Without agreeing, or disagreeing with anything you've said, I'd like to ask you this...do you believe Israel is a totally innocent party that is free from having committed grievous acts against the Palestinians and Lebanese?
I saw a live interview on Sky News (in the UK) with their correspondent David Bowden during the war, in which he said that Hezbollah did not fire rockets close to, or from buildings. Instead they typically fired from olive plantations. About three seconds later the transmission was mysteriously lost. Obviously it wasn't what the Israelis wanted viewers to hear. If the media misled people about this, then what is to say they didn't mislead viewers over the number of tanks the Israelis lost? Propaganda is a key element of war these days, and nothing can be broadcast from Israel without being subject to censorship.
You really think Israel was winning? Why is it then, that during the last days before the ceasefire they came under the heaviest rocket attacks of the war? Also, the Israeli army is far from being outdated and under funded, complacent and under trained perhaps, but not under funded. Do you even know how much they get from the American government on a yearly basis? Surely you must have been aware of the arms shipments, consisting of the latest bombs that took place during the fighting? It caused a bit of fuss in the UK at the time.
Don't trust without question what you see on the news broadcast, they show you what they want you to see, with the slant that they want it to have.
How have you come to the conclusion Hizbollah won't negotiate? The Lebanese government tried to secure the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails along time before this conflict started, and they were ignored by Israel. Hizbollah then warned Israel five months ago that they would try to capture an Israeli solder to swap prisoners, which they did. In the past Hizbollah has negotiated with Israel, and they wanted to this time, but Israel it seems, has other plans, and was looking for this excuse to go to war. Hizbollah started firing rockets after Israel starting bombing, and yes, Hizbollah captured an Israeli solder, but it's not as if Israel hasn't mounted raids into Lebanon.
I think you'll find that Hizbollah will disappear as a military force if it's stated goals are met at some point. From what I've read these are:
a) The return of the occupied Sheba Farms, taken by Israel in 1967.
b) A map of the land mines laid in southern Lebanon during their 18 year occupation.
c) Release of all Lebanese prisoners from Israeli jails.
Hizbollah has already agreed to the seven point planned proposed by the Lebanese prime minister, not that Israel or America are at all interested. And interestingly enough, this afternoon I saw the Lebanese prime minister thanking Hizbollah for their sacrifices, so I think you need to educate yourself more fully on the situation. Israel isn't as innocent as the American/British media try to make out. Other media outlets from around the World paint a very different picture of the situation.
Resupplying the rockets during this assault and firing them is pretty much the same thing in my eyes, as it is to many other people. It is clear that America and Britain are not neutral parties in this conflict.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, the Arsenal - Real Madrid match was on:)
About slavery, this is taken from the English translation of Reliance of the Traveller, authored by Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, and translated by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller (an American convert to Islam by the way). This work is a traditional book of jurisprudence for one of the four main schools of thought in Sunni Islam. The section on slavery hasn't been translated, although the original Arabic is here in front of me. This is the explanation Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller has given:
"This section, which begins, "To free a slave is an act of worship," deals with a system of ownership that Islam did not invent but found fully established and not possible to instantly abolish, so it rather encouraged its elimination in steps, with incentives. It closed all avenues for obtaining new slaves except the capture of war prisoners, the soldiers of whom the caliph had the option to enslave or not; it encouraged the freeing of slaves by the tremendous reward from Allah Most High; and it materially helped slaves to purchase their freedom by providing them the money to do so from zakat funds. Like previous references to slaves, the following four sections have been left untranslated because the issue is no longer current, unlike the times of our author Ibn Naqib, whose rulers, the Mamelukes of Egypt, were themselves slaves who legally belonged to the Islamic state, a fact sufficient to show the fallacy of understanding slavery in the Islamic milieu in terms of the institution that existed in nineteenth-century America and elsewhere in the West." (Reliance of the Traveller, page 458-9).
Now, that should answer a few of your questions. If you think it's convenient that the section on slavery hasn't been translated, then feel free to grab yourself a copy and translate the section. Unfortunately I haven't studied classical Arabic for the many years necessary to be able to. Also, if you're wondering about the credability of the translator, then I can tell you that amongst traditionally minded Muslims, he is highly respected. There are audio lectures and written articles online, and they show the great intelligence and high rank he has been blessed with.
Just to be clear on my views on slavery, I believe it to be wrong of course.
You're right about not saying that slavery was only practiced on black people. Sorry about that.
