guess, those ladies whose husbands are slaughtered by the islamic terrorists, since they don't have husbands become slave women.

What a gross perversion of justice and righteousness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sisterX

The Quran also says to teach them Islam and release them. A slave girl cannot be a concubine for more that one man and that man does not have the right to rape her.

The quran gives them the right to have sexual relations with the slave women.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sisterX

If she has a child, she and the child have rights and she is automatically freed at the death of her master..

How noble!!!! Islam is indeed kind to slaves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sisterX

Muslims took captive at times of war but so did the enemies of Muslims, that is what happened at those times, it was nothing new. It was however new that slaves should be bought to be freed which is what Muslims did, including Muhammed. They would buy slaves just to free them. This is how even tually Slavery became abolished in most Muslims countries.

Proclamations of emancipation and repudiations of participation in slave trafficking did not occur in Muslim lands until after the Christian-European Colonial era - as late as 1962 in Saudi Arabia, 1970 in Oman and Yemen, and 1981 in Mauritania.
Islamic slavery in the fashion multigenerational hereditary slavery (in Mauritania) is still evident today. In Chad, child enslavement with the aspect of forced conversion to Islam has been documented.

sisterX · 06-12-2007, 09:16 AM

Niranjan, you are mistaken. Captives can only be taken at times of war, when the enemy have slaughtered your people, you cannot just go to a non-muslim country and take captives and enslave them, and you CANNOT start a war that was not started against you first.
These are the rules of war in Islam.

niranjan · 06-12-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sisterX

Niranjan, you are mistaken. Captives can only be taken at times of war, when the enemy have slaughtered your people, you cannot just go to a non-muslim country and take captives and enslave them, and you CANNOT start a war that was not started against you first.
These are the rules of war in Islam.

So you still condone the capturing of ladies of other religions in other nations and their enslavement, which you say is a rule in Islam.

And I again say that this is a gross perversion of justice and righteousness, which offends the sensibilities of any gentleman who considers it his duty to uphold the dignity and honour of every woman and girl on earth because of their physical weakness, but great heart and tender sensitivities.

And really history teaches us clearly that islamic terrorists engaged in offensive warfare against asia , africa and europe without any form of provocation. The destruction of persia and the zoroastrian religion over there is a major example of this. The whole history of islam is that of unprovoked offensive warfare and slaughter and rape of innocents in asia, africa and europe.

sisterX · 06-12-2007, 02:15 PM

Niranjan ok, no more 'Miss Nice-Girl' from me.

Yu seem to have selective judgements on religion, if you think Islam wrongfully condones the enslavement of people take a look at your own religion which is more specific and louder in legalizing slavery.

Hinduism is the one and only religion in this world which has a documented concept of "Occhut" (Untouchables). It is the only religion in this world which spread racism directly by scripture, and by preachers. Those 'untouchable Dalits' who has been considered as 'slaves' by Aryans, are, no doubt, the most pitiable victims of the "wonderful" Hindu religion.

In ancient Rig-Veda, we find clear mention of slaves. From Aryan scripture, we get three types of slaves [Ref. Pracheen Bharotey Dash-protha : Devraj Channa] -

1. Slaves because of incurring debts

2. Slaves because of loosing in gamble

3. Slaves because of loosing in war.

Since then the slaves are denoted as captivated purchasable product. It has been legalized to have intercourse with the women of defeated side after the war as the women were considered as the "spoil of war".

There are numerous examples in ancient Hindu scriptures where royal sages made relationship with slave-girls. One example may be the birth of Kaksmibaan as depicted in Rig-Veda (1|116) who was born because of the relationship between Dirghotomaa and a slave-girl of Angamhishi. Kobosh-Oilush was also a child of a slave girl.

Hindu scriptures intentionally described slaves as "black", "black-vagina", "inactive" or even "inhuman" etc. Aryans were different for the slaves and it is said that Indra, the soverign of the hindu gods, did this separation (Rig-Veda 2|20|7, 10|22|3, 86|19, Atharva veda 5|13|8).

A Slave was considered nothing but as a property, and (s)he was even allowed to be destroyed for just the benefit of Aryans (Rig-Veda 1|19|8, 5|34|6, 6|25|2, 8|40|6). It was also an ancient tradition to provide a slave girl with a new bride just after the marriage for her convenience in new house. In Vedic literature of later ages, we get an incident of a paramount ruler who made presentation about thousand slave-girls to his clergy [Oitoreyo Brahmmon 39|8].

Ramayan and mahabharat also mentioned about slaves. In an incident of Ramayana, you find Raja Ram meeting with slave community (Dhibor Das) who lived by the bay of Ganges. They used to live their life by fishing, hunting and collecting fruits in near by jungles.

It is quite interesting to note that there is a lot of evidence that slaves were being kept in the palace of Ram and Kaikeyi. (BUT SURPRISINGLY THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE EVIDENCE OF KEEPING SLAVES in the royal mansion of Ravan in Lanka.) We also find a very clear indication of a well-established slave-based Hindu society in Mahabharat .

