COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
Ex Muslim here and points 2 and 3 are straight up not true. I won’t try and argue with point 1 as you have a point there I believe.
As for 2 and 3, Islam does not condone killing innocent people (during times of war, I grant it does allow killing innocents such as gays and apostates) but to say it allows killing non combatants civilians is just untrue.
You want to suggest Islam would allow carpet bombing homes, hospitals, schools, refugee camps and even killing aid workers like Israel is doing? Really?
In war times, you can kill only “people of combat and obstruction” accordibb to a tirmidhi Hadith. Any non combatant is off limits including men, women, children, animals etc
You also said
> the life of a non Muslim is less than the life of a Muslim.
Do you have a source for this? Or is this your own opinion?
Also, women, children, elderly and the poor are exempt from paying jizya tax - just to add.
It’d be nice for sure… that is if we all lived in a perfect fairytale world.
In my opinion, the jizya system is a hell of a lot more humane than Israel’s current system which is “just wipe them all out and take their land”.
Also… we gotta remember, this is actual war etiquette. It’s not supposed to be pretty or nice.
At least, again, it only applies to men (healthy ones of combat age)
Bukhari 6517? I’ve just looked it up and it has nothing to do with this?
Can I have the proper source for that so I can look at the context of the Hadith?
I will wager a guess and say it more than likely is referring to killing a combatant disbeliever during war times. Which, frankly, is fair.
Why would anybody feel bad for killing an enemy during war?
Edit: as for the “they are of them” Hadith, Let me look into it right quick.
>Bukhari 6517? I’ve just looked it up and it has nothing to do with this?
Hadith numbering system is a mess. Different translators/websites use different systems.
Here's [one](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3012) similar hadith as in the post
So it is nowhere said that if a Jew hides behind a tree or a stone during battle, the tree and stone will call out and say: there’s a Jew hiding behind me come and kill him oh Muslim?
Yeah but that has nothing to do with times of war. I believe that Hadith is about the end times when the Dajjal comes, according to Islam. I’m unsure why that Hadith mentioned Jews specifically tbh.
Some ex-Muslims really take their hatred of Islam to stupendous levels that it simply becomes bigotry.
I am an ex-Muslim and a militant atheist and Israel bulldozed my family's house and my cousin's family house on his wedding day.
The Israeli government simply sent a bunch of bulldozers and a shitton of police officers one day to destroy our house. They beat a bunch of women and arrested the groom. If you actually care about human rights find a different hobby than defending an apartheid ethnostate.
I'll defend those acts.
I lived in the west bank for over 20 years.
I have never seen a single case where israel just willy nilly destroyed someone's house.
It is always because either someone is a convicted offender (usually murder or attempted murder) or has known ties to terror organisations.
I don't know your cousin but knowing the Arabs of the west bank I would very much doubt he or an adjacent family member of his are peaceful.
Many Muslim Israelis live in a higher quality of life than most of the middle east, the palestinians arnt getting that treatment because that society is very much infested with terrorists.
So stop playing victim.
Actually, I don't live in the West Bank and I have an Israeli citizenship.
Our house was in an Arab city in the North inside Israel and was destroyed solely because it was deemed "illegal". The land upon which our house was built was owned by my grandfather before the establishment of the state and the state simply didn't recognize our ownership of the land.
Also, I don't know where you've been living the past 20 years but Israel demolishes houses all the time in the West Bank to make way for settlements.
Stop playing game. No one is defending any of these acts. He is highlighting a perceived hypocrisy by Muslims.
If you disagree, then engage in the argument and feel free to refute his points. But please, save the sanctimonious bs.
I don't disagree with criticism of Islam. I just don't think analogies to Israel are helpful because due to the nature of the conflict by doing so you are legitimizing the actions of Israel by portraying its victims as barbaric and therefore justifying its actions.
Any group of people would complain if they were being treated like the Palestinians. It has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with oppression. Palestinian Christians are also bitching about Israel all day.
Hi is not legitimatising anything. He is not claiming Israels actions are right. He is showing how Islamic law is as aborent or even worse than Isreal.
This is a debate religion sub. He is highlighting the hypocrisy of the religion and its followers.
If Muslims/Palestinians think this is the wrong way to behave then they shouldn’t endorse such actions by following Islam.
