PROPHET GETS ONE-FIFTH BOOTY IF ENEMY IS DEFEATED IN WAR ------------------------- Tabari VIII:130 "The Prophet conquered Khaybar by force after fighting. Khaybar was something that Allah gave as booty to His Messenger. He took one-fifth of it and divided the remainder among the Muslims. The inhabitants who surrendered did so on condition that they should be expelled."
PROPHET GETS ALL THE BOOTY IF ENEMY IS DEFEATED IN WAR -------------------------
Tabari VIII:129 "After the Messenger had finished with the Khaybar Jews, Allah cast terror into the hearts of the Jews in Fadak when they received news of what Allah had brought upon Khaybar. So they sent to Muhammad to make peace with him for a half share of Fadak%u2019s produce. Fadak became the exclusive property of Allah%u2019s Messenger."
RE:RE:PROPHET GETS ONE-FIFTH BOOTY AFTER EVERY WAR
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 05:26 AM Permalink
Bukhari:V4B52N143
"The Prophet told an Ansar, 'Choose one of your slave boys to serve me in my expedition to Khaybar.' So, he chose me, even though I was just nearing puberty. I served Muhammad when he stopped to rest. I heard him saying repeatedly, 'Allah! I seek refuge with you from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men.'"
RE:RE:RE:PROPHET GETS ONE-FIFTH BOOTY AFTER EVERY WAR
by Mike Gandhi on Mar 20, 2007 04:26 PM Permalink
WHY YOU WORSHIPPING AYYAPA, A SON OF TWO HINDU GAY GODS, SHIVA & VISHNU ????
WHY THERE IS RELIGIOUS SYSTEM IN HINDUISM ONE WOMEN FOR WHOLE FAMILY MEMBERS LIKE PANDVAS ???
WHY KRISHNA (WORLD FIRST TERRORIST WHO ORDERED ARJUNA TO KILL HIS OWN BROTHERS AND SISTERS) MARRIED)
Armstrong often points to the difference between culture and religion - the way in which the same religion can be different in different cultures. For example she often shows how distant Western Christianity is from Jesus' original message and how different Western and Eastern Christianity are. There is an interesting quotation from Umberto Eco's: "Dreaming of the Middle Ages" essay where he says that "all the problems of the Western world emerged in the Middle Ages. In fact I would say Western Culture rose directly from medieval culture - with less influence from Greek civilization than many academics would like to think. Need I remind you people that in the U.K. there are many Laws from the Medieval times by which one can still be sentenced for such 'crimes' as witchcraft."
Armstrong points out the "Western Christians were not going to be able to accommodate different religious communities and ideologies within their own systems as did either the Muslims or the Byzantines". It is therefore not Christianity which is to blame for the Western xenophobia, arrogance and intolerance -it is something cultural, perhaps to do with the fact that so many different races lived in confined Europe that borders had to be drawn. In a similar way Islam can not be blamed for female circumcision which is "an African practice" and has nothing to do with the Quran. Racism is not that common outside the West and even then it is usually only in ex-colonial countries. The Asian communities in Europe should remember what happened to Muslims in Spain after living there for some 500 years and becoming as Spanish as any Spaniard (most in fact were by origin Spanish converts): they were deported en masse and those that did stay "were persecuted by the Spanish Inquisition for another 300 years". In contrast, under the Islamic empire, "the three religions of historical monotheism were able to live together in relative peace and harmony" and "there was even an established tradition of skepticism and freethinking".
In Eastern and Western Christianity Jesus was perceived differently - in the East he is portrayed as an Emperor of the Universe and unlike the vulnerable Christ of the West. Armstrong explains this by saying that in the West "Christianity is supremely a religion of suffering and adversity...it has always been at its best during periods of distress. The idea of rejecting 'the world' has in my mind led to two consequences: Firstly to a lack of real Philosophical thought and thus a failure to satisfy peoples everyday needs, and secondly it has been used to subdue people in the West and also more recently in (for example) South Africa and "Central and South America...Christians have been told that they have a duty to endure oppression and injustice".
Whatever their excuses, it is shocking to see writers such as Dante and Voltaire b
RE:CULTURE AND RELIGION
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 05:20 AM Permalink
Comparing the crimes of Islam with Christianity are of no relevance to Hindus. Eh hi thaali ke chatte vatte. They both have a discriminatory ideology as their core principly, "you are either with us or agains us", Kafir in Islam and Heathen in Christianity.
