Christian Right

[ziabari]

I am a new member to this website and WAS reading all the views presented. I am a very moderate and liberal Muslim student myself AND TRYING TO learn about Islam and the PROPHET MOHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM).

As some of the people are trying to debate here, I would like to add my views on the LIFE OF THE BELOVED PROPHET MOHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM) WE MUSLIMS BELIEVE THAT THE PROPHET MOHAMMAD WAS SENT FOR THE WHOLE HUMANITY WHETHER THE HUMANS BELIEVE IN ALLAH / MOHAMMAD OR NOT AND HE SPENT DAYS AND NIGHTS IN PRAYING FOR THE JANNA AND FORGIVENESS FOR ALL EVEN FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HURT HIM THE MOST.

Coming to the point that made me write is the ignorant claim by "scriblett" by writing MOHAMMAD AS "archetypal Islamic terrorist" MAY ALLAH FORGIVE YOU AND ANYBODY ELSE FOR USING THESE KINDS OF WORDS TOWARDS ANY PROPHET, I DONT BLAME YOU BUT BLAME YOUR IGNORANCE ABOUT THE PROPHET'S.

FOR YOUR REFERENCE I HAVE THIS EXCERPT FROM THE SOURCE http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html

THIS LINK PROVIDES YOU WITH THE DETAILS OF THE LIFE OF PROPHET MOHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM)

THE EXCERPT IS:

"About two years later at the end of 629 CE, the Quraish violated the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah by helping Banu Bakr in the surprise attack on Bani Khuza’ah who were allied with the Prophet. Some of Bani Khuzah’s men escaped and took shelter in Makkah and they sought redress. However, the leaders of Quraish did nothing. They then sent a message to the Prophet for help.

The Prophet, after confirming all the reports of the attack and subsequent events, marched to Makkah with an army consisting of three thousand Muslims of Medinah and Muslims from other Arab communities that joined him on the way totaling ten thousand Muslims. Before entering the city he sent word to citizens of Makkah that anyone who remained in his home, or in Abu Sufyan’s home, or in the Ka’bah would be safe. The army entered Makkah without fighting and the Prophet went directly to the Ka’bah. He magnified Allah for the triumphant entry in the Holy city. The Prophet pointed at each idol with a stick he had in his hand and said, "Truth has come and Falsehood will neither start nor will it reappear" [Qur'an 17:81]. And one by one the idols fell down. The Ka’bah was then cleansed by the removal of all three hundred sixty idols, and it was restored to its pristine status for the worship of One True God (as built by Prophets Ibrahim and Ismail).

The people of the city expected general slaughter in view of their persecution and torture of Muslims for the past twenty years. While standing by the Ka'bah, the Prophet (s) promised clemency for the Makkans, stating: "O Quraish, what do you think that I am about to do with you?" They replied, "Good. You are a noble brother, son of a noble brother." The Prophet forgave them all saying:

"I will treat you as Prophet Yousuf (Joseph) treated his brothers. There is no reproach against you. Go to your homes, and you are all free."

END OF EXCERPT.

Is this the deed of a person who you claim to be a "archetypal Islamic terrorist" who returned to his birth place with an army of 10,000 muslims who are ready to shed blood on his one order?

Is this the fair judgment passed by an ignorant person like you without reading in details about the person who did everything in his power to spread ONLY GOOD?

And if you still have any doubt or you want to read more please visit the link provided.

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html

And look at this another excerpt:

"The people of Makkah then accepted Islam including the staunch enemies of the Prophet. A few of the staunchest enemies and military commanders had fled Makkah after his entry. However, when they received the Prophet’s assurance of no retaliation and no compulsion in religion, they came back and gradually the message of Islam won their hearts. Within a year (630 CE), almost all Arabia accepted Islam. Among the Prophet’s close companions were Muslims from such diverse background as Persia, Abyssinia, Syria and Rome. Several prominent Jewish Rabbis, Christian bishop and clergymen accepted Islam after discussions with the Prophet. "

END OF EXCERPT:

Read carefully what PROPEHT had declared at that time with the army he had with him "NO COMPULSION IN RELEGION" AND "ASSURANCE OF NO RETALIATION" to the people who tortured Muslims for over 20 years. AGAIN is this the deed of a person who you claim to be an "archetypal Islamic terrorist"?

