Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Islam regarding terrorism?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Islam regarding terrorism?
    Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 21:37
Ok, first off I would like to say that Im not too knowledgeable on Islam or the Koran so I guess my main question would be how does the Islamic religion view terrorist attacks not only on America soil but all over the world. Is the reason the majority of terrorist attacks are made by Islamic regimes because Muhammed forged the religion on forcefulness? Or is this an overstatement? I know the F.B.I./American military found audio and video tapes that had terrorists talking about how Allah had commanded them to kill Americans. This doesnt sound like the religion of Islam that Ive heard of. Just wanted your guys' opinion.
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 22:05

first of all Prophet Muhammed didnt forge the religion on forcefulness.

then not all these Attacks are under the same category, each to be discussed seperatly.

for example sep 11 is considered by many muslims as a terrorist attack against the US, others thinks that Israel is a terrorist State supported by the US and they are justifying these attacks as a replay to that.

it depends on each situation really, the Palistinian one is considered by many muslims as Occupation ressistance.

so each to be disscussed seperatly , also the definition of Terrorist isnt that clear.

 

Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 23:16
Originally posted by azimuth

first of all Prophet Muhammed didnt forge the religion on forcefulness.

then not all these Attacks are under the same category, each to be discussed seperatly.

for example sep 11 is considered by many muslims as a terrorist attack against the US, others thinks that Israel is a terrorist State supported by the US and they are justifying these attacks as a replay to that.

it depends on each situation really, the Palistinian one is considered by many muslims as Occupation ressistance.

so each to be disscussed seperatly , also the definition of Terrorist isnt that clear.

 

-Are there a majority.......minority.........some.....that believe they are justified by killing 5000 innocent Americans because we are allies with a country in which they have turmoil with? I mean how many Arabs have these types of views? I wouldnt think, or I wouldnt like to think that a large number of muslims have these views.

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 23:31

hmm dont know if you know this or not, Arabs are less than 20% of the Islamic population in the world

and there are millions of Arabs who are Christans and there are Arab Jews too.

you are talking about Muslims here not Arabs, so dont mix the terms, the first is a religion and the second is a language.

about the percentage of muslims who justified these Attacks, i dont know. and dont think many would know.

but i would its not "some".

and the justifying isn't about the Alliance with Israel, its the blind support to it. and off course their presence in the region.

so you can say the Israeli issue is the main issue of the US dislike in the region.

but so far people who are suffering around the world from poverty and dictatorship of their governments which are supported by the US wont care about what happens in the US or to the US population.

i think the death of innocent people anywhere in the world is a tragedy, Americans are not a special case.

 

Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Nov-2005 at 23:52

hmm...interesting. I would have guessed far more Arabs would be muslims. Thanks for clearing that up tho. I also wasnt reffering to Americans being a "special case" but has there been a loss of life due to a single terrorist act on the same magnitude since 9/11? If there has been then Im not aware, although I am aware of terrorist acts all over not just US, thats why I posted it in my opening post. I gather from your previous post that the view on terrorism is unclear but for acts of viloence lets say, what do the muslims think of this. Or moreover why was it the muslims who were in charge of 9/11 and why did they think Allah "commanded" them to kill Americans. Did America in the past somehow do something directly to the muslim community or is it like you said, our affiliation with Israel.

Dont think Imtrying to attack muslims just wondering about the religion and their views along with their culture that surrounds them

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 00:35

well innocents people die from many causes not just terrorist acts,

also to answer you question if there was any loss oflife due to a single terrorist act on the same magnitude as 9/11, i would really depends what is considered a Terrorist act.

but yea its one of the strongest.

why 9/11 was carried by muslims? as i said before its because of the Israeli issue and the US presence in the region, that what Bin Laden said.

so nothing about "american way of life" speach, dont think many would care what american do in their own lands. its what American do in others lands.

and about why do they think Allah (God) commanded them to kill Amercians,

Muslims belive Quran is God's words, so any command in the Quran is Considered a Command from God.

it says in the Quran "Fight/kill the ones who Fight/kill you"

so "I" think the people who are saying that God Commanded them to Kill American, Think that they are in War with The American and the Americans are Fighting them and killing them by supporting Israel and by being present in the region and maintaining its weakness by supporting the un democratic governments ....etc.

i guess that how they think.