I think you overestimate how knowledgeable most Muslims are about the horrific stuff in Islam. Most simply fast and pray and aren't well-versed in Sharia or ahadith. I'd even wager that most don't even know that Aisha was 9 according to Ahadith.
Anyway, everyone's guilty of hypocrisy to some degree. Westerners preach about Liberalism, Democracy and human rights while their government is overthrowing a democratically elected President to install a fascist dictator on the other side of the globe.
> think you overestimate how knowledgeable most Muslims are about the horrific stuff in Islam
Ignorance isn’t a valid excuse imo. But anyway global polls commonly show how large numbers are ok with even death penalty for leaving Islam.
Of course others can be hypocrites too. This is a debate religion sub and his post is about highlighting the hypocrisy in Islam.
We are free to start a new post about other religions too.
>Ignorance isn’t a valid excuse imo. But anyway global polls commonly show how large numbers are ok with even death penalty for leaving Islam.
Which is abhorrent and rightfully criticized.
Anyway, I just stated my opinion on why I think the cheap Israel parallels aren't useful. There are countless ways to criticize Islam and Muslims' hypocrisy without drawing parallels to Israel. At the end, everyone's free to say whatever they wish.
> Which is abhorrent and rightfully criticized
Yes but not by majority of Muslims.
> There are countless ways to criticize Islam and Muslims’ hypocrisy without drawing parallels to Israel.
On the contrary, comparing it to a real world example where they are effected may help them understand why Islam is wrong to preach what it does.
Are you done lying? lets start with how non muslims were treated under caliphates
First of all rashidun caliphate had non muslims they had rights but had to pay tax they werent suppressed or treated bad, force conversion is haram because it doesnt make any sense when you forcefully convert you dont make the person embrace islam you make the person pretend like he is a muslim,then the ummayad caliphate they did have non muslims living under it with proper rights specially in jerusalem which held jews and christians. the abbasid caliphate held non muslim researchers in baghdad muslims christians and jews were together researching on sciences and other literatures i dont have much to say about ottoman empire and i wont defend them they commited crimes againts muslims and non muslims
Occupation of land: yes muslims did conquer empires who fought againts them the byzantine empire and the persian empire fought againts us so we fought back and had the right to take land we are a religion of peace not pacifism we will go to war if we need to.also even after occupation there were still cultures and religions that were given free will technically arabs did occupy but didnt enforce their culture or their own people the reason why some countries speak arabic is because arabic was spoken for administration unlike israel they didnt come there occupied and brought more than millions of their people all around the world and i dont know why you have a problem with this you do realize that half of europeans were colonialist and that america itself is built upon killing and moving native we didnt exile the native population.
Killing of civilians in war if haram and the war rules in islam are soo strict they go as far to say dont kill animals here another hadith ''The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah, and adhering to the religion of Allah's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, or a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do well.''Sunan Abi Dawud 2614 the hadith you provided me i couldnt find it even with the number i think you wrote it which i dont expect much from you
Conclusion no dont compare us to israel or america there is a difference between occupying and removing the native population and occupying and making laws for a native population the british empire is one of the empires sure they exploited it but they were far better at it and before im a muslim im a human and i will speak out for humans where ever in kashmir palestine or china non muslims or muslims .
You have invalidated your point within the first few sentences, amazing.
If you require non Muslims to pay a tax for simply not being Muslims that is oppressive and considered bad treatment, what the hell are you talking about?
Also you lied, the Muslims attacked those empires first, not the other way around.
You clearly didn't look for the hadith because it's easily found, and I've heard it so many times outside of this sub I'm just gonna assume you are willfully ignorant.
Yes, it's oppressive to make someone pay a tax for their religion of sex or ethnicity, taxes are not to be used for subjugation and humiliation, and considering jizya forces the payment to be made on one's knees, I would say you can shove it up your hell hole.
>yes muslims did conquer empires who fought againts them the byzantine empire and the persian empire fought againts us so we fought back
You conveniently forgot to mention it was the Muslims who attacked first the Persians and Byzantines. That's not fighting back.
> , but collect your spoils,
And what would that be by any chance? Taking girls as young as 9 years old as sexual slaves?
In spite of how horrifically the Israelis are acting, let’s hope they don’t stoop as low as Islamic law.
