BF2S Forums English Defense League

Turquoise wrote:

For the most part, I agree.  Only orthodox Muslims would support the whole dhimmi system to begin with.  Thankfully, more modernized ones have moved on to how free societies with secular governments operate.

Historically, Jews, like Moses Maimonides, contributed to Islamic civilisation as philosophers and scientists. They also served in public offices in the Islamic state. Salah El-Din Al-Ayyubi appointed a Jew to serve as a high ranking minister (vizier) in his government....
...Another historical moment occurred during the time of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, the second caliph, who, according to the Cairo Jewish Geniza manuscripts, brought the Jews back to Jerusalem after the year 638 CE. This is very significant as it reflects a paradigm of Convivencia between Jews and Muslims as well as between Christians and Muslims in the heart of this holy city, in addition to Andalusia and other places.

SEREVENT wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen … 537594.ece

So that's doesn't spark nationalist paranoia and these guys just came out of nowhere, huh?

I'd much rather walk through a Muslim area than any council estate in the UK. I can tell you which one that I'd actually walk out of without getting my head kicked in.

Have you ever walked through a Muslim inner city area?

Also a few weeks ago in the election the news people interviewed a National Front voter who couldn't string a sentence together without using the word Muslim, they're all stupid... i haven't watched that video yet.

Beduin wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

For the most part, I agree.  Only orthodox Muslims would support the whole dhimmi system to begin with.  Thankfully, more modernized ones have moved on to how free societies with secular governments operate.

Historically, Jews, like Moses Maimonides, contributed to Islamic civilisation as philosophers and scientists. They also served in public offices in the Islamic state. Salah El-Din Al-Ayyubi appointed a Jew to serve as a high ranking minister (vizier) in his government....
...Another historical moment occurred during the time of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, the second caliph, who, according to the Cairo Jewish Geniza manuscripts, brought the Jews back to Jerusalem after the year 638 CE. This is very significant as it reflects a paradigm of Convivencia between Jews and Muslims as well as between Christians and Muslims in the heart of this holy city, in addition to Andalusia and other places.

wtf are you talking about?

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-30 12:24:16)

Morpheus wrote:

Beduin wrote:

Minority Autonomy: Judicial, Social, Cultural

One of the most characteristic features of Islam is the award of judicial, social and cultural autonomy to these communities. As a result, they are routinely referred to as the dhimmis, in the technical terminology of the law. The word dhimma means a compact which a believer agrees to respect and the violation of which makes him liable to dham (blame).(8) The other meaning of the word is guarantee of safety (aman).(9) Legally, the term refers to certain rights which must be protected by the state.(10) The people whose rights are protected are known as dhimmis or protected subjects.

Let us take a quick look at the nature of judicial autonomy under Islamic law. Far from imposing Qur'anic laws on everybody, Islam permits and even encourages every group (Jewish, Christian, Magian or other) to establish its own tribunals presided over by its own judges. Each group should seek to apply its laws to all branches of human affairs.(11) Thus, judicial autonomy is intended to encompass not only individual, private matters (involving personal status) but also for all the affairs of life: civil, penal, religious and others.(12)

Read more: http://www.islamfortoday.com/minorities.htm

Religion Of Peace

I read this as basically saying everybody gets governed by their own laws...?

wtf am i missing? where does it say everyone has to be under shia rule?

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-30 12:31:22)

Turquoise wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

Beduin wrote:

Religion Of Peace

I read this as basically saying everybody gets governed by their own laws...?

wtf am i missing? where does it say everyone has to be under shia rule?

Here, let me help.

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

Essentially, that website he linked is trying to revise history to make Islam look more favorable.  Just like many other religions, Islam has a dark past in how it has dealt with people outside the faith.

Turquoise wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

Beduin wrote:

Religion Of Peace

I read this as basically saying everybody gets governed by their own laws...?

wtf am i missing? where does it say everyone has to be under shia rule?

Here, let me help.

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

Essentially, that website he linked is trying to revise history to make Islam look more favorable.  Just like many other religions, Islam has a dark past in how it has dealt with people outside the faith.

Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order.

Beduin wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

I read this as basically saying everybody gets governed by their own laws...?

wtf am i missing? where does it say everyone has to be under shia rule?

Here, let me help.