The bit about not judging things by the standards commonly held today, was not really in relation to this issue, but other issues raised in other threads. Sorry, I was a bit worked up about the slandering going on in some of them.
Martin Ling's book is based on the hadith, so I don't see what's wrong with it. Of course there are earlier, more comprehensive books, but I suggested this one as it's aimed at readers from the West and is well written. Unfortunately, many English translations of great classical Arabic works aren't up to the standards that I would like, since many are translated and published in the Indian subcontinent. This fortunately is changing for the better though.
It is quite dangerous taking hadiths from the internet, most of the information on Islam out there is wrong, much of it deliberate. If you read hadiths, it is best to buy a collection of hadith with accompanying explanation (termed tafsir). The study of hadith, is a branch of science in Islam, and scholars can spend their entire lifes studying it. Hadiths are graded according to their reliablility, and some hadiths abrogate previous ones, or may need to be understood with respect to a handful of others, or the historical context. It is therefore preferable to take the explanations from recognised scholars in the field.
You are very wrong for being concerned about those Muslims who hold fast to traditional Islam, unless of course you like people blowing themselves and others up, or rioting and causing damage when they shouldn't? Even the British government would prefer that more people f
Despite being completely wrong, you are contradicting yourself when you say Muslims practiced slavery on only non-Muslims. You see Bilal, Abu Hurairah and Usama bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with them) were amongst the best of Muslims, so your ignorance of the reality is clear. Bilal was a black slave, but to a pagan Arab who physically tortured him on learning of his conversion to Islam (a common occurence to the Muslims during the early period of Islam). In fact, Bilal was the person who called the Muslims to the five daily congregational prayers, when the Muslims became strong enough to hold them. This position is recognised as being one of the most blessed since that person will receive reward for all those who attend. Additionally, Abu Hurairah and Usama bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with them) were not black. That site you link to contains a lot of factually incorrect material, and has clearly been written by someone with an agenda against Islam.
Whilst it's true that Islam did not put an out right ban on slavery, it was highly encouraged that slaves be set free. You have to remember, culturally things were very different at that time, and in that part of the World, and so you shouldn't judge things by today's arbitrary sensibilities. Also, you shouldn't assume the condition under which slaves were kept at that time to be the same as those that the slaves in Europe and America were subject to. It is very clear that black people were not the only slaves, since slavery was an option when dealing with prisoners of war (other options including being set free, or ransomed, or in the case of only war criminals, killing).
If you think that Islam brought bad and immoral behaviour, then you should really read up on what Arab society was like before Islam came. Don't judge Islam by the Muslims you see on the TV today. Read up on the earlier history of the Muslims and on the life of Muhammed ("Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources" by Martin Lings is a very good book). Islam brought the ideal model for society and nurtured the souls of people. Whilst many Muslims these days have left the teachings of Islam and behaviour of Prophet Muhammed (peace and blesings be upon him), there are still many true representatives around, you just have to look past the TV and the first hits on Google to find them. A good place to find Muslims who try to follow the religion as it should be is http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/.
You really are ignorant if you believe most of the Muslims you hear about in the news really represent Islam, and that non-Muslims are not tolerated. How do you explain the fact that Spain was once ruled by Muslims for hundreds of years, during which it was one of the most prosperous places in Europe? Do you even realise that modern science came from Muslims, and that Europeans went to Spain to learn? Were the non-Muslims killed or persecuted in any way? And what about India?
Don't look at the countries that you are told practice the Shariah and take that to be Islamic practice, because they don't, atleast, not in it's entirety. And don't take all the Muslims you see on TV, to be good representatives of Islam. The media choose carefully who they show, and what "news" they run, and being true representatives don't feature highly in their discisions.
I, personally, am tolerant to everyone, I've had friends from all over the place. I don't impose my views on anyone, and I don't belittle or attack their views. I don't have any Muslim friends who aren't tolerant of others. Tolerance has to run both ways, and it seems like there is improvement needed on both sides. What do you think when you see a bearded man? I get lots of looks as if people think I'm a terrorist.
One question, do you actually know any Muslims? If not, try make friends with one. I think you'll find that >99% are quite normal. Please don't take any offence to the contents or tone of what I've written, none was intended, although reading it through I realise I might cause some, but it's late and I need some sleep:)
Slashdot Mirror
Having watched this report today, it does seem rather hypocritical: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D689DCC6-76 51-4A82-BA72-6F0C303CCF22.htm
Without agreeing, or disagreeing with anything you've said, I'd like to ask you this...do you believe Israel is a totally innocent party that is free from having committed grievous acts against the Palestinians and Lebanese?