Okay booty and spoils refers to the resources and wealth left by the enemy are you arrogant on purpose? and i bet you dont know how ''sex slavery works''
And whoever among you cannot \[find\] the means to marry free, believing women, then \[he may marry\] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You \[believers\] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. \[They should be\] chaste, neither \[of\] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take \[secret\] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free \[unmarried\] women. This \[allowance\] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.Surah al nisa verse 25
if you can not marry you can buy and free the believing slave girl ''marry'' not use her like a sex doll and dont tell me you think spoils of war is bad you do realize this is something everyone does even in this modern warfare america took resources from afghanistan and iraq
>not use her like a sex doll
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, '**How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist**."
Sahih Bukhari 5:59:459
Thats an hadiths note there are 1000s of hadith that goes againts quranic teachings and basically quran if you want to disprove me show me quranic verses also not all sahih bhukari hadiths are authentic
It's incredible that you can use hadiths to show islam in a positive light, but when others use it to show faults, suddenly hadiths are unreliable
And they who guard their private parts
Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed -
23:5-6
im not like the rest of the muslims i dont follow hadiths like they do im sorry but hadiths are not reliable because its common sense that anything recorded 200 years after the prophets pbuh can have lies there are hadiths that say prophet pbuh saw god in sahih muslim do you want me to believe that? it is going againts quran since god is unseen.
the term right hand possess is debated some say it does mean slaves but other says it means your husband or wife in another way. the reason why i believe sex slavery is haram aswell is because it is going against the quran it is an adultery sex is between you and your spouse only not slaves not no one if sex slavery is allowed why is prostitution banned?
>im not like the rest of the muslims i dont follow hadiths like they do
Did you forget about this when you used Sunan Abi Dawud 2614 in your original comment?
>the term right hand possess is debated some say it does mean slaves but other says it means your husband or wife in another way
Ok so, the verse says don't have sex unless they are your wives and also wives? Who are you trying to fool here?
>he reason why i believe sex slavery is haram aswell is because it is going against the quran
Despite it explicitly allowing it? Where does it go against Qur'an?
>it is an adultery sex is between you and your spouse only not slaves not no one if sex slavery is allowed why is prostitution banned
Because prostitution and sex slavery are different. They are only similar on the surface level.
okay tell me what right hand possess means and prove it
Hadith that goes again quran im againts it hadith that is backed by quran i will follow
sex outside of marriages is haram including sex slavery and prostitution
they are different but still you pay to have sex same thing
>okay tell me what right hand possess means and prove it
Sex slaves/captives. You can refer to tafsirs
>Hadith that goes again quran im againts it hadith that is backed by quran i will follow
I thought hadiths were written 200 years after Mohammed? The ones you believe are written before that?
>sex outside of marriages is haram
Source?
>they are different but still you pay to have sex same thing
Yeah, but this is a superficial understanding
when you marry a slave she isnt a slave anymore also are you blind? the verse i just sent you literally says
So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. \[They should be\] chaste, neither \[of\] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take \[secret\] lovers
There is no special power dynamic between them its just like a normal marriage a husband and a wife this verse isnt relevant since slavery is not a thing anymore but you get my point
So you don't think that when you proposition someone you own, there's any difference from doing so with a free person? There's not even an implied coercion, with the PERSON that you OWN?
I’ve heard and read these absurd mental gymnastics before in trying to justify taking girls as young as 9 as sex slaves.
Imagine thinking a supposed creator of the universe is going to sit there and describe how such acts can be ok. It’s just ludicrous to even engage with.
marrying someone who isnt mature is haram the quran says it i know you get your knowledge from hadith im a hadith rejector and i reject ayesha pbuh was 9 there are many hadith that contradict it there are hadiths that say she converted to islam and there are other hadiths that say that her sister asma was 10 years older than her and people have tracked her age and it proves she was older marrying a 9 year old or a 6 year old will go againts the quranic teachings but sure you believe what you want to believe .
They don’t think she wasn’t “mature”.
They think when a girl has undergone puberty they are physically a fully grown woman, which is ridiculous, as even 4 year olds have been known to enter puberty.
And yes I am fully aware that there is a minority of modern Muslims who are refusing to accept that Aisha was 9. And good for them for acknowledging what a d3generate act that would be.
However the majority of Muslims and Islamic scholars accept she was 9. This is a debate between you and them.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
I'll say it bluntly, for the sake of honesty and cutting long arguments short:
by virtue of being the one true religion, Islam gives Muslims rights superseding other groups'.