So there you go niranjan I did not want it to get to this 'tit for tat' but you pushed me to it. The thread was talking about Holy war and you turned it into your own personal attack on Islam as a religion. You talk about slavery like it was something origionating in Islam and its sriptures. SLAVERY HAPPENED, it had it's roots firmly embedded way before the emergance of Islam.

You cant find anything to say about Islam other than the propaganda you get from the media. Get over it and stop hating.

Islam is a beautiful fair and just religion which gave rights to those who had NO rights.

sisterX · 06-12-2007, 02:21 PM

Oh and before you talk about how Hinduism has now been fashionably 'reformed, tell that to those who suffered before this reform.

Give me one verse from the your VEDAS which talks about setting slaves free.

niranjan · 06-14-2007, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sisterX

Niranjan ok, no more 'Miss Nice-Girl' from me.

Yu seem to have selective judgements on religion, if you think Islam wrongfully condones the enslavement of people take a look at your own religion which is more specific and louder in legalizing slavery.

Hinduism is the one and only religion in this world which has a documented concept of "Occhut" (Untouchables). It is the only religion in this world which spread racism directly by scripture, and by preachers. Those 'untouchable Dalits' who has been considered as 'slaves' by Aryans, are, no doubt, the most pitiable victims of the "wonderful" Hindu religion.

In ancient Rig-Veda, we find clear mention of slaves. From Aryan scripture, we get three types of slaves [Ref. Pracheen Bharotey Dash-protha : Devraj Channa] -

1. Slaves because of incurring debts

2. Slaves because of loosing in gamble

3. Slaves because of loosing in war.

Since then the slaves are denoted as captivated purchasable product. It has been legalized to have intercourse with the women of defeated side after the war as the women were considered as the "spoil of war".

There are numerous examples in ancient Hindu scriptures where royal sages made relationship with slave-girls. One example may be the birth of Kaksmibaan as depicted in Rig-Veda (1|116) who was born because of the relationship between Dirghotomaa and a slave-girl of Angamhishi. Kobosh-Oilush was also a child of a slave girl.

Hindu scriptures intentionally described slaves as "black", "black-vagina", "inactive" or even "inhuman" etc. Aryans were different for the slaves and it is said that Indra, the soverign of the hindu gods, did this separation (Rig-Veda 2|20|7, 10|22|3, 86|19, Atharva veda 5|13|8).

A Slave was considered nothing but as a property, and (s)he was even allowed to be destroyed for just the benefit of Aryans (Rig-Veda 1|19|8, 5|34|6, 6|25|2, 8|40|6). It was also an ancient tradition to provide a slave girl with a new bride just after the marriage for her convenience in new house. In Vedic literature of later ages, we get an incident of a paramount ruler who made presentation about thousand slave-girls to his clergy [Oitoreyo Brahmmon 39|8].

Ramayan and mahabharat also mentioned about slaves. In an incident of Ramayana, you find Raja Ram meeting with slave community (Dhibor Das) who lived by the bay of Ganges. They used to live their life by fishing, hunting and collecting fruits in near by jungles.

.

So there you go niranjan I did not want it to get to this 'tit for tat' but you pushed me to it. The thread was talking about Holy war and you turned it into your own personal attack on Islam as a religion. You talk about slavery like it was something origionating in Islam and its sriptures. SLAVERY HAPPENED, it had it's roots firmly embedded way before the emergance of Islam.

You cant find anything to say about Islam other than the propaganda you get from the media. Get over it and stop hating.

Islam is a beautiful fair and just religion which gave rights to those who had NO rights.

When I myself have severely criticized Hinduism , you still , in order to mask the great blemishes and stench of Islam, starts to vilify Hinduism. This is a classic case of retribution in order to deny one's own great failings.

You state that you are a 'no-more nice girl', which reveals your psyche and mind. Well I will continue to be a gentleman to debate my case.

Anyway getting to the subject, 'no-more nice girl '.....

The vedas says...

Vasudeiva Kudumbhakam -- The whole world is one family.

Sarve Amritasya Putrah ( Vedas ) ---- We are all children of God.

Let our hearts be
In equality and unity.
- Rig Veda 10/191/4

You may live
And let me also live.
- Atharva Veda 19/69/1

Slavery is pain,
Freedom is pleasure,
In short, this is the definition
Of pain and pleasure.
- Manu

O effulgent Lord,
May the person who enslaves us
Be crushed under feet
Whether he is near or far;
Mayest Thou be with us
For our progress and prosperity.
- Rig Veda 1/79/11

Holy Vedas admonish us that he, who snatches the basic right of liberty and wishes to make us servile, should not be allowed at all to exercise his power, whether he is alien or our own kith and kin:

O resplendent Lord,
Destroy the power of the man
Who wants to enslave us
Whether he is alien or akin,
No matter, if his strength
Is as vast as the sky;
Break the ropes
Fastened unto his bows.
- Rig Veda 10/133/5

It should be noted that neither the caste system nor untouchability was sanctioned in the vedas, and this is the reason why the arya samaj, the hindu organisation committed to the vedas, are staunchly against the caste system, untouchability and other stuff.

Slavery was not common and was rare in hinduism.