I saw a live interview on Sky News (in the UK) with their correspondent David Bowden during the war, in which he said that Hezbollah did not fire rockets close to, or from buildings. Instead they typically fired from olive plantations. About three seconds later the transmission was mysteriously lost. Obviously it wasn't what the Israelis wanted viewers to hear. If the media misled people about this, then what is to say they didn't mislead viewers over the number of tanks the Israelis lost? Propaganda is a key element of war these days, and nothing can be broadcast from Israel without being subject to censorship. You really think Israel was winning? Why is it then, that during the last days before the ceasefire they came under the heaviest rocket attacks of the war? Also, the Israeli army is far from being outdated and under funded, complacent and under trained perhaps, but not under funded. Do you even know how much they get from the American government on a yearly basis? Surely you must have been aware of the arms shipments, consisting of the latest bombs that took place during the fighting? It caused a bit of fuss in the UK at the time. Don't trust without question what you see on the news broadcast, they show you what they want you to see, with the slant that they want it to have.
How have you come to the conclusion Hizbollah won't negotiate? The Lebanese government tried to secure the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails along time before this conflict started, and they were ignored by Israel. Hizbollah then warned Israel five months ago that they would try to capture an Israeli solder to swap prisoners, which they did. In the past Hizbollah has negotiated with Israel, and they wanted to this time, but Israel it seems, has other plans, and was looking for this excuse to go to war. Hizbollah started firing rockets after Israel starting bombing, and yes, Hizbollah captured an Israeli solder, but it's not as if Israel hasn't mounted raids into Lebanon. I think you'll find that Hizbollah will disappear as a military force if it's stated goals are met at some point. From what I've read these are: a) The return of the occupied Sheba Farms, taken by Israel in 1967. b) A map of the land mines laid in southern Lebanon during their 18 year occupation. c) Release of all Lebanese prisoners from Israeli jails. Hizbollah has already agreed to the seven point planned proposed by the Lebanese prime minister, not that Israel or America are at all interested. And interestingly enough, this afternoon I saw the Lebanese prime minister thanking Hizbollah for their sacrifices, so I think you need to educate yourself more fully on the situation. Israel isn't as innocent as the American/British media try to make out. Other media outlets from around the World paint a very different picture of the situation.
Resupplying the rockets during this assault and firing them is pretty much the same thing in my eyes, as it is to many other people. It is clear that America and Britain are not neutral parties in this conflict.
I think you'll find that he wasn't brought to power through elections.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, the Arsenal - Real Madrid match was on :)
About slavery, this is taken from the English translation of Reliance of the Traveller, authored by Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, and translated by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller (an American convert to Islam by the way). This work is a traditional book of jurisprudence for one of the four main schools of thought in Sunni Islam. The section on slavery hasn't been translated, although the original Arabic is here in front of me. This is the explanation Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller has given:
"This section, which begins, "To free a slave is an act of worship," deals with a system of ownership that Islam did not invent but found fully established and not possible to instantly abolish, so it rather encouraged its elimination in steps, with incentives. It closed all avenues for obtaining new slaves except the capture of war prisoners, the soldiers of whom the caliph had the option to enslave or not; it encouraged the freeing of slaves by the tremendous reward from Allah Most High; and it materially helped slaves to purchase their freedom by providing them the money to do so from zakat funds. Like previous references to slaves, the following four sections have been left untranslated because the issue is no longer current, unlike the times of our author Ibn Naqib, whose rulers, the Mamelukes of Egypt, were themselves slaves who legally belonged to the Islamic state, a fact sufficient to show the fallacy of understanding slavery in the Islamic milieu in terms of the institution that existed in nineteenth-century America and elsewhere in the West." (Reliance of the Traveller, page 458-9).
Now, that should answer a few of your questions. If you think it's convenient that the section on slavery hasn't been translated, then feel free to grab yourself a copy and translate the section. Unfortunately I haven't studied classical Arabic for the many years necessary to be able to. Also, if you're wondering about the credability of the translator, then I can tell you that amongst traditionally minded Muslims, he is highly respected. There are audio lectures and written articles online, and they show the great intelligence and high rank he has been blessed with.
