Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Philangeli

Is Allah the same as God in the Bible?

172 posts in this topic

Sounds like the same genocidal narcissistic madman as the bible to me.

Yup similar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there were two gods (or more) in the bible. There seems to be much contradiction in the way god acts. Sometimes strict and unwavering and sometimes caring and helpful. I believe that explains a lot about things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Muslim :: Book 19 : Hadith 4294

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.

Notice how this translation is meant to sound oh, so awfully reasonable, to tone down the violent intentions:

"Then invite them to migrate from their lands".

Oh, how nice!

What does that mean? It means expel them.

Come on, now, the result is the same. If you didn't convert, you were either expelled, enslaved or killed.

Uncle Pockets, I appreciate that you are a moderate, peaceful muslim, and I applaud you for that, but please do not try to pull this typical, latter-day, revisionist view of Mohammed over our eyes, like he was another Jesus. The historical facts speak for themselves.

For those who may be interested, Google the Battle of the Trench.

Edited by Philangeli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how this translation is meant to sound oh, so awfully reasonable, to tone down the violent intentions:

"Then invite them to migrate from their lands".

Oh, how nice!

What does that mean? It means expel them.

Come on, now, the result is the same. If you didn't convert, you were either expelled, enslaved or killed.

Uncle Pockets, I appreciate that you are a moderate, peaceful muslim, and I applaud you for that, but please do not try to pull this typical, latter-day, revisionist view of Mohammed over our eyes, like he was another Jesus. The historical facts speak for themselves.

For those who may be interested, Google the Battle of the Trench.

I was very quiet and reasonable and respected everyones view but I have to say that I do not like your tone in few of your last posts. It seems to me you think only what you put on this thread is right. That is a very ignorant approach.

You are accusing some hadiths that can be interpreted differently and have not much weight since they are not the word god, as forceing ones believe on to others meanwhile your posts are just like that. Do you realy want numbers who killed more in the name of god?? Realy? Do you realy want numbers of who forcefuly converted more people? Realy?

When I read posts like yours it does not come to whose god is better but whose god is more awfull.

I wander sometimes, would I be alive if we did not have some extremists within?

How long would it take you to come to my home and force me to accept your religion?

I told you before and I am telling you again you kerp your religion and I keep mine.

Where is the point anyway to even try to have a dialog if my religion, my god, my prophet are being blast as the devil? Is this the civilized way you are talking about? No thanks no point to discuss or justifie my religion to anyone who has a forefront negative aproach to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi everyone.

I have had various muslim friends over the years with whom I have discussed God/Allah. One thing they were quite keen on was emphasizing that Allah is the same as God in the Bible and I kind of passively accepted it.

However, after some reading, I have come to the conclusion that this may not be the case.

Apparently, Allah was one of many gods worshipped by the Arabs in Mohammed's time and Mohammed chose that particular god to be the 'numero uno' god.

Allah was historically known as a moon god (hence the moon icon on many flags of islamic countries).

Do names matter? Yes, I think they do.

What do you think?

Here is an extract from :

http://www.letusreason.org/islam6.htm

which analyses the origin of the name Allah.

 

Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic name coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is derived from al (the) ilah (deity).

The Arabic name for "God" is the word "Al-ilah." It is a generic title for whatever god was considered the highest god. Different Arab tribes used "Allah" to refer to its personal high god. "Allah" was being worshipped at the Kaa’ba in Mecca by Arabs prior to the time of Mohammed. It was formerly the name of the chief god among the numerous idols (360) in the Kaaba in Mecca before Mohammed made them into monotheists. Historians have shown that the moon god called "Hubal" was the god to whom Arabs prayed at the Kaa’ba and they used the name "Allah" when they prayed.

*Snip*

Same old chestnut, UM never throws any surprises just regurgitated tripe!

This has been cleared several times check some of my posts.

Allah is not the moon god, this is historically and archaeologically false and the proposer was ridiculed by his peers after discovering that he falsified his findings and made conclusions which actually had no basis!

Al ilah means the god, ilah means god. The pre Muslims Arabs believed in a pantheon of gods, but always maintained that the supreme god was Allah (not the same as al ilah), so for example the pagan Arabs would refer to Allah as the al-ilah, ie Allah is the god. The other gods were Demi gods used for intercession purposes and in some cases direct worship. During that era in Arabia there were pagans, Jews, Christians, atheists and a group of monotheists called hanifis. You al ilah in Arabic can be manipulated to al ilahi (the gods) or the goddess, the god father etc etc. However in Arabic when you combine the Al remove the "I" and create a singular word Allah. It becomes unique with no equivalent in any language. Suddenly it's becomes a word which is not only used to call god, but it also defines him as single, no equivalent, nothing like it, neither feminine nor male attributes can be attached to the word. So it becomes the ultimate name for god which cannot be given to anything else!

When Muhammed's father was called abdullah, it means servant of Allah. The names is not Allah alone, the abd nullifies the name of Allah alone and is aptly translated as servant of Allah ie servant of god. The child is neither named god nor Allah. So grow up hetro!

To the OP, seems like you have had genuine conversations with Muslims, you want to know more and want to see how much tripe the moon god theory is, PM me :)

Edited by Lion6969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philangeli......

Are you discussing Muhammad or Allah? Stick to the topic!

You wanna discuss muhammeds character and want to quote Hadith etc, then make sure you know the Arabic the context as every Hadith is based in time location and circumstances that were real, hadiths support other Hadith and provide context.

Secondly, if you really want a debate on the matter then set up a separate thread don't derail this one.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ps. The god of the bible is not Allah. What Muslims actually believe was that the original Torah and gospel (before later corruptions and loss of material), were from Allah. The current versions are not accepted as Muslims nor the man god it describes and I don't mean Jesus!

