The new Caliphate

[Keltoi]

Did i mention he's going to destroy the cross?

Easier said than done

 

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

Easier said than done

Beleive what you will. But that cross isnt going to help you on the Day of Ressurection. It will be destroyed. Great will be the regret when Jesus a.s. rejects your association and exaggeration of him on that Day.

 

[afriend]

As long as they don't try to infringe on my lifestyle I'm cool with Islam and muslims. It's just when people talk about forcing me to comply with Shariah is where I have a problem.

You can't expect non muslims to adapt to an islamic way of life......and at the same time, you can't expect some people from islamic cultures to adapt to how some cultures want them to be

 

[Link]

Why do my posts get deleted so often?

 

[afriend]

Why do my posts get deleted so often?

Pull away all the hatred and anger from your posts and put a lid on it....and then let them out in very small, but effective bursts

 

[Abu Zakariya]

If what you are asking is if Muslims want the Islamic Caliphate to take over the world by attacking non-Muslim countries etcetera, I would suggest you read this fatwa:

Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?

Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court

If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.

The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.

The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet's lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad.

Source: http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=312&main_cat_id=15

 

[Geronimo]

You can't expect non muslims to adapt to an islamic way of life......and at the same time, you can't expect some people from islamic cultures to adapt to how some cultures want them to be

I agree with that.

 

[Geronimo]

If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.

But to some not implementing Shariah is opressing muslims, Showing Muhammed is opressing muslims, using drycleaning...

 

[Link]

Pull away all the hatred and anger from your posts and put a lid on it....and then let them out in very small, but effective bursts

I posted hadiths about things that would happen before Imam Mahdi (as) and they got deleted.

ws

 

[Abu Zakariya]

But to some not implementing Shariah is opressing muslims, Showing Muhammed is opressing muslims, using drycleaning...

We are not talking about what some people consider to be oppression, we're talking about the Islamic religious viewpoint.

And as for considering the lack of Shari'ah in a country as oppression that calls for jihad... Well, one of the definitions of a non-Muslim state is the lack of Shari'ah, so every non-Muslim country would be oppressive then. And that's clearly not the case as the fatwa points out.

I don't know if "showing" Muhammed (salallahu 'aleyhi wa sallam) is considered oppressive. If you are thinking about the Danish newspaper cartoons, the Muslims didn't react the way they did simply because someone drew a picture of him, they were depicting him as a terrorist and drew other caricatures of Muslims as terrorists. I do know that when the Nazis drew caricatures of Jews as large-nosed (by the way, the Prophet was drawn this way too) people that desired world domination, this was considered anti-Semitic and oppresive towards the Jewish population. So at least according to Western standards (if there wasn't any hipocrisy involved) this would be considered oppresive.

As for drycleaning. I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Geronimo]

We are not talking about what some people consider to be oppression, we're talking about the Islamic religious viewpoint.

And as for considering the lack of Shari'ah in a country as oppression that calls for jihad... Well, one of the definitions of a non-Muslim state is the lack of Shari'ah, so every non-Muslim country would be oppressive then. And that's clearly not the case as the fatwa points out.

I don't know if "showing" Muhammed (salallahu 'aleyhi wa sallam) is considered oppressive. If you are thinking about the Danish newspaper cartoons, the Muslims didn't react the way they did simply because someone drew a picture of him, they were depicting him as a terrorist and drew other caricatures of Muslims as terrorists. I do know that when the Nazis drew caricatures of Jews as large-nosed (by the way, the Prophet was drawn this way too) people that desired world domination, this was considered anti-Semitic and oppresive towards the Jewish population. So at least according to Western standards (if there wasn't any hipocrisy involved) this would be considered oppresive.

As for drycleaning. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I was being facetious about the dry cleaning. As for drawing Jews with big noses they still draw those cartoons in the Arab world. That isn't what made the Nazi's opperessive. Putting them in concentration camps and shovelling them into ovens did.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

As for drawing Jews with big noses they still draw those cartoons in the Arab world.

Unfortunately, yes. I don't see what it has got to do with the discussion, but yes it's true.

That isn't what made the Nazi's opperessive. Putting them in concentration camps and shovelling them into ovens did.

So depicting Jews the way they did isn't anti-Semitic and oppressive?