By the way Christan Arabs and Jew use the word Allah when talking about God and jesus. actully Jesus himself used similar word ,so its not an Islamic God as many would think.

 

Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 04:14
Originally posted by Azimuth

first of all Prophet Muhammed didnt forge the religion on forcefulness.


I heard that Prophet Muhammed said it was okay for Muslims to convert Pagans, as long as they didnt try to convert Christians or Jews, because he viewed them as "people of the book". Converting people, even if they are Pagan, is forcefulness. What was the Prophet's reason to go to war with the other tribes of the Arabian penninsula? Didnt his army spread Islam militarily? I apologize if i am wrong, i probably am because i dont have extensive knowledge about Islam. I would like to find out more, which is why im asking you, so please correct me if im wrong.

Originally posted by azimuth

By the way Christan Arabs and Jew use the word Allah when talking about God and jesus. actully Jesus himself used similar word ,so its not an Islamic God as many would think.


Ya, this is a serious misconception that many people have about Islam. Christianity--Judaism--Islam= same God, different prophet. "Allah" simply means "God" in Arabic, while many people here probably believe "Allah" is some kind of an Islamic deity, when its really referring to the same God.
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

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

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
Back to Top
Perseas View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote Perseas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 09:22

In reference to the terrorism issue, one problem i have spotted with modern Islam - at least per me - is the lack of a central authority, e.g. a head of faith, sth like the Pope, who would represent Islamic faith. Such a centralization would be helpful, to the point that it could easily denounce terrorists as having incorrect teachings and misinterpretting the Quran. Bear in mind there is an extremely great number of people in the West who find it difficult to know exactly what Islamic people believe. Therefore all sorts of speculations and rumors coming up in such discussions between people unfamiliar with the Islamic faith. Now as far as the interpretation of the Quran in an extreme way, there will always be people, trying to justify their wrongful actions through Quran, as there always be others trying to do the same with the Bible.

A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
Back to Top
Murph View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
  Quote Murph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 10:48
why don't all the terrorists just gang up on israel, then?
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 11:14

ArmenianSurvival

the early battels of Islam were for the protection of the faith from whom were trying to end it and the option of war was always the last option. and there weren't different treatment between people of the book and others.

Aeolus

i gree on your post there about the misunderstanding, and about an Islamic leader represnting the religion, dont think it will work really,

i think the best solution for the mis interpetation of the Quran is Awarness .

also the West can help redusing these by at least become nutral in the Israeli issue. since the existance of state of israel isn't yet accepted by many muslims.

its a very sensitive issue and its the source of almost all the current problems in the region.

 

Murph

because Israel without the US is nothing, in another word the US is the source behind israel's strengh, military power and arrogance.

so many would think that hurting the source would be more affecting than hurting anything else.

 

 

 

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 11:40
If all the battles of Islam were merely defensive, Azimuth, how come it ended conquering such large stretches of land. It seems to me more rethoric than actual truth. I know that Islam attacked Christian Berbers and did the same in Spain. As far as I know, Islam was initially restricted to Peninsular Arabia and nobody else wanted to waste their time conquering such a desertic stretch of land in a time when oil was not yet the "black gold". Would you explain how each expansive campaign of Islam was a defensive struggle only? 

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
OSMANLI View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2004
Location: North Cyprus
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 740
  Quote OSMANLI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 14:39

I will first like to explain what the word Jihad is. In the linguistic sense, the Arabic word "jihad" means struggling or striving and applies to any effort exerted by anyone. In this sense, a student struggles and strives to get an education and pass course work; an employee strives to fulfill his/her job and maintain good relations with his/her employer; a politician strives to maintain or increase his popularity with his constituents and so on.