Now I will come to the points that you have mentioned from the QURAN AND SAHI BUKHARI:

Which are by the way totally out of context? You have to understand that MUSLIMS(I believe correctly so) CLAIM ISLAM as the complete way of life. In which there are topics of every single aspect of life including wars/battles and this has happened through out Mohammad’s (PEACE BE UPON HIME) life time that they were attacked and forced into battles. If you are going to cut and paste things from the books of hadith and Quran that are out of context then they will obviously make a totally different meaning than the REAL central idea / theory of the topic, for example: if I tell you:

If a person says DON'T DRINK WATER YOU WILL DIE, because the water is poisonous:

And then I say that the person said "DON'T DRINK WATER YOU WILL DIE":

You will say the person is such and idiot/ignorant. Who dies by drinking water?

Who is ignorant here "ME" or the person, who said, do not drink water.

Now coming back to the SAHI BUKHARI:

SAHI BUKHARI: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220 (V4B52N220)

YOU WROTE: "I have been made victorious with terror" (Sahi Bukhari V4B52N220)

The full phrase is:

"Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). "

From the source:

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/052.html

Now the explanation:

The topic of the book 52 is "Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihad)":

the topic is very self explanatory as it is the collection of the HADITH (the saying or the deeds by the prophet) collected during battle or around the topic of battle field and how ALLAH gave victory to the MUSLIMS even though they were very small in numbers as compared to their enemies and explains only the topic that covers the details of the battle fields. As you will come to know by reading about the life of PROPHET MOHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM) that from the beginning Muslims were tortured and killed by the people who were against the teaching of Islam through prophet.

They were always the people who defended themselves in the battles that were forced on them by the infidels. So in this context when some Muslims fell short of the conviction and the PROPHET wanted to lift their spirits in battle telling them that how ALLAH HELPED by putting terror in the hearts of the enemy and the enemy felt terrorized by PROPHET standings on the battle and as a result HE was victorious in almost all the battles HE fought.

I hope this helps in understanding of the HADITH.

NOW coming to the phrase that you again CUT AND PASTE (AGAIN TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT) from QUR'AN 8:12.

You wrote:

"I shall terrorise the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them, because they oppose Allah and his apostle." (Qur'an 8:12)

By the way for the people who are reading (8:12) means the 8th surah "8th chapter/topic" from QURAN and 12 meaning the 12th verse/paragraph from the QURAN:

The name of the surah is "AL-ANFAAL"

THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF "AL-ANFAAL" is "THE SPOILS OF WAR" again the name is very self explanatory and obviously talking about the treasure distribution after the battle. Again, explaining the situation at the battlefield. Just look at the detailed explanation given to understand ONLY THE CONTEXT OF SURAH/TOPIC/CHAPTER:

The source is http://www.tafheem.net/main.html:

"The critique of the battle opens with this unusual note. Some disagreements had arisen among the Muslims with regard to sharing the spoils of war. As it was their first experience of fighting under the banner of Islam, the Muslim soldiers had scarcely any notion of the regulations they were required to follow on the battlefield and for settling problems arising from warfare. Doubtlessly some preliminary instructions had been laid down for them in Surah al-Baqarah 2 and Surah Muhammad 47, (See 2: 190 ff. and 47: 4 ff. - Ed.) However the full set of regulations that could contribute to civilizing the conduct of warfare had yet to be laid down. Hence, when it came to war as with several other societal matters, the Muslims were still under the influence of pre-Islamic ideas and concepts. Going by the age-old Arab customs, those who had seized the spoils of war considered themselves their sole and legitimate owners. On the other hand, the Muslims who had concentrated on driving away the enemy rather than on collecting the spoils, claimed that they deserved an equal share of the spoils. They contended that had they slackened in their duty of pursuing the enemy, the latter might have struck back, turning the Muslim victory into a defeat. Similarly, another group of Muslims who had escorted the Prophet (peace he on him) on the battlefield, also laid claim to an equal share, For, they believed, it was they who had rendered an invaluable service insofar as neglect of duty on their part might have resulted in endangering the precious life of the Prophet (peace be on him), in which case the possibility of victory and its attendant spoils and their distribution would all have been totally out of the question. Nonetheless, the group of Muslims who already possessed the spoils saw no merit in these claims. Arguments and counter-arguments gave rise to bitterness and bad blood. (For disagreements among Muslims on the question of distribution of spoils of war see Ibn Hisham, vol. 1. pp. 641-2; al-Waqadi, vol. 1, p. 78. See also the comments on the verse in Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir - Ed.)