Check this out....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_religion

I also wish to state that Buddhism, which is more ancient than Islam, and which has roughly the same number of adherents as Islam, does not condone slavery,as buddha confirms the equality of all sentient creatures.

Similarly does the other dharmik religions sikhism and jainism.

The aryan invasion theory too is a myth propounded by western pseudo-scholars without studying sanskrit or the vedas properly.
And the so-called Aryan stuff can be better understood from the posts in this link ....

http://www.agnosticforums.com/hindui...eligion-3.html

.

niranjan · 06-14-2007, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sisterX

Hinduism is the one and only religion in this world which has a documented concept of "Occhut" (Untouchables). It is the only religion in this world which spread racism directly by scripture, and by preachers. Those 'untouchable Dalits' who has been considered as 'slaves' by Aryans, are, no doubt, the most pitiable victims of the "wonderful" Hindu religion..

Hinduism did not have slavery to the rampant scale as islam had, but still, the concept of untouchability ,which is not sanctioned by the vedas, is a blot on hinduism. However these so-called untouchables were free men too, with their own rights, though they did not have as many rights as the upper castes had. It is same like the peasants in other nations, like the serfs. And the scriptured too states that they too could become brahmins or kshatriyas if they possessed the necessary talents. The shudra was allowed to kill a brahmin in self-defence too, according to the scriptures, and he incurred no sin in doing so.

It is a fact that more than 70 per cent of the ancient Hindu Rishis, or enlightened masters of India, belonged to the lower castes.

Valmiki and Vyasa , who wrote the epics Ramayana and Mahabharatha respectively, belonged to the lower castes.

In ancient times , one's caste was determined by one's temperament, talents and inclinations. Caste was not a barrier to the lower caste people, who rose to the level of the upper castes through their talents.

This was the reason why Kshatriyas like the Buddha and Vishwamitra , became Brahmins or men of spiritual nature and why a Brahmin like Parashurama became a Kshatriya.

This is also the reason why shudras or low caste people like Valmiki , Vyasa, Vasishtha, Narada, Drona, Karna ,Thiruvalluvar were raised to the position of a Brahmin or Kshatriya , in virtue or their superior learning or valour.

In the manu smriti , when it comes to stance of hereditary caste system, the verse below is believed to sanction support for vocational non-hereditary caste system.
"As the son of Shudra can attain the rank of a Brahmin, the son of Brahmin can attain rank of a shudra. Even so with him who is born of a Vaishya or a Kshatriya" (X: 65)

Paramahansa Yogananda also opposed what he called to the un-Vedic caste system as we know it today. He taught that the caste system originated in a higher age, but became degraded through ignorance and self-interest. Yogananda said:

"These were (originally) symbolic designations of the stages of spiritual refinement. They were not intended as social categories. And they were not intended to be hereditary. Things changed as the yugas [cycles of time] descended toward mental darkness. People in the higher castes wanted to make sure their children were accepted as members of their own caste. Thus, ego-identification caused them to freeze the ancient classifications into what is called the ‘caste system.’ Such was not the original intention. In obvious fact, however, the offspring of a brahmin may be a sudra by nature. And a peasant, sometimes, is a real saint.”"

—from Conversations with Yogananda, Crystal Clarity Publishers, 2003.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sisterX

Ramayan and mahabharat also mentioned about slaves. In an incident of Ramayana, you find Raja Ram meeting with slave community (Dhibor Das) who lived by the bay of Ganges. They used to live their life by fishing, hunting and collecting fruits in near by jungles. .

These guys were not slaves at all , but were a shudra caste , who were not at all under anyone,as can be seen by their occupations. One of them offered fruits to Prince Rama, who hugged him warmly in return.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sisterX

It is quite interesting to note that there is a lot of evidence that slaves were being kept in the palace of Ram and Kaikeyi. (BUT SURPRISINGLY THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE EVIDENCE OF KEEPING SLAVES in the royal mansion of Ravan in Lanka.) We also find a very clear indication of a well-established slave-based Hindu society in Mahabharat .

It is quite clear to me that you got this nonsense from an untrained western pseudo-scholar, or an Indian who have not studied the scriptures.

You state above that slaves were there in Rams palace , but not there in ravans mansion.

Ravan was a hindu himself, a brahmana, who was the son of a brahmana himself, and he had also mastered the vedas at his youth, and was a devotee of Shiva.

Ravana is a brahmana , while Rama belongs to the kshatriya caste, which is a lower caste to the brahmana.

It is like stating that there is slavery in certain areas of hinduism, and there are not ,in other areas of hinduism.

Ravana is a classic example of a great warrior and king, who was corrupted by his own power, which made him overstep his moral code of conduct and perpetrate excesses.

The exiled prince Rama fought against Ravana in combat , and killed him in a classic battle. Though the whole of ravanas kingdom was Rama's now, he restored it to ravanas brother Vibhishana, and treated ravana' wife with generosity and kindness, and returned back to his own kingdom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sisterX

Islam is a beautiful fair and just religion which gave rights to those who had NO rights.

Complete opposite.

Islam is a religion which treated ladies indecently and enslaved the men of other religions too , on the sole reason that these ladies and men were unbelievers