|
|
| Author |
Message |
sj2
|
|
Islam
| 
Oct 18 07:14 UTC 2003 |
On one hand: http://www.islamvision.org/Kafir.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kafir
The word Kaafir most probably should be one of the most
misunderstood terms in the history of world languages. The term has
been abused & projected by media in such a fashion that it induces
spontaneous hatred among people to whom this term is being referred.
Any language at it's best, conveys what it's made out to convey.
Factually speaking there is nothing derogatory or insulting about the
term Kaafir. The term (derived from Kufr in Arabic language)
means 'One who rejects (denies) the truth' or 'One who does not
believe' or a 'Non-believer'. A person who is not a Christian is
called a Non-Christian; a person who is not a Hindu is known as a non-
Hindu; similarly, a person who is not a Muslim is called a non-Muslim,
which when translated in to Arabic language is called a Kaafir.
It's as simple as that. In fact, the term Kaafir relates more to the
status of a person's belief system and reflects less about the
physical entity that he is. A more apt, politically and socially
significant term Zimmi used in Arabic literature to denote non-Muslims
has been ignored and has gone unnoticed by Muslim bashers.
A non-Muslim subject in an Islamic state is called Zimmi (derived from
Zimma meaning responsibility) meaning a subject whose life, honour and
property will be protected by the Islamic State. He will have freedom
to follow his own belief system. He will have his own set of laws,
administered by his own tribunals and own judges, without any
interference on the part of the Muslim authorities. He will also be
exempted from participation in the wars,
otherwise compulsory to the Muslim subjects of the state. He will not
be required to pay the compulsory annual Zakaat (a type of compulsory
tax collected annually from all Muslims by Islamic Governments and
disbursed to poor Muslims). Against all these privileges the non-
Muslim subject Zimmi have to pay a nominal tax called Jizya.
The quantum of Jizya will be reasonable enough as not to be a
financial burden on him. In case of any uncertainty with respect to
the safety of non-Muslim subjects, an Islamic state will forfeit its
right to collect such tax. History tells us that the second Caliph
Umer (RA) returned a huge sum of money collected through Jizya to the
non-Muslim subjects in one such compelling circumstance.
The Zimmis also will not be allowed to participate in legislation
process. For that matter, not even the Muslim subjects. Because the
law making (Legislation) authority rests with Allah and hence will be
solely based on Qur'an & Sunnah.
The Islamic State will only be a law-enforcing agency. At the time of
the revelation of the Holy Qur'an, when most of the non-believers in
Mecca and Madina had waged a pitched battle with believers; Allah
(SWT) sensing the question upper most in the minds of most Muslims
with respect to their dealings with other non- believers who were not
hostile to them issued the following instruction: "Allah does not
forbid you to be kind and deal justly with non-Muslims, who do not
wage war against you on account of your religion and do not drive you
out of your homes. Verily Allah loves those who are just". (60-8)
The above-mentioned verse in fact is a policy statement in this
matter. This is further exemplified by Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) who
said: "One who kills a Zimmi, will not get even the scent of the
paradise. In another statement he said: " I shall stand witness
against the believer, who will be guilty of persecuting a Zimmi." It
should be noted that while discussing the rights of neighbours and the
wayfarers, Islam does not make any distinction between Muslims and non-
Muslims.
A non-Muslim neighbour has as much rights over his Muslim neighbour as
the other Muslim neighbour next door. There can not be a better
example to illustrate Islam's stand vis- -vis the treatment to the
non -Muslims, than the story narrated by Abu Uzair (RA), one of the
companion of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), before embracing Islam. "I
was one of the prisoners-of-war and was handed over as captive to one
of the Ansars (residents of Madina).
Ever since Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) instructed his companions to look
well after the captives, the situation used to be that my Ansar host
used to eat only dates while providing me a stomach full meal." No
wonder, the entire Christian population of a border town, preferred to
live as Zimmis under the rule of Hazrat Umar (RA) ,the second Caliph
of Islam instead of becoming sovereign subjects of a Christian king in
640 CE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| 58 responses total. |
sj2
|
|
response 1 of 58:
|
Oct 18 07:16 UTC 2003 |
On the other hand: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?
ARTICLE_ID=29709
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GLOBAL JIHAD
Sheik: 'It's OK to kill non-Muslims'
London Islamic cleric caught on tape calling for death of Americans
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 19, 2002
1:49 a.m. Eastern
2002 WorldNetDaily.com
A London-based Muslim cleric has been caught on film urging his
followers to kill non-Muslims particularly Americans and to commit
other acts of terrorism.
Sheik Abu Hamza, affiliated with London's Finsbury Park mosque, tells
an audience that non-believers should be killed or sold into slavery
in a tape converted to digital files and smuggled onto the Internet.
The tapes were reportedly given by Hamza to a researcher who posed as
a supporter and infiltrated his inner circle. "If a kafir person (non-
believer) goes in a Muslim country, he is like a cow," explains
Hamza. "Anybody can take him. That is the Islamic law."
"If a kafir is walking by and you catch him, he's booty," he says on
one tape. "You can sell him in the market. Most of them are spies. And
even if they don't do anything, if Muslims cannot take them and sell
them in the market, you just kill them. It's OK."
Hamza praises the al-Qaida bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania that killed 224 people.
"If Muslims are having a war against these people, than yes, it is
legitimate," he says.
He praised attacks against ships from non-Muslim countries: "If a ship
which loses its way and comes to a Muslim land, they'll take it as
booty."
A terrorist attack in 2000 on the USS Cole killed 17 American sailors.