It was at this juncture that God revealed the present surah. The opening verse takes up this issue. 'They ask you concerning anfal' is the query with which the surah opens. The very use of the word anfal instead of ghana'im in the query implies the answer. For the word anfal, which is the plural of nafl, stands for that which is extra, that which is over and above what is obligatory. If this extra is from the servant, it denotes that additional service which he voluntarily renders over and above what is obligatory. On the other hand, when this extra is from the master, it denotes the additional reward which the master awards his servant over and above what he is entitled to. What is being conveyed here by using the word anfal is, in fact, that all wrangling about spoils is out of place since it concerns not their rights, but the additional rewards they might receive from God. Any and all heated discussion in which they engaged was irrelevant since it was entirely for God to decide whether He should grant any extra reward or not; and if He should grant it, then how much, and to whom. In short, it was not for men to say who should and who should not receive any party of the spoils.

This was a major conceptual reform. The war that a Muslim wages is not in order to accumulate worldly benefits. He resorts to it for the moral and social reform of the world and does so when the opposing forces make it impossible to bring about reform by means of persuasion and preaching. Being reformers, the Muslims should focus their attentions on their goal - the reform of the world - rather than on the material benefits which accrue to them incidental by way of God's additional reward in lieu of their strivings. If the attention of Muslims is not diverted from material benefits to their true mission, it is likely that material benefits would become an end in themselves.

Moreover, the concept introduced by the Qur'an (see the verse above) also brought about a major administrative reform pertaining to war and the spoils of war. Before the advent of Islam, a soldier used to appropriate all that he could lay his hands on, claiming to be its rightful owner, or else spoils were seized either by; the king or the commander of the army. In the former case, mutual conflicts ensued among soldiers of the victorious army, with the frequent result that their victory turned into defeat. On the other hand, if the spoils were seized by the commander of the army or the ruler, soldiers often concealed and stole the spoils. By declaring that the spoils belong to God and His Messenger, the Qur'an made it obligatory on all soldiers to commit all the spoils of war to the custody of the commander, concealing not even something as trivial as a sewing needle. Subsequently the Qur'an laid down an elaborate set of laws to distribute the spoils of war. According to it, one-fifth of the spoils is to be deposited in the public treasury for public welfare and to provide support for the poor, while four-fifths is to be distributed among the soldiers. (al-Anfal 8: 41 - Ed.) It thus put an end to the evils inherent in the old system.

A subtle point implicit in the above verse should not he overlooked. In the opening verse of the Surah nothing has been said beyond affirming the principle that the spoils belong to God and His Messenger. The problem as to how the spoils should be distributed was not touched upon. The Qur'an does however subsequently treat the question of distribution (see verse 41 below). It is significant that in this second instance the word used is a verbal derivative of ghanimah (spoils, booty) (see verse 41 below) whereas in the opening verse the word used is anfal. "

And again obviously if you have no idea about the context in which those words are spoken you would take the meaning in a very wrong way as I believe you have.

This is just the context to explain what is being discussed in the chapter/topic/surah.

Now come to the details of the verse that you have CUT and PASTED: AGAIN, OUT OF CONTEXT you wrote:

"I shall terrorise the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them, because they oppose Allah and his apostle." (Qur'an 8:12)

AGAIN the whole excerpt is given below:

"(8:12) And recall when your Lord inspired the angels: 'I am certainly with you. So make firm the feet of those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike at their necks and strike at every pore and tip.

EXPLANATION OF THE VERSE:

*10. In view of the general principle propounded in the Qur'an we presume that the angels did not take part in the actual fighting. What we may suggest is that the angels helped the Muslims and as a result their blows became more accurate and effective. "

I believe now you will understand exactly what ALLAH IS IMPLYING the it was ALLAH who casted terror into the hearts during the battle/war. Obviously when you are fighting and in the state of war, you just don’t stand there because the enemy is going to cut your neck and cut you into pieces, then what do you do in the battle, you fight for your life and victory by cutting the throats of your enemy don’t you?

Now do you want me to continue and provide you with the explanation to the rest of CUT and PASTE verses that you have presented without context or you got the point.

Please understand that FIRST surah/chapter/topic is "AL-FATIHA" of QURAN is the central idea of the Quran and Islam.