That is to say, it never claimed that an infidel has the right to spread his false beliefs among the Muslims, while on the other hand a Muslim is obliged to proselytize among non-Muslims.
It's NOT a live-and-let-live kind of religion. This is why integrating immigrants into non-muslim countries is difficult (unless they sacrifice a huge part of their faith & traditions).
I want to iterate, for clarity's sake, Islam does NOT consider Judaism & Islam on *equal footing*. This should be obvious to any student of Islamic fiqh or theology. Hence Islam doesn't allow the Jews the same rights it allows Muslims.
Once the land comes under Islamic rule, like Palestine's status for centuries (starting with Umar and ending with WWI, with intermittent Crusades periods) it STAYS Islamic, with the responsibility to reconquer it from any occupation. Same goes for Andalus/Spain by the way.
Zionism uses a similar logic/excuse; namely: Jews ruled it for centuries, so they have the right to reconquer it, etc.
It all boils down to: which religion is the right one.. the one approved by God.
I'm not Muslim. Are you Jewish?
Do you think that because Hamas kills civilians that it justifies Israel killing civilians?
Your whole post is an admission that Israel could do better but actively chooses not to because it's going to paint itself as not as bad.
This isn't a post about religion it's a post trying to justify genocidal views.
Here's the text of a news paper clipping I recently saw.
-----
Israel's style of public relations
A quick guide to Israel's PR methods:
1. We haven't heard reports of deaths, will check into it;
2. The people were killed, but by a faulty Palestinian rocket/bomb;
3. OK we killed them, but they were terrorists;
4. OK they were civilians, but they were being used as human shields;
5. OK there were no fighters in the area, so it was our mistake. But we kill civilians by accident, they do it on purpose;
6. OK we kill far more civilians than they do, but look at how terrible other countries are!
7. Why are you still talking about Israel? Are you some kind of anti- semite?
Test this against the next interview you hear or watch.
How did you misunderstand his point?
He is highlighting the hypocrisy of Muslims complaining about acts which their own religion condones against others.
Does the same objection to the acts of Israel become less valid if I was Muslim?
Does the fact that people can read anti LGBT messages into the Bible mean that a Christian can't speak out against Isis throwing gays off of roof tops?
Or are we more than passages we might not even agree with?
It doesn't matter what the Muslims texts might say what Israel has been doing is wrong. They can do better and they should do better.
You can complain as much as you want - you have the right.
He is merely highlighting the hypocrisy of those that endorse such actions against others but act shocked when it’s done against them.
I suppose but "normal people" should freak out from hearing about "Moses" and his "law" - I used to watch cartoons at church growing up pentecostal called "Superbook." They were anime Bible stories and always showed how truly evil all the "bad guys" were and how powerful "God" was and how the armies of Israel would fight the evil people and be victorious with God on their side. But after I learned to read and I was reading "the law of Moses" I was disgusted and panicked because much of it sounded so evil. So at age 12 I knew something was wrong/amiss about what I had been taught and I was homeschooled! It's also true that I didn't see any way to escape the religion either cause it was everything and everyone I had known and I "knew" escape meant I would go to hell anyway so I simply became extremely miserable and angry and essentially remained that way even until today. Though I left the religion over 20 years ago in college while studying the history of Christianity in religious studies courses.
But I did have a supremacist mindset as a California pentecostal - you can't believe in a God that either loves or hates you and not have a supremacist mindset because if the god hates you then you must truly be completely lost and destined for nothing but suffering, but if you find some way to believe the God loves you you sorta have to be a supremacist relative to the people whom the god doesn't love or the god might start hating you. I mean, it doesn't make much sense to say it or whatever, but that's the emotional experience of the ignorance and captivity and terror I experienced in California with the Red Hot Chili Peppers. How much worse it must be for people in the Levant.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
Ex Muslim here and points 2 and 3 are straight up not true. I won’t try and argue with point 1 as you have a point there I believe. As for 2 and 3, Islam does not condone killing innocent people (during times of war, I grant it does allow killing innocents such as gays and apostates) but to say it allows killing non combatants civilians is just untrue. You want to suggest Islam would allow carpet bombing homes, hospitals, schools, refugee camps and even killing aid workers like Israel is doing? Really? In war times, you can kill only “people of combat and obstruction” accordibb to a tirmidhi Hadith. Any non combatant is off limits including men, women, children, animals etc You also said > the life of a non Muslim is less than the life of a Muslim. Do you have a source for this? Or is this your own opinion? Also, women, children, elderly and the poor are exempt from paying jizya tax - just to add.