The attack has been linked to Muslim militants in Britain, but Hamza
has never been charged.
Despite accusations he recruits for al-Qaida, Hamza's only punishment
in Britain has been a High Court order banning him from preaching at
the Finsbury Park mosque. However, when the Ottawa Citizen visited the
mosque several weeks ago, worshippers had his phone number handy, the
newspaper reported.
"It's all fabrication. He's just taking clips and taking it out of
context, as usual," Hamza said last night when asked about the videos.
He scoffed at suggestions the tapes may lead to his arrest.
He said he can't be accused of inciting people to commit violent acts
because he's a cleric who only preaches Muslim law. "I say the reality
that's in the Muslim books anyway. Whether I say it or not, it's in
the books."
The sheik, who was born in Egypt and grew up in England, then alluded
to more violence using language similar to that used by Osama bin
Laden.
"Just as non-Muslim blood is hot, Muslim blood is hot, too," he
said. "It's for them to worry about. When they kill, they will be
killed."
|
tod
|
|
response 2 of 58:
|
Oct 18 14:39 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 3 of 58:
|
Oct 19 03:13 UTC 2003 |
From what I know, the text in #0 is very misleading. Islam distinguishes
between non-Muslims who nonetheless believe in God (Allah) and those who
are non-believers. The status of dhimmi (meaning protected) can only be
achieved by Jews and Christians. Non-believers (e.g. polytheists) are to
be put to death.
That the non-Muslim neighbor has just as much right as the Muslim is also
a bunch of crock. Non-Muslims are not allowed to testify in Muslim courts
(the only game in town in Muslim lands). Many other restrictions were
placed on Non-Muslims (Jews & Christians) -- for example, synagogues and
churches had to be less grand than the mosques. Nor could dhimmis hold
public office or ride on camels or horses (only donkeys, I believe).
Does anyone really believe that the poll tax on dhimmis was typically
less than the tax on Muslims? (One anecdotal story of one Caliph
refunding this tax should raise more questions than it answers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
http://www.dhimmi.com/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Index/D/dhimmi.html
http://www.secularislam.org/articles/bostom2.htm
http://www.secularislam.org/jihad/subjects.htm
|
cross
|
|
response 4 of 58:
|
Oct 19 04:40 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 5 of 58:
|
Oct 19 04:58 UTC 2003 |
This all makes me support the First Amendment with even more fervor. If
Bush can't get Iraq to adopt the equivalent, he will have lost the real
battle.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 6 of 58:
|
Oct 19 06:17 UTC 2003 |
The best hope for a 'freedom of religion' clause in an Iraqi constitution is
neutrality between Sunni and Shia, just as ours was neutrality between various
Protestant Christian sects. (Ours has grown since then, but that really was
where it started.)
|
pvn
|
|
response 7 of 58:
|
Oct 19 07:39 UTC 2003 |
Stand down folks. Islam as a religion is generally where the x-ers were
about 1400-1200 years ago in the 'western' tradition. (Do you know any
Lutherans? They were the Taliban of their founding.) (Or how about the
Mormons? They had their "Daanites" (al_Qudes) and they were the
prefered candidates for FBI agents until recently...since then it has
become black muslims?) Unfortunately the evolution of the Islamic faith
has cost us a number of planes and buildings full of people recently but
in the long run this will change. Exchange of information and the
Internet leads naturally to that (so long as we can keep the hands of
Government off it (Government being the modern GOD).
It is odd to note that 'kaafir' in South Africa (x-ian state era) was a
term for black person especially since at the time of its most common
use it was hardly an Islamic State.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 8 of 58:
|
Oct 19 08:04 UTC 2003 |
"kaffir" != "kaafir"
|
pvn
|
|
response 9 of 58:
|
Oct 19 08:24 UTC 2003 |
I suggest it damn well is/was obviously. Both by derivation and usage.
|
keesan
|
|
response 10 of 58:
|
Oct 20 18:47 UTC 2003 |
The English used to not allow Catholics to attend university or hold office.
The communists used to not allow non party members to attend university or
hold office.
The Chinese communists would not let people attend university (at one time)
if their parents had been intellectuals.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 58:
|
Oct 20 19:00 UTC 2003 |
Education is tightly controlled in totalitarian communities. The Taliban
forbade it to women. At one time the American medical community did too.
|
tod
|
|
response 12 of 58:
|
Oct 20 20:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sj2
|
|
response 13 of 58:
|
Oct 21 06:08 UTC 2003 |
NYTimes editor Friedman had some good insights on Islam and terror in a
programme on CNN yesterday. He also commented on Mahatir Mohamed's
controversial speech. He rightly pointed out that while the Malaysian
PM's remarks about jews were shallow and inflammatory but the bulk of
his speech about muslims was deeply critical of the muslim world and
bold.
|
gull
|
|
response 14 of 58:
|
Oct 21 14:41 UTC 2003 |
Catholic politicians were regarded with suspicion in the U.S. for years,
because it was thought that if they were elected to office they would be
controlled by the Pope. Ironically, we've now come full circle, and
Gov. Granholm has been picketed by Catholics for not following the
Vatican's line on abortion.
(You know, it's interesting that pro-abortion Catholics are picketed,
but pro-death penalty Catholics aren't.)
|
tod
|
|
response 15 of 58:
|
Oct 21 15:38 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 16 of 58:
|
Oct 21 16:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #14: What broke the back of that attitude was the 1960 presidential
election. Kennedy was elected, and the dire predictions that he'd be
in the Vatican's pocket proved false.
|