Just to be clear on my views on slavery, I believe it to be wrong of course.
You're right about not saying that slavery was only practiced on black people. Sorry about that.
The bit about not judging things by the standards commonly held today, was not really in relation to this issue, but other issues raised in other threads. Sorry, I was a bit worked up about the slandering going on in some of them.
Martin Ling's book is based on the hadith, so I don't see what's wrong with it. Of course there are earlier, more comprehensive books, but I suggested this one as it's aimed at readers from the West and is well written. Unfortunately, many English translations of great classical Arabic works aren't up to the standards that I would like, since many are translated and published in the Indian subcontinent. This fortunately is changing for the better though.
It is quite dangerous taking hadiths from the internet, most of the information on Islam out there is wrong, much of it deliberate. If you read hadiths, it is best to buy a collection of hadith with accompanying explanation (termed tafsir). The study of hadith, is a branch of science in Islam, and scholars can spend their entire lifes studying it. Hadiths are graded according to their reliablility, and some hadiths abrogate previous ones, or may need to be understood with respect to a handful of others, or the historical context. It is therefore preferable to take the explanations from recognised scholars in the field.
You are very wrong for being concerned about those Muslims who hold fast to traditional Islam, unless of course you like people blowing themselves and others up, or rioting and causing damage when they shouldn't? Even the British government would prefer that more people f
Despite being completely wrong, you are contradicting yourself when you say Muslims practiced slavery on only non-Muslims. You see Bilal, Abu Hurairah and Usama bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with them) were amongst the best of Muslims, so your ignorance of the reality is clear. Bilal was a black slave, but to a pagan Arab who physically tortured him on learning of his conversion to Islam (a common occurence to the Muslims during the early period of Islam). In fact, Bilal was the person who called the Muslims to the five daily congregational prayers, when the Muslims became strong enough to hold them. This position is recognised as being one of the most blessed since that person will receive reward for all those who attend. Additionally, Abu Hurairah and Usama bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with them) were not black. That site you link to contains a lot of factually incorrect material, and has clearly been written by someone with an agenda against Islam.
Whilst it's true that Islam did not put an out right ban on slavery, it was highly encouraged that slaves be set free. You have to remember, culturally things were very different at that time, and in that part of the World, and so you shouldn't judge things by today's arbitrary sensibilities. Also, you shouldn't assume the condition under which slaves were kept at that time to be the same as those that the slaves in Europe and America were subject to. It is very clear that black people were not the only slaves, since slavery was an option when dealing with prisoners of war (other options including being set free, or ransomed, or in the case of only war criminals, killing).
If you think that Islam brought bad and immoral behaviour, then you should really read up on what Arab society was like before Islam came. Don't judge Islam by the Muslims you see on the TV today. Read up on the earlier history of the Muslims and on the life of Muhammed ("Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources" by Martin Lings is a very good book). Islam brought the ideal model for society and nurtured the souls of people. Whilst many Muslims these days have left the teachings of Islam and behaviour of Prophet Muhammed (peace and blesings be upon him), there are still many true representatives around, you just have to look past the TV and the first hits on Google to find them. A good place to find Muslims who try to follow the religion as it should be is http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/.
You really are ignorant if you believe most of the Muslims you hear about in the news really represent Islam, and that non-Muslims are not tolerated. How do you explain the fact that Spain was once ruled by Muslims for hundreds of years, during which it was one of the most prosperous places in Europe? Do you even realise that modern science came from Muslims, and that Europeans went to Spain to learn? Were the non-Muslims killed or persecuted in any way? And what about India?
:)
Don't look at the countries that you are told practice the Shariah and take that to be Islamic practice, because they don't, atleast, not in it's entirety. And don't take all the Muslims you see on TV, to be good representatives of Islam. The media choose carefully who they show, and what "news" they run, and being true representatives don't feature highly in their discisions.
I, personally, am tolerant to everyone, I've had friends from all over the place. I don't impose my views on anyone, and I don't belittle or attack their views. I don't have any Muslim friends who aren't tolerant of others. Tolerance has to run both ways, and it seems like there is improvement needed on both sides. What do you think when you see a bearded man? I get lots of looks as if people think I'm a terrorist.
One question, do you actually know any Muslims? If not, try make friends with one. I think you'll find that >99% are quite normal. Please don't take any offence to the contents or tone of what I've written, none was intended, although reading it through I realise I might cause some, but it's late and I need some sleep