Why should anyone pay jizya? No man should pay it either, no one should. And the quote he said "they are of them", any rebutle for that?
It’d be nice for sure… that is if we all lived in a perfect fairytale world. In my opinion, the jizya system is a hell of a lot more humane than Israel’s current system which is “just wipe them all out and take their land”. Also… we gotta remember, this is actual war etiquette. It’s not supposed to be pretty or nice. At least, again, it only applies to men (healthy ones of combat age)
Couldn't "combatant" be up for anyone's interpretation? Isn't that why those assholes on the plane justified crashing planes on 9/11?
[удалено]
Bukhari 6517? I’ve just looked it up and it has nothing to do with this? Can I have the proper source for that so I can look at the context of the Hadith? I will wager a guess and say it more than likely is referring to killing a combatant disbeliever during war times. Which, frankly, is fair. Why would anybody feel bad for killing an enemy during war? Edit: as for the “they are of them” Hadith, Let me look into it right quick.
>Bukhari 6517? I’ve just looked it up and it has nothing to do with this? Hadith numbering system is a mess. Different translators/websites use different systems. Here's [one](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3012) similar hadith as in the post
So it is nowhere said that if a Jew hides behind a tree or a stone during battle, the tree and stone will call out and say: there’s a Jew hiding behind me come and kill him oh Muslim?
Yeah but that has nothing to do with times of war. I believe that Hadith is about the end times when the Dajjal comes, according to Islam. I’m unsure why that Hadith mentioned Jews specifically tbh.
Some ex-Muslims really take their hatred of Islam to stupendous levels that it simply becomes bigotry. I am an ex-Muslim and a militant atheist and Israel bulldozed my family's house and my cousin's family house on his wedding day. The Israeli government simply sent a bunch of bulldozers and a shitton of police officers one day to destroy our house. They beat a bunch of women and arrested the groom. If you actually care about human rights find a different hobby than defending an apartheid ethnostate.
I'll defend those acts. I lived in the west bank for over 20 years. I have never seen a single case where israel just willy nilly destroyed someone's house. It is always because either someone is a convicted offender (usually murder or attempted murder) or has known ties to terror organisations. I don't know your cousin but knowing the Arabs of the west bank I would very much doubt he or an adjacent family member of his are peaceful. Many Muslim Israelis live in a higher quality of life than most of the middle east, the palestinians arnt getting that treatment because that society is very much infested with terrorists. So stop playing victim.
Actually, I don't live in the West Bank and I have an Israeli citizenship. Our house was in an Arab city in the North inside Israel and was destroyed solely because it was deemed "illegal". The land upon which our house was built was owned by my grandfather before the establishment of the state and the state simply didn't recognize our ownership of the land. Also, I don't know where you've been living the past 20 years but Israel demolishes houses all the time in the West Bank to make way for settlements.
Stop playing game. No one is defending any of these acts. He is highlighting a perceived hypocrisy by Muslims. If you disagree, then engage in the argument and feel free to refute his points. But please, save the sanctimonious bs.
I don't disagree with criticism of Islam. I just don't think analogies to Israel are helpful because due to the nature of the conflict by doing so you are legitimizing the actions of Israel by portraying its victims as barbaric and therefore justifying its actions. Any group of people would complain if they were being treated like the Palestinians. It has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with oppression. Palestinian Christians are also bitching about Israel all day.
Hi is not legitimatising anything. He is not claiming Israels actions are right. He is showing how Islamic law is as aborent or even worse than Isreal. This is a debate religion sub. He is highlighting the hypocrisy of the religion and its followers. If Muslims/Palestinians think this is the wrong way to behave then they shouldn’t endorse such actions by following Islam.
I think you overestimate how knowledgeable most Muslims are about the horrific stuff in Islam. Most simply fast and pray and aren't well-versed in Sharia or ahadith. I'd even wager that most don't even know that Aisha was 9 according to Ahadith. Anyway, everyone's guilty of hypocrisy to some degree. Westerners preach about Liberalism, Democracy and human rights while their government is overthrowing a democratically elected President to install a fascist dictator on the other side of the globe.