It says:

(1:6) Direct us on to the Straight Way *8,

*8. We beseech God to guide us in all walks of life to a way which is absolutely true, which provides us with a properly-based outlook and sound principles of behavior, a way which will prevent our succumbing to false doctrines and adopting unsound principles of conduct, a way that will lead us to our true salvation and happiness. This is man's prayer to God as he begins the study of the Qur'an. It is, in short, to illuminate the truth which he often tends to lose in a labyrinth of philosophical speculation; to enlighten him as to which of the numerous ethical doctrines ensures a sound course of conduct; to show which of the myriad ways and by-ways is the clear, straight, open road of sound belief and right behaviour.

The way of those whom You have favoured *9, who did not incur Your wrath, who are not astray *10.

*9. This defines the 'straight way' which we ask God to open to us. It is the way which has always been followed by those who have enjoyed God's favours and blessings. This is the way which has been trodden from the beginning of time by all those individuals and communities that have unfailingly enjoyed God's favours and blessings.

*10. This makes it clear that the recipients of God's favour are not those who appear, briefly, to enjoy worldly prosperity and success; all too often, these people are among those whom God has condemned because they have lost sight of the true path of salvation and happiness. This negative explanation makes it quite clear that in'am (favour) denotes all those real and abiding favours and blessings which one receives in reward for righteous conduct through God's approval and pleasure, rather than those apparent and fleeting favours which the Pharaohs, Nimrods and Korahs (Qaruns) used to receive in the past, and which are enjoyed even today by people notorious for oppression, evil and corruption.

Notice that the excerpts defines ONLY 2 TYPES of people

1) "The people who ALLAH favored and was on the RIGHT PATH"

2) "The people who were astray and on the wrong path.

The rest of the Quran explains about the people who were on the right path. And tells us about the people who were on the wrong path in the form of stories about the people in the past.

I hope and pray that MAY ALLAH MAKES US THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH instead of the people who went astray.

I hope I have explained properly and hope that my effort will help you to seek the truth.

May ALLAH bless us ALL.

ziabari (a very liberal open minded Muslim living in Canada)

Proud to be canadian

[jefferiah]

I think Christian right is a very misleading term sometimes. For example the right is not Christian. Many Christians are "right" to varying degrees. Some of them are quite extreme Right. But the Right is the right, whether you are Christian or not. I know very many right-winged people who are atheists.

[ft.niagara]

I think Christian right is a very misleading term sometimes. For example the right is not Christian. Many Christians are "right" to varying degrees. Some of them are quite extreme Right. But the Right is the right, whether you are Christian or not. I know very many right-winged people who are atheists.

The Christian right is a demeaning buzz word. It is next to redneck in the left lexacon. The Christian churches got actively involved in the elections of the 90s with great success. It is no different than black churches being involved in elections, but there is no comparable buzz word for their activity.

[Drea]

right is a demeaning buzz word. It is next to redneck in the left lexacon. The Christian churches got actively involved in the elections of the 90s with great success. It is no different than black churches being involved in elections, but there is no comparable buzz word for their activity.

So "black" churches are different than "white" churches? What religion do these black folks adhere to in "their" churches?

[ft.niagara]

So "black" churches are different than "white" churches? What religion do these black folks adhere to in "their" churches?

Huh??? I think I was talking about buzz words. 'Christian right' is a buzz word IMO by the left. It denotes political activity in churches. Republican supporting political activity. Blacks support Democrats in their churches but do not have a comparable negative buzz word, again IMO. It really has nothing to do with religion.

[scribblet]

So "black" churches are different than "white" churches? What religion do these black folks adhere to in "their" churches?

Huh??? I think I was talking about buzz words. 'Christian right' is a buzz word IMO by the left. It denotes political activity in churches. Republican supporting political activity. Blacks support Democrats in their churches but do not have a comparable negative buzz word, again IMO. It really has nothing to do with religion.

I understood what you meant. Various church groups become active and voice opinions, but it is only the 'Christian Fundamentalists' who get the flak.

The United church regularly gets involved in the leftwing side of politics, no one castigates them, double standards when it comes to demonizing different church groups.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I am a new member to this website and WAS reading all the views presented. I am a very moderate and liberal Muslim student myself AND TRYING TO learn about Islam and the PROPHET MOHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM).