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. ( 5:32 )

>>"and seek not corruption in the earth; lo! Allah loveth not corrupters " (28:77)

The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous (42:42)> >

>"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: For Allah loves those who are just" (60:8) >

>>

"O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do" (5:8)> >

>>We sent thee (O Muhammad) not save as a mercy for the peoples (21:107)

"Let there be no compulsion (or coercion) in the religion (Islam). The right direction is distinctly clear from error." (2:256)

Taking the law into one's own hands amounts to either Fasad fi'l-Ard (creating disorder) or Muharabah (rebellion) -- both of which are punishable by death in Islam.

The Prophet's saying (saws) usually cited to give credence to the idea that Islam allows an individual or a group the use of force to end wrong is actually related to the use of power within the confines of the social and legal authority.

I have given clear evidence that Islam regarding terrorism. I tried prior to open a topic about Islam's Prophet for all to gain a clear understanding on Islam, unfortunatley it was closed for being too religious (strange how the 'Understanding Christianity' topic is still open)

Now that i have proved the innocence of Islam i would not be surprised if this topic was to close.



Edited by OSMANLI
Back to Top
oTToMAn_TurK View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 19-Sep-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
  Quote oTToMAn_TurK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 20:51
Originally posted by Aeolus

In reference to the terrorism issue, one problem i have spotted with modern Islam - at least per me - is the lack of a central authority, e.g. a head of faith, sth like the Pope, who would represent Islamic faith. Such a centralization would be helpful, to the point that it could easily denounce terrorists as having incorrect teachings and misinterpretting the Quran. Bear in mind there is an extremely great number of people in the West who find it difficult to know exactly what Islamic people believe. Therefore all sorts of speculations and rumors coming up in such discussions between people unfamiliar with the Islamic faith. Now as far as the interpretation of the Quran in an extreme way, there will always be people, trying to justify their wrongful actions through Quran, as there always be others trying to do the same with the Bible.

i would love to see a central authority for Islam, and such an authority did exist before the Ottoman Emprie was demolished and is a fard/z (direct order from God). the caliph. the power of the caliph was much more powerful then any cristian pope and caused the union of muslims under One empire/state for many centuries.

But today, almost every single muslim has been brought up with the thought that muslims have too many dominions and it is impossible to unite them under a single caliph. this is not true. nearly every single dominion of Islam all have the central belief that "there is No God but Allah, and Muhammed is his meesenger" and all also believe that the Koran is the true word of God. which differs from christians who have many versions of the bible and the different dominions not agreeing with each other, about central views of the trinity and jesus.

The lack of the caliph today has also made us weak and in the third world category. theres the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries) but they are better known as the "Oh! I See", hardly having any voice in the muslim world, forget authority. these view on muslims, that koran promotes terror, are also the results of the lack of authority, condemning these acts.

eg. when a catholic terrorist group does an attack, the pope quickly condemns it on the media and it is quickly forgotten about. but when muslim terrosist groups does an attack, no matter how much times little muslim communties try to condemn it, the non-muslim public like to have the idea that the koran is a "terror" book. which is not, as you can see through OSMANLI's quotes from Koran. why do they think this? no central voice to talk in be half of all muslims. the non-muslims are more intersted to hear what Osama Bin Laden has to say about the muslim belief, then the muslim communities who try there best to condemn his actions but are not being heard.

i hope there is no doubt by now amongst the AE members, that Islam is a peacefull religion and denounces Terrorism.



Edited by oTToMAn_TurK
Either your a slave to what MADE-MAN
Or your a slave to what MAN-MADE
Back to Top
Kentuckian View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 115
  Quote Kentuckian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 21:13

Ah but with a central authority there is the chance for a another Pope Urbane II.  i admit there is this possibility in the Catholic Church still, but we all know the chances of that.  Islam still has the power to inspire such a holy war.  The position as caliph would hold REAL power, and maybe the terrorists could do a little "persuading" in the Islamic equivalent of the council of cardinals.

Wait...how would a caliph be chosen in your opinion?

"I have not yet begun to fight." - John Paul Jones

"America will win through absolute victory" - President Franklin Roosevelt

"This was our finest hour." - Winston Churchill
Back to Top
oTToMAn_TurK View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 19-Sep-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
  Quote oTToMAn_TurK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 21:21
Originally posted by Kentuckian

Wait...how would a caliph be chosen in your opinion?