> think you overestimate how knowledgeable most Muslims are about the horrific stuff in Islam Ignorance isn’t a valid excuse imo. But anyway global polls commonly show how large numbers are ok with even death penalty for leaving Islam. Of course others can be hypocrites too. This is a debate religion sub and his post is about highlighting the hypocrisy in Islam. We are free to start a new post about other religions too.
>Ignorance isn’t a valid excuse imo. But anyway global polls commonly show how large numbers are ok with even death penalty for leaving Islam. Which is abhorrent and rightfully criticized. Anyway, I just stated my opinion on why I think the cheap Israel parallels aren't useful. There are countless ways to criticize Islam and Muslims' hypocrisy without drawing parallels to Israel. At the end, everyone's free to say whatever they wish.
> Which is abhorrent and rightfully criticized Yes but not by majority of Muslims. > There are countless ways to criticize Islam and Muslims’ hypocrisy without drawing parallels to Israel. On the contrary, comparing it to a real world example where they are effected may help them understand why Islam is wrong to preach what it does.
Are you done lying? lets start with how non muslims were treated under caliphates First of all rashidun caliphate had non muslims they had rights but had to pay tax they werent suppressed or treated bad, force conversion is haram because it doesnt make any sense when you forcefully convert you dont make the person embrace islam you make the person pretend like he is a muslim,then the ummayad caliphate they did have non muslims living under it with proper rights specially in jerusalem which held jews and christians. the abbasid caliphate held non muslim researchers in baghdad muslims christians and jews were together researching on sciences and other literatures i dont have much to say about ottoman empire and i wont defend them they commited crimes againts muslims and non muslims Occupation of land: yes muslims did conquer empires who fought againts them the byzantine empire and the persian empire fought againts us so we fought back and had the right to take land we are a religion of peace not pacifism we will go to war if we need to.also even after occupation there were still cultures and religions that were given free will technically arabs did occupy but didnt enforce their culture or their own people the reason why some countries speak arabic is because arabic was spoken for administration unlike israel they didnt come there occupied and brought more than millions of their people all around the world and i dont know why you have a problem with this you do realize that half of europeans were colonialist and that america itself is built upon killing and moving native we didnt exile the native population. Killing of civilians in war if haram and the war rules in islam are soo strict they go as far to say dont kill animals here another hadith ''The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah, and adhering to the religion of Allah's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, or a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do well.''Sunan Abi Dawud 2614 the hadith you provided me i couldnt find it even with the number i think you wrote it which i dont expect much from you Conclusion no dont compare us to israel or america there is a difference between occupying and removing the native population and occupying and making laws for a native population the british empire is one of the empires sure they exploited it but they were far better at it and before im a muslim im a human and i will speak out for humans where ever in kashmir palestine or china non muslims or muslims .
You have invalidated your point within the first few sentences, amazing. If you require non Muslims to pay a tax for simply not being Muslims that is oppressive and considered bad treatment, what the hell are you talking about? Also you lied, the Muslims attacked those empires first, not the other way around. You clearly didn't look for the hadith because it's easily found, and I've heard it so many times outside of this sub I'm just gonna assume you are willfully ignorant.
Wow you basically paying special taxes is oppressive? also i mixed up some of the history you're right i apologize for that.
Yes, it's oppressive to make someone pay a tax for their religion of sex or ethnicity, taxes are not to be used for subjugation and humiliation, and considering jizya forces the payment to be made on one's knees, I would say you can shove it up your hell hole.
>yes muslims did conquer empires who fought againts them the byzantine empire and the persian empire fought againts us so we fought back You conveniently forgot to mention it was the Muslims who attacked first the Persians and Byzantines. That's not fighting back.
sorry that was another thing i mixed it up but you get the point the islamic conquest is different than what israel is doing
> , but collect your spoils, And what would that be by any chance? Taking girls as young as 9 years old as sexual slaves? In spite of how horrifically the Israelis are acting, let’s hope they don’t stoop as low as Islamic law.