As some of the people are trying to debate here, I would like to add my views on the LIFE OF THE BELOVED PROPHET MOHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM) WE MUSLIMS BELIEVE THAT THE PROPHET MOHAMMAD WAS SENT FOR THE WHOLE HUMANITY WHETHER THE HUMANS BELIEVE IN ALLAH / MOHAMMAD OR NOT AND HE SPENT DAYS AND NIGHTS IN PRAYING FOR THE JANNA AND FORGIVENESS FOR ALL EVEN FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HURT HIM THE MOST.

Coming to the point that made me write is the ignorant claim by "scriblett" by writing MOHAMMAD AS "archetypal Islamic terrorist" MAY ALLAH FORGIVE YOU AND ANYBODY ELSE FOR USING THESE KINDS OF WORDS TOWARDS ANY PROPHET, I DONT BLAME YOU BUT BLAME YOUR IGNORANCE ABOUT THE PROPHET'S.

FOR YOUR REFERENCE I HAVE THIS EXCERPT FROM THE SOURCE http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html

THIS LINK PROVIDES YOU WITH THE DETAILS OF THE LIFE OF PROPHET MOHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM)

THE EXCERPT IS:

"About two years later at the end of 629 CE, the Quraish violated the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah by helping Banu Bakr in the surprise attack on Bani Khuza’ah who were allied with the Prophet. Some of Bani Khuzah’s men escaped and took shelter in Makkah and they sought redress. However, the leaders of Quraish did nothing. They then sent a message to the Prophet for help.

The Prophet, after confirming all the reports of the attack and subsequent events, marched to Makkah with an army consisting of three thousand Muslims of Medinah and Muslims from other Arab communities that joined him on the way totaling ten thousand Muslims. Before entering the city he sent word to citizens of Makkah that anyone who remained in his home, or in Abu Sufyan’s home, or in the Ka’bah would be safe. The army entered Makkah without fighting and the Prophet went directly to the Ka’bah. He magnified Allah for the triumphant entry in the Holy city. The Prophet pointed at each idol with a stick he had in his hand and said, "Truth has come and Falsehood will neither start nor will it reappear" [Qur'an 17:81]. And one by one the idols fell down. The Ka’bah was then cleansed by the removal of all three hundred sixty idols, and it was restored to its pristine status for the worship of One True God (as built by Prophets Ibrahim and Ismail).

The people of the city expected general slaughter in view of their persecution and torture of Muslims for the past twenty years. While standing by the Ka'bah, the Prophet (s) promised clemency for the Makkans, stating: "O Quraish, what do you think that I am about to do with you?" They replied, "Good. You are a noble brother, son of a noble brother." The Prophet forgave them all saying:

"I will treat you as Prophet Yousuf (Joseph) treated his brothers. There is no reproach against you. Go to your homes, and you are all free."

END OF EXCERPT.

Is this the deed of a person who you claim to be a "archetypal Islamic terrorist" who returned to his birth place with an army of 10,000 muslims who are ready to shed blood on his one order?

Is this the fair judgment passed by an ignorant person like you without reading in details about the person who did everything in his power to spread ONLY GOOD?

And if you still have any doubt or you want to read more please visit the link provided.

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html

And look at this another excerpt:

"The people of Makkah then accepted Islam including the staunch enemies of the Prophet. A few of the staunchest enemies and military commanders had fled Makkah after his entry. However, when they received the Prophet’s assurance of no retaliation and no compulsion in religion, they came back and gradually the message of Islam won their hearts. Within a year (630 CE), almost all Arabia accepted Islam. Among the Prophet’s close companions were Muslims from such diverse background as Persia, Abyssinia, Syria and Rome. Several prominent Jewish Rabbis, Christian bishop and clergymen accepted Islam after discussions with the Prophet. "

END OF EXCERPT:

Read carefully what PROPEHT had declared at that time with the army he had with him "NO COMPULSION IN RELEGION" AND "ASSURANCE OF NO RETALIATION" to the people who tortured Muslims for over 20 years. AGAIN is this the deed of a person who you claim to be an "archetypal Islamic terrorist"?