RE:CULTURE AND RELIGION
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:25 AM Permalink
Comparing the crimes of Islam with Christianity are of no relevance to Hindus. Eh hi thaali ke chatte vatte. They both have a discriminatory ideology as their core principly, "you are either with us or agains us", Kafir in Islam and Heathen in Christianity.
We know that the spread of Christianity is mainly the work of Europeans which dates back to the Roman and Byzantine Caesars. The Caesars who accepted Christianity and committed themselves to the task of spreading Christianity were no less cruel than the Caesars who worshipped Jupiter. The tax collectors who collected for the New Rome used torture as briskly as those who had come before. Institutions such as slavery continued. Restrictions against heretics became more numerous as the doctrines of the Church became increasingly more complex and difficult to understand.
Disillusionment with official Christianity was particularly bitter in such regions as the Byzantine Empire, Egypt and North Africa where Greek-speaking Christians dominated non-Europeans. Many of the heresies that flourished in North Africa (where the Greek epithet 'barbarian' was applied so persistently that it has stuck as 'Berber') represented assertions of identity by oppressed groups as much as genuine devotion to doctrinal minutiae. So the ease with which Egypt and North Africa fell to Islam between A.D. 640 and 705 can largely be explained by the resentment of native populations of Byzantine misrule. Yaqut states plainly that most of the people of Barqa adopted Islam. The apparently ready welcome offered to the Arabs in the Western Desert and Barqa seems to suggest that the people of this area were themselves, partly Arabs. Such an idea is by no means far-fetched.[181] The Berbers and the Egyptian Christians, or Copts, saw in the new religion (Islam) a simpler variant of what they believed already, coupled with the inestimable advantage of an easier tax system.[182]
In Spain, the Muslims accepted an invitation to enter the country. The Muslims here too, as elsewhere, found a divided populace of overtaxed peasants, embittered heretics and persecuted Jews, none with any great loyalty to their Visigothic King.[183]
In former Yugoslavia too, all major Turkish conquests were made possible with the help of the natives. The Turks were helped by some Serbs. Turkish rule was more efficient, stable, tolerant and less oppressive than the rule Serbia had been under. Turkish rule abolished the class system of Medieval Serbia. In early days of Turkish rule, the amount of produce, taxation and forced labor for Serbian Peasants was less than the feudal exactions from peasants in many other parts of Europe.[184] No attempt was made to assimilate or proselytize local populations. In spite of all that can be said about later Turkish misrule, the Muslim policy of religious tolerance allowed the beautiful Churches and Monasteries to escape destruction.[185] In contrast to Muslim policy of religious tolerance, some of the leading families of Montenegro (Black Mountain in Yugoslavia) who had embraced Islam under Turkish influence were forcibly reconverted to Christianity after the fall of Turkish rule.[186]
The Crusaders occupied Jerusalem in July A.D. 1099. They massacred the entire Muslim and Jewish population as they had already done in Antioch and other occupied towns, thus causing a kind of fanaticism and ferocity hitherto unknown in the Near East, where the relationship between peoples of different religions was in general tolerant.[187] Christian Priests holding crosses aloft accompanied Crusaders when they occupied Jerusalem in A.D. 1099 and put all the population to the sword, regardless of sex or age.[188]
Thirty-eight years before in what is called the First Crusade in 1063, Pope Alexander II decided to dispatch a force consisting principally of Italians, Franks and Norms to attack the Muslims of Saragossa. The Papal army laid siege to Barbastro, a wealthy Muslim City in the Muslim Kingdom of Lerida in Spain. After a siege of forty days, Barbastro surrendered on term with the honors of war. No sooner, however, did the garrison march out of the town than they were attacked and slaughtered by the Christians in gross violation of the terms of the Capitulation. The civilian inhabitants, who had also been granted an amnesty, were likewise massacred. Six thousand were killed in cold blood, while the women and children were divided between the Christian soldiers as concubines and slaves.[189]
This method was employed during the entire re-conquest until Islam was expelled from Spain, Sicily and other parts of the Europe; massacre and expulsion.
