Quote:
Originally Posted by rainy...
In other words you are accepting that philosophy of religion has nothing to do with violence????
i have seen many so called liberals when they criticize their opponents, even when they talk about maulvis and criticize them for being intolerant towards other points of views, they overlook their own behavior. The way they present their views and reject others places them to the other extreme....
|
Dear Rainy thanks for confessing my sins. You must be running short of yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakk
Jazib sb, if you want to win the discussion, I guess there is no need to discuss it further. If you are questioning that why God had not persecuted the non-believers through Azab-e-Elahi instead through Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), I believe only God can answer neither his messenger.
Thank you so much for being part of this thoughtfull discussion and you have made me go through the literature once again by invoking this discussion.
|
Dear Sakk it is not at all about winning or losing. The point is that we two have two different sets of explanation for a single set of happenings. Let me be specific enough to consider only one such event.
After migration to Medina, Prophet Muhammad, after the revelation of Surah Tauba, ordered his men to carry out raids on trade caravans of Meccans. The Muslims used to loot the caravan with Prophet Muhammad having a one fifth share in the booty.
Now the way you are explaining this apparently an act of aggression is based on the concept of Itmam e Hujjat, i.e., it was a punishment for those who did not embrace Islam.
What I believe that these raids had nothing to do with the religion of the Meccans. In theory Islam offers itself as an open choice. You are absolutely free either to accept it or to reject it. These attacks were merely a reaction to what Meccans did to Muslims. During the 13 years of the Meccan period of Islamic history, Muslims lived as a minority under a pagan rule in Mecca and faced much oppression. Many Muslims were harassed, abused, tortured, and even murdered and their houses and possessions were plundered. (those who were expelled from their homes without any right, merely for saying, "Our Lord is God" (Surah Hajj: 39-40)
In brief, Muslims were allowed to wage war only because they were oppressed and subjected to violence.
To put it in another way, God granted permission for war only for defensive purposes.
In some other Quranic verses, Muslims were also warned against use of unnecessary provocation or unnecessary violence:
"Fight in the Way of God against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. God does not love those who go beyond the limits". (Surah Baqara: 190)
I hope now it is clear to you that why I am against the concept of Itmam e Hujjat.
You went through literature ... that is really good ... but don't you think there is still much left to be gone through.
Islamic teachings are vivid. A Muslim can never force anyone to accept Islam nor punish anyone merely because he or she rejected Islam