Now I will come to the points that you have mentioned from the QURAN AND SAHI BUKHARI:

Which are by the way totally out of context? You have to understand that MUSLIMS(I believe correctly so) CLAIM ISLAM as the complete way of life. In which there are topics of every single aspect of life including wars/battles and this has happened through out Mohammad’s (PEACE BE UPON HIME) life time that they were attacked and forced into battles. If you are going to cut and paste things from the books of hadith and Quran that are out of context then they will obviously make a totally different meaning than the REAL central idea / theory of the topic, for example: if I tell you:

If a person says DON'T DRINK WATER YOU WILL DIE, because the water is poisonous:

And then I say that the person said "DON'T DRINK WATER YOU WILL DIE":

You will say the person is such and idiot/ignorant. Who dies by drinking water?

Who is ignorant here "ME" or the person, who said, do not drink water.

Now coming back to the SAHI BUKHARI:

SAHI BUKHARI: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220 (V4B52N220)

YOU WROTE: "I have been made victorious with terror" (Sahi Bukhari V4B52N220)

The full phrase is:

"Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). "

From the source:

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/052.html

Now the explanation:

The topic of the book 52 is "Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihad)":

the topic is very self explanatory as it is the collection of the HADITH (the saying or the deeds by the prophet) collected during battle or around the topic of battle field and how ALLAH gave victory to the MUSLIMS even though they were very small in numbers as compared to their enemies and explains only the topic that covers the details of the battle fields. As you will come to know by reading about the life of PROPHET MOHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM) that from the beginning Muslims were tortured and killed by the people who were against the teaching of Islam through prophet.

They were always the people who defended themselves in the battles that were forced on them by the infidels. So in this context when some Muslims fell short of the conviction and the PROPHET wanted to lift their spirits in battle telling them that how ALLAH HELPED by putting terror in the hearts of the enemy and the enemy felt terrorized by PROPHET standings on the battle and as a result HE was victorious in almost all the battles HE fought.

I hope this helps in understanding of the HADITH.

NOW coming to the phrase that you again CUT AND PASTE (AGAIN TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT) from QUR'AN 8:12.

You wrote:

"I shall terrorise the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them, because they oppose Allah and his apostle." (Qur'an 8:12)

By the way for the people who are reading (8:12) means the 8th surah "8th chapter/topic" from QURAN and 12 meaning the 12th verse/paragraph from the QURAN:

The name of the surah is "AL-ANFAAL"

THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF "AL-ANFAAL" is "THE SPOILS OF WAR" again the name is very self explanatory and obviously talking about the treasure distribution after the battle. Again, explaining the situation at the battlefield. Just look at the detailed explanation given to understand ONLY THE CONTEXT OF SURAH/TOPIC/CHAPTER:

The source is http://www.tafheem.net/main.html:

"The critique of the battle opens with this unusual note. Some disagreements had arisen among the Muslims with regard to sharing the spoils of war. As it was their first experience of fighting under the banner of Islam, the Muslim soldiers had scarcely any notion of the regulations they were required to follow on the battlefield and for settling problems arising from warfare. Doubtlessly some preliminary instructions had been laid down for them in Surah al-Baqarah 2 and Surah Muhammad 47, (See 2: 190 ff. and 47: 4 ff. - Ed.) However the full set of regulations that could contribute to civilizing the conduct of warfare had yet to be laid down. Hence, when it came to war as with several other societal matters, the Muslims were still under the influence of pre-Islamic ideas and concepts. Going by the age-old Arab customs, those who had seized the spoils of war considered themselves their sole and legitimate owners. On the other hand, the Muslims who had concentrated on driving away the enemy rather than on collecting the spoils, claimed that they deserved an equal share of the spoils. They contended that had they slackened in their duty of pursuing the enemy, the latter might have struck back, turning the Muslim victory into a defeat. Similarly, another group of Muslims who had escorted the Prophet (peace he on him) on the battlefield, also laid claim to an equal share, For, they believed, it was they who had rendered an invaluable service insofar as neglect of duty on their part might have resulted in endangering the precious life of the Prophet (peace be on him), in which case the possibility of victory and its attendant spoils and their distribution would all have been totally out of the question. Nonetheless, the group of Muslims who already possessed the spoils saw no merit in these claims. Arguments and counter-arguments gave rise to bitterness and bad blood. (For disagreements among Muslims on the question of distribution of spoils of war see Ibn Hisham, vol. 1. pp. 641-2; al-Waqadi, vol. 1, p. 78. See also the comments on the verse in Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir - Ed.)