"The Arabs had conquered Spain in A.D. 712, three hundred and sixty years before a period as long as that from the accession of James I in A.D. 1603 to our own times. The English and Scots had, before then, been distinct and often hostile races. Three hundred and sixty years have sufficed to mix them inextricably. It would be no more possible to expel the Scots from England today than it was to drive the Arabs from Spain in AD. 1080. Arabs, Berbers, Spaniards and Goths had become completely intermingled (due to Islamic integration of the society). Another four centuries were to elapse before the last Muslims were driven out from Spain. During this period, the rising intensity of religious fanaticism was to lead to the, often purely superficial, conversion, and the gradual emigration of the more rigid Muslims to Africa. In the final requisite we cannot assume that the Arabs and Berbers went to Black Africa and the Goths and Spaniards remained in the Peninsula, for the races were largely intermixed and the final struggle was religious. The most unbending Muslims (many of whom may have been all or partly Goth or Spanish) went to Africa".[190] Pressure from Rome and the Popes marked the end of the mutual toleration of Christians and Muslims. The ultimate Victory of the Christians in Spain was to be signaled by many acts of cruelty towards the Muslims, carried out, alas in the name of the religion of love. It is interesting to notice that, wherever the Christians and Muslims - particularly Arabized Muslims - were able to mingle together, the spirit of mutual respect and toleration began to appear. This occurred not only in Palestine and Syria, but also in Spain and Sicily.[191]
We must remember that Spain was under the influence of Islamic civilization and Muslims' rule for four centuries as long as from the time of Henry VII, the reformation to our own times. During this period, the majority of the inhabitants of Andalusia had become Muslims, just as the majority of the people of England have become Protestants.
In Andalusia, Arabs, Berbers and original Spaniards were intimately integrated. Infact, there were probably more Latin-Gothic than Arab-Berber blood in Muslim Spain. Moreover, the Andalusians were far more civilized than were the people of the Northern States. Yet neither group seems to have felt itself divided from the other by any racial bar. Alphonso VI of Castile married Zaida, the daughter of Mutamid Ibn Abbad, the King of Seville, although she was a Muslim. Moreover, the offspring of the marriage would have been Emperor of Spain if he had not been killed in the Battle of Ucles.[192]
"Both Muslims and Christians in Spain seem, moreover, to have often felt more sympathy for each other than for either the Norman and French barbarians in Barbastro. It is tempting to believe that the Muslims and the Christians of Spain might have settled down as a single nation with two religions, had it not been for outside interference".[193] The influence of the papacy and the foreign Kings, the fanaticism of Crusaders, the massacre, persecution, expulsion of the Muslims from their home and land forced Islam out of Spain. What proportion of Arab and Berber blood remained in Spain or how much Celtic, Latin or Gothic blood "returned to Africa when the Muslims were driven out, no man can assess. But an immense amount of Arab thought and culture remained in Andulus and spread thence to the rest of the World".[194]The Spanish Muslims whether of European blood or of non-European blood, were persecuted and forced to leave their land, country and home and flee to other areas, mainly to Africa. The number of the Andalusians who fled only to a part of North Africa was so large that in A.D. 1591 Mawlay Ahmad al-Mansur managed to have about 5,000 mainly Spanish Muslim refugees enrolled in an elite force for an expedition to cross the African desert.[195] Those who would like to understand how Muslims were forced out of Andalusia and how Andalusia slipped back to Christian authority after being under Muslim administration for a long time may study how recently Zionists massacred the Palestinians and forced them out of their home-land and country and how international Zionism employed all inhuman means to occupy Palestine. The Muslims in both cases did not abandon their religion they were simply massacred and forced out of their homes and land. Zionism has become merely a combination of the racist, tribalistic aspect of Judaism with modern secular nationalism and hence the Zionists' inhumane and non- Judaic, anti-Semitic, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian attitude and behavior. The plight of the Bosnian Muslims who are natives of the Balkans serves as another example.
The Christians would go to any length to establish themselves and enslave natives. The Tasmanian Aborigines were totally exterminated as late as the end of last century. It is a case of complete and swift genocide recorded and documented. The British Colonists in Tasmania wiped out the whole race within the lifetime of Trugannmi (an Aborigine woman) who was the last to die in 1876. The genocide began with an official massacre, progressed through bestial atrocities committed by escaping British convicts, into full-scale military operations. The last remnants were deported to an offshore island, and died rapidly as a result. Even after death, their bodies were stolen from the grave and mutilated. It all began with British racism, imperialism and ended up with their Christian-Zion.
The Muslims, Arabs, Turks and Mongols ruled over Andalusia, Greece, the Balkans and India, in that order for over five centuries without interfering in culture, religion and way of life of the people they ruled. But western Christian colonialists eradicated completely the natives of America, Australia, and New Zealand in less than a century. Yet the Muslims are accused of using force. The Mongols who entered the Muslim lands as the victors not only accepted Islam but championed the religion of their victors.