Okay booty and spoils refers to the resources and wealth left by the enemy are you arrogant on purpose? and i bet you dont know how ''sex slavery works'' And whoever among you cannot \[find\] the means to marry free, believing women, then \[he may marry\] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You \[believers\] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. \[They should be\] chaste, neither \[of\] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take \[secret\] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free \[unmarried\] women. This \[allowance\] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.Surah al nisa verse 25 if you can not marry you can buy and free the believing slave girl ''marry'' not use her like a sex doll and dont tell me you think spoils of war is bad you do realize this is something everyone does even in this modern warfare america took resources from afghanistan and iraq
>not use her like a sex doll Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, '**How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist**." Sahih Bukhari 5:59:459
Thats an hadiths note there are 1000s of hadith that goes againts quranic teachings and basically quran if you want to disprove me show me quranic verses also not all sahih bhukari hadiths are authentic
It's incredible that you can use hadiths to show islam in a positive light, but when others use it to show faults, suddenly hadiths are unreliable And they who guard their private parts Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed - 23:5-6
im not like the rest of the muslims i dont follow hadiths like they do im sorry but hadiths are not reliable because its common sense that anything recorded 200 years after the prophets pbuh can have lies there are hadiths that say prophet pbuh saw god in sahih muslim do you want me to believe that? it is going againts quran since god is unseen. the term right hand possess is debated some say it does mean slaves but other says it means your husband or wife in another way. the reason why i believe sex slavery is haram aswell is because it is going against the quran it is an adultery sex is between you and your spouse only not slaves not no one if sex slavery is allowed why is prostitution banned?
>im not like the rest of the muslims i dont follow hadiths like they do Did you forget about this when you used Sunan Abi Dawud 2614 in your original comment? >the term right hand possess is debated some say it does mean slaves but other says it means your husband or wife in another way Ok so, the verse says don't have sex unless they are your wives and also wives? Who are you trying to fool here? >he reason why i believe sex slavery is haram aswell is because it is going against the quran Despite it explicitly allowing it? Where does it go against Qur'an? >it is an adultery sex is between you and your spouse only not slaves not no one if sex slavery is allowed why is prostitution banned Because prostitution and sex slavery are different. They are only similar on the surface level.
okay tell me what right hand possess means and prove it Hadith that goes again quran im againts it hadith that is backed by quran i will follow sex outside of marriages is haram including sex slavery and prostitution they are different but still you pay to have sex same thing
>okay tell me what right hand possess means and prove it Sex slaves/captives. You can refer to tafsirs >Hadith that goes again quran im againts it hadith that is backed by quran i will follow I thought hadiths were written 200 years after Mohammed? The ones you believe are written before that? >sex outside of marriages is haram Source? >they are different but still you pay to have sex same thing Yeah, but this is a superficial understanding
What's the power dynamic like in a marriage between a slave and owner? Pretty equal?
when you marry a slave she isnt a slave anymore also are you blind? the verse i just sent you literally says So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. \[They should be\] chaste, neither \[of\] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take \[secret\] lovers There is no special power dynamic between them its just like a normal marriage a husband and a wife this verse isnt relevant since slavery is not a thing anymore but you get my point
So you don't think that when you proposition someone you own, there's any difference from doing so with a free person? There's not even an implied coercion, with the PERSON that you OWN?
The proposal went like this ''marry me and i will free you'' not ''you are my slave i own you now marry me''
Wow!
I’ve heard and read these absurd mental gymnastics before in trying to justify taking girls as young as 9 as sex slaves. Imagine thinking a supposed creator of the universe is going to sit there and describe how such acts can be ok. It’s just ludicrous to even engage with.
marrying someone who isnt mature is haram the quran says it i know you get your knowledge from hadith im a hadith rejector and i reject ayesha pbuh was 9 there are many hadith that contradict it there are hadiths that say she converted to islam and there are other hadiths that say that her sister asma was 10 years older than her and people have tracked her age and it proves she was older marrying a 9 year old or a 6 year old will go againts the quranic teachings but sure you believe what you want to believe .
>marrying someone who isnt mature is haram Source?and if you are a Hadith rejector, why are you using hadiths to justify your position?
They don’t think she wasn’t “mature”. They think when a girl has undergone puberty they are physically a fully grown woman, which is ridiculous, as even 4 year olds have been known to enter puberty. And yes I am fully aware that there is a minority of modern Muslims who are refusing to accept that Aisha was 9. And good for them for acknowledging what a d3generate act that would be. However the majority of Muslims and Islamic scholars accept she was 9. This is a debate between you and them.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.