Well in democratic ways ofcourse, as it was done in its early days. Many people dont no this but the early caliphs wer actually elected as leaders by the people with "knowlegde".

Heres an article, its called Islamic Law and Its Democratic Potential

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZISLAWDE.HTM

"The "umma," or people of the faith, is a fundamental principle within Islam. All believers are equal, and thus legal or political discriminations among them are improper. "

"The "shura," or consultation, refers to the covenant made between the caliph and the elders of the Muslim community in which there is a confirmatory "election" of the caliph who agrees to rule for the benefit of the community. "

"Free enterprise has always been a hallmark of Islamic law and Muslim economies. "

 

Either your a slave to what MADE-MAN
Or your a slave to what MAN-MADE
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Nov-2005 at 22:18

Originally posted by OSMANLI

Now that i have proved the innocence of Islam i would not be surprised if this topic was to close.

lol

 

Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote ok ge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2005 at 00:16

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

I heard that Prophet Muhammed said it was okay for Muslims to convert Pagans, as long as they didnt try to convert Christians or Jews, because he viewed them as "people of the book". Converting people, even if they are Pagan, is forcefulness.

I couldn't understand your question well. Prophet Muhammed encouraged missionary work and conversion for all (pegans, people of the book..etc) forcefullessly. In fact, one of the most famous quotes of the Quran that restristriced forceful conversion (to all human beings) is almost known to every single Muslim.

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things" Chapter 1, Verse 256

Originally posted by Maju

If all the battles of Islam were merely defensive, Azimuth, how come it ended conquering such large stretches of land.
 

True Maju, not every Islamic battle is a defensive battle. When we are talking about Islamic conquests, we are combining a wide range of subjects from defensive wars, expansion wars, political wars, even economic reasons. These were Islamic states that acted like today modern states too. Idealizing that every battle fought by Muslim is a defensive battle is incorrect as much as saying too that every battle they fought was to subjugate the conquered people. For instance, the Christians of the Coptic Church in Egypt actually welcomed the Muslim Arabs as liberators from the oppression they suffered under Byzantine rule. That was the case too in the Levantine and other parts. Maybe that explains to you the fast expansion of those conquests.

 

Originally posted by Maju

 I know that Islam attacked Christian Berbers and did the same in Spain. .
 

Well it is not exactly that Islam attacked the Christian Berbers and the Christians in Spain. In the conquest of North Africa, the fight was between the Ummayid forces and the Byzentine Empire. Some Berbers joined the Arab Muslim armies, other opposed them. Other fought against them to maintain their sovernity. It sounds to me more of a political clash rather than a religious clash. This explains why many berbers became Muslims before the Arab succeeded controlling North Africa.

The tribal Berbers had resisted Arab political domination and not Islam, they easily accepted Islam as most of the inhabitants were practicing Arianism, which is a unitarian form of Christianity that denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ. They were also a group prosecuted by the Byzentine empire. Since that they were already practicing a religion with Unitarian beliefs; the Islamic theory of "One God" was an easy concept for those practicing Arianism to grasp, thus facilitating the spread of Islam.

Regarding invading Spain, it is not that much of a different story here. First, that "invasion" is actually a political intervention here and a chance take. You probably know Maju that most of the Muslim armies who battled on Iberia were of berber Muslims and even their leader Tariq Ibn Ziyad and his Amir Musa Bin Nusair were berbers. That invasion came actually as an invitation by Count Julian of Cueta to invade Spain as an opponent to Roderick the Visigoth in 710 AD.

The bottom line, wether it is a spread for politics, invitation for intervention, or locals welcoming the Muslim armies, the fact that we shall focus on is, were their rights respected and protected much better than their previous lords for most of their history? I would say yes. Islam did not promise them a new era of a foriegn rulers, rather than a new era of religious freedom, some of them were fighting for initially.

Originally posted by OSMANLI

Now that i have proved the innocence of Islam i would not be surprised if this topic was to close.