It was at this juncture that God revealed the present surah. The opening verse takes up this issue. 'They ask you concerning anfal' is the query with which the surah opens. The very use of the word anfal instead of ghana'im in the query implies the answer. For the word anfal, which is the plural of nafl, stands for that which is extra, that which is over and above what is obligatory. If this extra is from the servant, it denotes that additional service which he voluntarily renders over and above what is obligatory. On the other hand, when this extra is from the master, it denotes the additional reward which the master awards his servant over and above what he is entitled to. What is being conveyed here by using the word anfal is, in fact, that all wrangling about spoils is out of place since it concerns not their rights, but the additional rewards they might receive from God. Any and all heated discussion in which they engaged was irrelevant since it was entirely for God to decide whether He should grant any extra reward or not; and if He should grant it, then how much, and to whom. In short, it was not for men to say who should and who should not receive any party of the spoils.

This was a major conceptual reform. The war that a Muslim wages is not in order to accumulate worldly benefits. He resorts to it for the moral and social reform of the world and does so when the opposing forces make it impossible to bring about reform by means of persuasion and preaching. Being reformers, the Muslims should focus their attentions on their goal - the reform of the world - rather than on the material benefits which accrue to them incidental by way of God's additional reward in lieu of their strivings. If the attention of Muslims is not diverted from material benefits to their true mission, it is likely that material benefits would become an end in themselves.

Moreover, the concept introduced by the Qur'an (see the verse above) also brought about a major administrative reform pertaining to war and the spoils of war. Before the advent of Islam, a soldier used to appropriate all that he could lay his hands on, claiming to be its rightful owner, or else spoils were seized either by; the king or the commander of the army. In the former case, mutual conflicts ensued among soldiers of the victorious army, with the frequent result that their victory turned into defeat. On the other hand, if the spoils were seized by the commander of the army or the ruler, soldiers often concealed and stole the spoils. By declaring that the spoils belong to God and His Messenger, the Qur'an made it obligatory on all soldiers to commit all the spoils of war to the custody of the commander, concealing not even something as trivial as a sewing needle. Subsequently the Qur'an laid down an elaborate set of laws to distribute the spoils of war. According to it, one-fifth of the spoils is to be deposited in the public treasury for public welfare and to provide support for the poor, while four-fifths is to be distributed among the soldiers. (al-Anfal 8: 41 - Ed.) It thus put an end to the evils inherent in the old system.

A subtle point implicit in the above verse should not he overlooked. In the opening verse of the Surah nothing has been said beyond affirming the principle that the spoils belong to God and His Messenger. The problem as to how the spoils should be distributed was not touched upon. The Qur'an does however subsequently treat the question of distribution (see verse 41 below). It is significant that in this second instance the word used is a verbal derivative of ghanimah (spoils, booty) (see verse 41 below) whereas in the opening verse the word used is anfal. "

And again obviously if you have no idea about the context in which those words are spoken you would take the meaning in a very wrong way as I believe you have.

This is just the context to explain what is being discussed in the chapter/topic/surah.

Now come to the details of the verse that you have CUT and PASTED: AGAIN, OUT OF CONTEXT you wrote:

"I shall terrorise the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them, because they oppose Allah and his apostle." (Qur'an 8:12)

AGAIN the whole excerpt is given below:

"(8:12) And recall when your Lord inspired the angels: 'I am certainly with you. So make firm the feet of those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike at their necks and strike at every pore and tip.

EXPLANATION OF THE VERSE:

*10. In view of the general principle propounded in the Qur'an we presume that the angels did not take part in the actual fighting. What we may suggest is that the angels helped the Muslims and as a result their blows became more accurate and effective. "

I believe now you will understand exactly what ALLAH IS IMPLYING the it was ALLAH who casted terror into the hearts during the battle/war. Obviously when you are fighting and in the state of war, you just don’t stand there because the enemy is going to cut your neck and cut you into pieces, then what do you do in the battle, you fight for your life and victory by cutting the throats of your enemy don’t you?

Now do you want me to continue and provide you with the explanation to the rest of CUT and PASTE verses that you have presented without context or you got the point.

Please understand that FIRST surah/chapter/topic is "AL-FATIHA" of QURAN is the central idea of the Quran and Islam.