Recently there have emerged some researches which have established a kind of balanced view about the history of the spread of Islam, such as those by Karen Armstrong and Thierry Hentsch. According to Armstrong, "...no polity or ideology posed such a continuous challenge to the West as Islam" which is why Western writers and, more unfortunately, 'academics' have not been rational or objective in their study of Islam or the Arabs.
The rise and development of the Western hatred for Muhammad and Islam is very well explained - showing the ignorance, the arrogance, the fear and the contempt of the Western world for Islam. Any unstable nation needs an external "enemy" so as to unite the people and occupy them with other problems. It seems that this also occurred early in Western history - Muhammad became the great enemy of the emerging Western identity" standing for everything that the West hoped it was not:
"Islam was stigmatized as the 'religion of the sword' during the Crusades, a period when Christians themselves must have had a buried worry about this aggressive form of their faith which bore no relation to the pacifist message of Jesus. At a time when the Church was imposing celibacy on reluctant clergy, the astonishing accounts of Muhammad's sexual life reveal far more about the repression of Christians than about the facts of the Prophet's own life. There is a definite note of ill-concealed envy in this depiction of 'Islam' as a self-indulgent and easy-going religion. Finally it was the West, not' Islam', which forbade the open discussion of religious matters. At a time of the Crusades, Europe seemed obsessed by a craving for intellectual conformity and punished its deviants with a zeal that has been unique in the history of religion. The witch hunts of inquisitors and the persecution of the Protestants by the Catholics and vice versa were inspired by abstruse theological opinions which in both Judaism and slam were seen as a private and optional matters. Neither Judaism nor Islam shares the Christians conception of heresy, which raises human ideas about the divine to an unacceptably high level and almost makes them a form of idolatry". These fantasies helped form the identity of the West and Armstrong believes that traces of these old fantasies survive to the present day, having become "so entrenched" in Western culture.
RE:CHRISTIAN INTOLERANCE
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 05:23 AM Permalink
Have you read the article above ? It clearly shows Islamic bigotry at its best. Aurangzeb brutalizing and killing Hindus for simply being non-muslims. We are not concerned about the Islam vs Christianity debate, it's irrelevant to Hindus. What do Hindus care which is worse. Get over this infantile habit.
RE:RE:RE:CHRISTIAN INTOLERANCE
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:27 AM Permalink
Did you read the article by Mr. Gautier or did your hatred towards non-muslims blind you to it. It clearly states the crimes committed against Hindus in the name of Islam. These are facts Mr. Azeez not opinions and generalizations and feel good non-sense that you love peddling.
RE:CHRISTIAN INTOLERANCE
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:26 AM Permalink
Have you read the article above ? It clearly shows Islamic bigotry at its best. Aurangzeb brutalizing and killing Hindus for simply being non-muslims. We are not concerned about the Islam vs Christianity debate, it's irrelevant to Hindus. What do Hindus care which is worse. Get over this infantile habit.
Christian reactions to Islam are documented from an early date. They are generally categorized as follows:-
a. Those based on the feeling of revenge against Islam, for Islam had first thrived and still thrives enormously at the expense of Christendom.
b. Those inspired by future dangers of Islamic success. Christians were brought up to expect to be in relationship of violence and force with Muslims.
The reactions were formulated in various forms of accusations, but two main accusations stand out: a) the myth that Islam was imposed, and b) the salacity and laxness with which those who could not be compelled were bribed. If Christians could bring themselves together to accuse the strictest monotheistic religion, Islam, of idolatry, it would be difficult for them to relate the spread of Islam to violence and salacity. The Christians were not content with only accusing Islam of being forced upon people, they in fact, fabricated these accusations to entice people and promote violence against Islam. There was little recognition that Christians were inconsistent in advocating the use of force against Islam, while condemning Islam for its theoretic approval of it. They fabricated these charges to stir violence and they naturally retorted to further charges if people did not respond favorably to their call for the use of violence against Muslims. It was almost inevitable that the Christian attitude (the Christians tried hard to prove that Christianity was revealed once and for ever, and not as a religion of power to discredit Islam as the religion of force) to Islam should here be inconsistent.[180]
RE:ACCUSING ISLAM OF FORCING ITSELFUPON PEOPLE
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 05:25 AM Permalink
I'm sure the Christian and Muslims hate each other, they are both intolerant religions that claim Mr. God is on their side. Both target Hindus as non-believers, Christianity gave up killing a while ago, Islam is still on a war march, perhaps because it's serving your masters, the Arabs well.