 You got to admit, Osmanli has good points with a touch of humor

Originally posted by Kentuckian

Ah but with a central authority there is the chance for a another Pope Urbane II.  i admit there is this possibility in the Catholic Church still, but we all know the chances of that.

The idea of gathering Muslims under one caliph is a unity-approach idea rather than a religious unity proposal. I agree with you here that there is a chance of Pope Urban II for every religion that you combine its followers to a supposedly divine-guided human being. That is why I don't accept too the idea of centeralizing religious authority for Muslims as what happens for the Shia sect adopting this approach in the Mullahism they practice.

I believe the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Also in Islam, we do't believe in divine guidance or holy spirit guidance to a religious figure.  Ottoman the Turk was probably emphasizing the idea of political unity I assume. Remember that a Muslim Caliph is not a religious Imam. Something that this faith was blessed with is the recognition of a simple approach of the division of state authority and religious athority. Over most of the Islamic history, both were independant and they clashed even in many occasions.

 



Edited by ok ge
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
oTToMAn_TurK View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 19-Sep-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 186
  Quote oTToMAn_TurK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2005 at 01:05

Originally posted by ok ge

I believe the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Also in Islam, we do't believe in divine guidance or holy spirit guidance to a religious figure.  Ottoman the Turk was probably emphasizing the idea of political unity I assume. Remember that a Muslim Caliph is not a religious Imam. Something that this faith was blessed with is the recognition of a simple approach of the division of state authority and religious athority. Over most of the Islamic history, both were independant and they clashed even in many occasions.

i agree with you but putting history asside, right now with all these terrorist claiming taht there acts are justified in the koran (which is not), dont u think we also need a central authority that condemns these acts.

As i said before, muslim communities are doing extremely well to denounce these acts of terror, but as we can see it is not being heard properly. people still prefer to listen to what Osama has to say about the islamic faith then what peacefull muslims hav to say. i understand that this is also the ignorance of the people as well, beleiving what ever the media tells them. But having a central religiuos authority like a caliph could have atleast made sure what he has to say, is being heard.

But i agree with you it could back fire... it wud just be a matter of how well the caliphate system can be planned out and implemented.

Note: Not a politically unified caliph, that is impossible

Either your a slave to what MADE-MAN
Or your a slave to what MAN-MADE
Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2005 at 03:36

maju

i was talking about early islamic battles which the Prophet participated in. if you read the posts you will know what iam talking about.

i didnt say "all islamic battels were defensive".

about the caliph thing.

just to make it clear , ONLY the first four Caliphs of Islam were religiouse Leaders,

after that it became a Monarchy as the prophet predicted, the Caliphs had advisors for the islamic related issues and most of these advisors were the Judges and the Scholars , the Caliphs themselvs were like kings some of them were religiouse and some of them weren't.

so Caliphs are not religiouse leaders. the only caliphs who were religiouse leaders are the companions of the Prophet who took the leadership after the Prophet death.

for example from all Umayyad Caliphs the only one who was considered as religiouse leader was Umar Ibn Abd Al Aziz.

also Muaweyah was one of the Prophet Companions so yes some may argue that he was a religiouse leader too.

 

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Nov-2005 at 04:09

Originally posted by oTToMAn_TurKThe umma, or people of the faith, is a fundamental principle within Islam. All believers are equal, and thus legal or political discriminations among them are improper.

The shura, or consultation, refers to the covenant made between the caliph and the elders of the Muslim community in which there is a confirmatory election of the caliph who agrees to rule for the benefit of the community.

[/QUOTE

How come if everyone is equal, you have elders?

And are you including women in that?



"Free enterprise has always been a hallmark of Islamic law and Muslim economies. "

How come if everyone is equal, you have elders?

And are you including women in that?

[QUOTE]

"Free enterprise has always been a hallmark of Islamic law and Muslim economies. "

Within limits. There are strict regulations about interest, for instance. I've written software for an Islamic insurance group, and insurance is heavily regulated under Islam.  (Actually I think some of the rules are quite good, but they are nevertheless rules.)

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.