It says:

(1:6) Direct us on to the Straight Way *8,

*8. We beseech God to guide us in all walks of life to a way which is absolutely true, which provides us with a properly-based outlook and sound principles of behavior, a way which will prevent our succumbing to false doctrines and adopting unsound principles of conduct, a way that will lead us to our true salvation and happiness. This is man's prayer to God as he begins the study of the Qur'an. It is, in short, to illuminate the truth which he often tends to lose in a labyrinth of philosophical speculation; to enlighten him as to which of the numerous ethical doctrines ensures a sound course of conduct; to show which of the myriad ways and by-ways is the clear, straight, open road of sound belief and right behaviour.

The way of those whom You have favoured *9, who did not incur Your wrath, who are not astray *10.

*9. This defines the 'straight way' which we ask God to open to us. It is the way which has always been followed by those who have enjoyed God's favours and blessings. This is the way which has been trodden from the beginning of time by all those individuals and communities that have unfailingly enjoyed God's favours and blessings.

*10. This makes it clear that the recipients of God's favour are not those who appear, briefly, to enjoy worldly prosperity and success; all too often, these people are among those whom God has condemned because they have lost sight of the true path of salvation and happiness. This negative explanation makes it quite clear that in'am (favour) denotes all those real and abiding favours and blessings which one receives in reward for righteous conduct through God's approval and pleasure, rather than those apparent and fleeting favours which the Pharaohs, Nimrods and Korahs (Qaruns) used to receive in the past, and which are enjoyed even today by people notorious for oppression, evil and corruption.

Notice that the excerpts defines ONLY 2 TYPES of people

1) "The people who ALLAH favored and was on the RIGHT PATH"

2) "The people who were astray and on the wrong path.

The rest of the Quran explains about the people who were on the right path. And tells us about the people who were on the wrong path in the form of stories about the people in the past.

I hope and pray that MAY ALLAH MAKES US THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH instead of the people who went astray.

I hope I have explained properly and hope that my effort will help you to seek the truth.

May ALLAH bless us ALL.

ziabari (a very liberal open minded Muslim living in Canada)

Proud to be canadian

Welcome to this forum and please continue to interject with a little dose of reality to those of us who are ignorant of the way of Islam. I am not a Muslim, nor a Jew, and in fact I am not a very good Christian either. I was born into the Roman Catholic Church but have since left that particular faith for reasons I believe in my heart to be valid. I claim to be a Christian even so, and I do believe in God.

The problems the world faces today lead me to believe that in fact there are groups who intend to use violence to advance their causes and claim that justification for their actions can be found in their religious beliefs. I believe these people are wrong to act in this manner. I am interested in an educated Islamic view of things to balance my our secular beliefs. I prefer to judge for myself and choose to believe in that which I find to be compatible with my own moralistic nature.

[cessa]

quote]Try telling that to anyone who works at an abortion clinic.

OK so we're back tomy original question: body count over the past 20 years?

My estimate is something like:

Christians: 20-30 dead

Muslims: 5000+

yeeaaah. Good comparison guys.

I definitely agree with you on this one. When comparing Christian and Muslim fundamentalists you have to remember that the people who murder in the name of Christianity aren't really Christians, Jesus preached the exact opposite of this, He told us to "turn our cheeks" and violence was never associated with his teachings whatsoever. So technically these people who are killing in the name of Christ dont actually qualify as Christians and Jesus would never consider them so. On the other hand, Muhammad the Prophet who established Islam was know to be a warrior who lived by the sword. His philosophy was if the infidel's dont join us they must be eliminated. This is why its easy to scrutinize the Muslim fundametalists and rightly so.

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[Figleaf]

[q

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[jefferiah]

The 9/11 attack was against the 'infidel' or any non-muslim.

Oh, you were at the planning committee meetings were you?

He was looking for you, Figleaf!

[scribblet]

There are many sources to check out how the radicals feel about the infidel, quotes and actions etc.

The Christian right may have some nut jobs but nothing in comparison to the rise of radical Islam today and the wholesale slaughter of people.

I caught the tail end of the John Moore show on CFRB yesterday and wish I had heard it all as he had Dr. Waffa Sultan on, the lady who forcibly speaks out against the radicals. This lady is banned from speaking on any Arab stations and has to be protected because of death threats, so does the Canadian gal, Irshad Manji.

John Moore is very definitely left wing, but is very well spoken, I don't always disagree with him, this time he made a lot of sense. Even he said that the radical Islamists are growing and there is no comparison to today's Christians. (words to that effect I don't have a transcript).