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

Essentially, that website he linked is trying to revise history to make Islam look more favorable.  Just like many other religions, Islam has a dark past in how it has dealt with people outside the faith.

Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order.

From your link..

Turquoise wrote:

Right, but that still overlooks what I mentioned earlier.  Non-Muslims couldn't testify against Muslims.

Turquoise wrote:

Beduin wrote:

Can you explain why minorities moved to islamic land to live there?

The existence of religious minorities in Islamic societies does not imply anything other than economic immigration patterns (and historical settling patterns).

People generally move to countries for economic opportunity more than anything else, unless you're talking about people fleeing a warzone.

This is further attested to by Dr William Baker when he says that:
Although the Jews joined with the enemies of early Islam, neither they nor Judaism were targeted by Muhammad or Islam. It is a fact of history that when the Jews were being persecuted in Europe during the Middle Ages they found peace, harmony, and acceptance among the Muslim people of Spain. In fact, this was the era of Jewish history that they themselves refer to as the Golden Age.

Source: Dr William Baker, More in Common Than You Think: The Bridge between Islam and Christianity, (1998) Defenders Publications

Last edited by Beduin (2010-05-30 13:30:49)

Turquoise wrote:

Beduin wrote:

They moved for more than just economic opportunities:

This is further attested to by Dr William Baker when he says that:
Although the Jews joined with the enemies of early Islam, neither they nor Judaism were targeted by Muhammad or Islam. It is a fact of history that when the Jews were being persecuted in Europe during the Middle Ages they found peace, harmony, and acceptance among the Muslim people of Spain. In fact, this was the era of Jewish history that they themselves refer to as the Golden Age.

Well, other than the Qurayza tribe, of course...

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

Turquoise wrote:

You must have discussed it with a different poster.  As far as I know, Mohammad viewed them as traitors.  His way of dealing with them was not unusual for the times, but it's still kind of hard to defend what amounts to genocide.

The Banu Qurayza tribe broke the treaty between themselves and the Muslims, they decided to join the Qurayshi pagan onslaught, so the Muslims were now effectively surrounded from the north by the pagans, and the south by the Jewish tribe of Qurayza. So now the battle was all about wait and see, it was like a game of chess, the pagans were finding it very hard to launch a full offensive because of the trench, and the Jewish tribe would not attack on their own, they were waiting for the Qurayshi pagans to go full in, once the Qurayshi pagans went with their full force, the Jewish tribe of Qurayza would attack the Muslims from the south, this tactic would be an attempt to over-whelm the Muslims.

Article: http://muslim-responses.com/Banu_Qurayza/Banu_Qurayza_

Turquoise wrote:

Either way, perhaps, the Caliphates were more peaceful to live under as non-Muslims than it was to live under many of their contemporaries, but I don't see how going back to that system is a good idea.

Turquoise wrote:

One culture conquering another is how I see it.  The Jews conquered, the Muslims conquered.  It doesn't matter what religion a group is, it hasn't been until relatively recently in human history that most of us have truly learned not to kill each other over religion, and even still, it happens today in some areas of the world.  The Muslims were no exception.

16.Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).

17.No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

18. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped.

19.The peace of the Believers (of the State of Madinah) cannot be divided. (it is either peace or war for all. It cannot be that a part of the population is at war with the outsiders and a part is at peace).

20.No separate peace will be made by anyone in Madinah when Believers are fighting in the Path of Allah.

The Madina Charter: http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm

Last edited by Beduin (2010-05-30 15:08:56)

Beduin wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One culture conquering another is how I see it.  The Jews conquered, the Muslims conquered.  It doesn't matter what religion a group is, it hasn't been until relatively recently in human history that most of us have truly learned not to kill each other over religion, and even still, it happens today in some areas of the world.  The Muslims were no exception.

I hope you can do better than some members here... If you take a  look at the time line up to the incident, you will see that muslims did not fight/conquer Madina. They moved to Madina. The people of Madina (incl. many jewish tribes) signed a pact written by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH):

16.Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).

17.No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

18. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped.

19.The peace of the Believers (of the State of Madinah) cannot be divided. (it is either peace or war for all. It cannot be that a part of the population is at war with the outsiders and a part is at peace).

20.No separate peace will be made by anyone in Madinah when Believers are fighting in the Path of Allah.

The Madina Charter: http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-30 15:13:12)