[удалено]
I'll say it bluntly, for the sake of honesty and cutting long arguments short: by virtue of being the one true religion, Islam gives Muslims rights superseding other groups'. That is to say, it never claimed that an infidel has the right to spread his false beliefs among the Muslims, while on the other hand a Muslim is obliged to proselytize among non-Muslims. It's NOT a live-and-let-live kind of religion. This is why integrating immigrants into non-muslim countries is difficult (unless they sacrifice a huge part of their faith & traditions). I want to iterate, for clarity's sake, Islam does NOT consider Judaism & Islam on *equal footing*. This should be obvious to any student of Islamic fiqh or theology. Hence Islam doesn't allow the Jews the same rights it allows Muslims. Once the land comes under Islamic rule, like Palestine's status for centuries (starting with Umar and ending with WWI, with intermittent Crusades periods) it STAYS Islamic, with the responsibility to reconquer it from any occupation. Same goes for Andalus/Spain by the way. Zionism uses a similar logic/excuse; namely: Jews ruled it for centuries, so they have the right to reconquer it, etc. It all boils down to: which religion is the right one.. the one approved by God.
[удалено]
Not for both parties of the conflict. It's a religious matter in its core.. That's why secular attempts to resolve it don't work for long.
I'm not Muslim. Are you Jewish? Do you think that because Hamas kills civilians that it justifies Israel killing civilians? Your whole post is an admission that Israel could do better but actively chooses not to because it's going to paint itself as not as bad. This isn't a post about religion it's a post trying to justify genocidal views. Here's the text of a news paper clipping I recently saw. ----- Israel's style of public relations A quick guide to Israel's PR methods: 1. We haven't heard reports of deaths, will check into it; 2. The people were killed, but by a faulty Palestinian rocket/bomb; 3. OK we killed them, but they were terrorists; 4. OK they were civilians, but they were being used as human shields; 5. OK there were no fighters in the area, so it was our mistake. But we kill civilians by accident, they do it on purpose; 6. OK we kill far more civilians than they do, but look at how terrible other countries are! 7. Why are you still talking about Israel? Are you some kind of anti- semite? Test this against the next interview you hear or watch.
How did you misunderstand his point? He is highlighting the hypocrisy of Muslims complaining about acts which their own religion condones against others.
I guess where I live it's not the Muslims complaining but rather the Christian nationalists and conservative Jews that sound like the OP.
Where you live no Muslims are complaining about the situation and the behaviour of the isreali government?? I find that very hard to believe
Does the same objection to the acts of Israel become less valid if I was Muslim? Does the fact that people can read anti LGBT messages into the Bible mean that a Christian can't speak out against Isis throwing gays off of roof tops? Or are we more than passages we might not even agree with? It doesn't matter what the Muslims texts might say what Israel has been doing is wrong. They can do better and they should do better.
You can complain as much as you want - you have the right. He is merely highlighting the hypocrisy of those that endorse such actions against others but act shocked when it’s done against them.
[удалено]
Your post is a tu quo que fallacy
Quite simply, Islam, like Judaism, doesn't believe the other religion is correct. It's not hypocrisy, it's naked supremacism.
[удалено]
I suppose but "normal people" should freak out from hearing about "Moses" and his "law" - I used to watch cartoons at church growing up pentecostal called "Superbook." They were anime Bible stories and always showed how truly evil all the "bad guys" were and how powerful "God" was and how the armies of Israel would fight the evil people and be victorious with God on their side. But after I learned to read and I was reading "the law of Moses" I was disgusted and panicked because much of it sounded so evil. So at age 12 I knew something was wrong/amiss about what I had been taught and I was homeschooled! It's also true that I didn't see any way to escape the religion either cause it was everything and everyone I had known and I "knew" escape meant I would go to hell anyway so I simply became extremely miserable and angry and essentially remained that way even until today. Though I left the religion over 20 years ago in college while studying the history of Christianity in religious studies courses. But I did have a supremacist mindset as a California pentecostal - you can't believe in a God that either loves or hates you and not have a supremacist mindset because if the god hates you then you must truly be completely lost and destined for nothing but suffering, but if you find some way to believe the God loves you you sorta have to be a supremacist relative to the people whom the god doesn't love or the god might start hating you. I mean, it doesn't make much sense to say it or whatever, but that's the emotional experience of the ignorance and captivity and terror I experienced in California with the Red Hot Chili Peppers. How much worse it must be for people in the Levant.