RE:RE:RE:RE:PROPHET GETS ONE-FIFTH BOOTY AFTER EVERY WAR
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:32 AM Permalink
The Koran contradicts itself in many places, yes it does make positive noises like "to you yours and to me mine" but then in other suras it contradicts itself.
Some sample for your perusal.
What Qur'an Teaches:
Quran tells us to: "not to make friends with Jews and Christians" (5:51), fight them "until they pay the Jizya (a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" ( 9:29). "kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191), "murder them and treat them harshly" (9:123), "fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" ( 9:5).
Quran says that all those who disbelieve in Islam go to hell (5:10), they are najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28), and orders us to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193). It prohibits a Muslim to befriend a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (9:23), (3:28).
It says that the "non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water" (14:17). It asks the Muslims to "slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have great punishment in the world hereafter" (5:34). And tells us that "for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods" (22:19-22) and that they not only will have "disgrace in this life, on the Day of Judgment He shall make them taste the Penalty of burning (Fire)" (22:9).
Quran says that "those who invoke a god other than Allah not only should meet punishment in this world but the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to them, and they will dwell therein in ignominy" (25:68). For those who "believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!" (48:13).
As for him who does not believe in Islam the Prophet says that after he dies it will be announced with a "stern command": "Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin." (69:30-37)
RE:RE:RE:RE:PROPHET GETS ONE-FIFTH BOOTY AFTER EVERY WAR
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:34 AM Permalink
How many times do I have to repeat myself ? Hindus have not interest in this comparison contest, regarding which is worse Christianity or Islam! They are both part of the same tradition with the same flaw, "you are with us or against us", Kafir in Islam and Heathen in Christianity.
This prayer shows what the prophet thought of himself.
Bukhari:V4B52N143
"The Prophet told an Ansar, 'Choose one of your slave boys to serve me in my expedition to Khaybar.' So, he chose me, even though I was just nearing puberty. I served Muhammad when he stopped to rest. I heard him saying repeatedly, 'Allah! I seek refuge with you from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men.'"
"For the fourteen centuries of Islam's existence, non-Muslims have, in the main, studied it mainly to combat it. Where such ulterior motive was absent, Western study of Islam has been 'scientific' and 'empirical' to the point of missing the meaning of piety, ethicality, and sense of beauty that constitute the core of Islamic religiosity. The unprejudiced study of the history of religious discipline, which normally aims at understanding this religiosity in its moment of action and expression, of growth and consummation, was never aimed at. Not only have the historian of religions not been interested in such a pursuit, but their discipline has as yet not developed the methodological tools requisite to the undertaking".[179]
RE:MISUNDERSTANDING ISLAM
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 05:36 AM Permalink
The obvious question to ask is, Why that is the case? Because it's shallow doctrine of killing non-believers and spreading Arab imperialism is just too obvious, doesn't need a scholar to figure it out. Why is it that it's only Muslims that have to keep shouting that it's a religion of peace, if it were shouldn't it be obvious. Till you people acknowledge the killing and carnage in the name of Islam and fix it, you can keep shouting, no one will actually believe you. Going by a modern example, in countries where "pure" Islam was and is practiced Afghanistan and Saudia Arabia, the evidence of their barbarism and intolerance is there for all to see. In Afghanistan the non-Muslims were made to wear yellow arm bands, just like the Nazi's forced the Jews to wear a yellow star in Germany. The Nazi ideology of a master race is no different from Islam, which aims for a master religion and is willing to go to any length to enforce it and where killing and lying are justifiable means.
"Umar expelled all the Jews and Christians from Arabia. Allah%u2019s Apostle after conquering Khaybar thought of expelling the Jews from the land which, after he conquered it, belonged to Allah, Allah%u2019s Apostle and the Muslims. But the Jews requested Allah%u2019s Apostle to leave them there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits (the land would yield). Allah%u2019s Apostle said, 'We shall keep you on these terms as long as we wish.' Thus they stayed till the time of Umar%u2019s Caliphate when he expelled them.
RE:Islam & West
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:38 AM Permalink
In your comparison with Christianity, you've clearly shown that Hindus should fear both for their intolerance.
RE:ISLAM & THE WEST
by Secular Indian on Mar 20, 2007 06:38 AM Permalink
n your comparison with Christianity, you've clearly shown that Hindus should fear both for their intolerance.
"The Prophet commanded that the ruin should be dug up. Some treasure was extracted from it. Then Muhammad asked Kinanah for the rest. He refused to surrender it; so Allah%u2019s Messenger gave orders concerning him to Zubayr, saying, 'Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah%u2019s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him."