What Muslims believe though is that the Jews and Christians still worship the same god the giver of the original message. The final testament (Quran) confirms what came before and corrects the corruptions in the others.

So believing that we worship the same god is very different to saying we accept the biblical god in both scriptures today. We only accept what does not contradict the final testament ie Quran!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Philangeli......

Are you discussing Muhammad or Allah? Stick to the topic!

You wanna discuss muhammeds character and want to quote Hadith etc, then make sure you know the Arabic the context as every Hadith is based in time location and circumstances that were real, hadiths support other Hadith and provide context.

Secondly, if you really want a debate on the matter then set up a separate thread don't derail this one.

I notice you didn't tell Uncle Pockets to stick to the topic. I was replying to his post:

" Say (O Muhammad saws.gif): "We believe in Allah and in what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Isma'il (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Ya'qub (Jacob) and Al-Asbat [the twelve sons of Ya'qub (Jacob)] and what was given to Musa (Moses), 'Iesa (Jesus) and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between one another among them and to Him (Allah) we have submitted (in Islam)."

Sums this up well."

and, in particular, the phrase, "We make no distinction ...", which I disagreed with.

But, you're right, I should not have allowed myself to stray off the topic. I hope others do likewise.

Edited by Philangeli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

too bad googles searches never update their " bad islam " base of information

these ones getting old and been used down to the wire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how this translation is meant to sound oh, so awfully reasonable, to tone down the violent intentions:

"Then invite them to migrate from their lands".

Oh, how nice!

What does that mean? It means expel them.

Come on, now, the result is the same. If you didn't convert, you were either expelled, enslaved or killed.

Uncle Pockets, I appreciate that you are a moderate, peaceful muslim, and I applaud you for that, but please do not try to pull this typical, latter-day, revisionist view of Mohammed over our eyes, like he was another Jesus. The historical facts speak for themselves.

For those who may be interested, Google the Battle of the Trench.

Lol. This translation is right out of the book. You probably missed the second or third sentence where it clearly states," if they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. "

As for any emotional bias you may have for the subject then that is not of my doing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philangeli......

Are you discussing Muhammad or Allah? Stick to the topic!

You wanna discuss muhammeds character and want to quote Hadith etc, then make sure you know the Arabic the context as every Hadith is based in time location and circumstances that were real, hadiths support other Hadith and provide context.

Secondly, if you really want a debate on the matter then set up a separate thread don't derail this one.

hallelujah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this verse alone nullifies any baseless claims that Allah is the moon god etc

And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate not to the sun nor to the moon, but prostrate to Allah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him. (Qur'an 41:37)

But I know your types philangeli you started off pretending to have genuine concerns but in reality you just another Islam basher really! 

So for you a little more contemporary academic research and quotes unchained from the bias of the missionary historians which your material is based on.....lol I bet you dint even know that!

According to Yadin, this statue can represent a deity, a king, or a priest. He says that all the "three alternatives are possible", but he "believes it is a statue of the deity itself".[13] However, it appears that later he had modified his views. Writing in the Encyclopedia Of Archaeological Excavations In The Holy Land, Yadin describes the same statue as

Basalt statue of deity or king from the stelae temple...[14]

Ref:[13] ibid. Also see Y. Yadin, Hazor: With A Chapter On Israelite Megiddo, 1972, The Schweich Lectures Of The British Academy - 1970, Oxford University Press: London, p. 73 note 1; idem., "Further Light On Biblical Hazor: Results Of The Second Season", The Biblical Archaeologist, 1957, Volume 20, No. 2, p. 41; For similar views see J. Gray, "Hazor", Vetus Testamentum, 1966, Volume 16, pp. 34-35; J. M. Sasson, "Bovine Symbolism In The Exodus Narrative", Vetus Testamentum, 1968, Volume 18, p. 381, note 4; M. Magnusson, BC: The Archaeology Of The Bible Lands, 1977, The Bodley Head and British Broadcasting Corporation, p. 84. Here is the statue is described as "a seated deity which was originally found decapitated"; G. Cornfeld, Archaeology Of The Bible: Book By Book, 1976, Adam & Charles Black: London, p. 76. Cornfeld's description is a "statuette of a seated god and an offering bowl are seen on the left".

[14] Y. Yadin, "Hazor" in M. Avi-Yonah (Ed.), Encyclopedia Of Archaeological Excavations In The Holy Land, 1976, Volume 2, Oxford University Press: London, p. 476; idem., "Excavations At Hazor", The Biblical Archaeologist, 1956, Volume 19, No. 1, p. 10.

Subsequent scholarship has described the same statue either in uncertain or neutral terms. For example, Treasures Of The Holy Land: Ancient Art From The Israel Museum describes the statue of the seated figure as:

It depicts a man, possibly a priest, seated on a cubelike stool. He is beardless with a shaven head; his skirt ends below his knees in an accentuated hen; his feet are bare. He holds a cup in his right hand, while his left hand, clenched into a fist, rests on his left knee. An inverted crescent is suspended from his necklace.[15]

Amnon Ben-Tor in The New Encyclopedia Of Archaeological Excavations In The Holy Land describes the statue as a "seated male figure" without saying what it represented.[16] In a later publication, however, he described the same object as "a small basalt statue of a decapitated deity (or king) whose head was found nearby."[17] Amihai Mazar, in a similar fashion, described the statue as "a sitting male figure (possibly depicting a god or a priest)."[18]

Ref: [15] J. P. O'Neill (Ed.), Treasures Of The Holy Land: Ancient Art From The Israel Museum, 1986, The Metropolitan Museum Of Art, p. 107.

[16] A. Ben-Torr, "Hazor" in E. Stern (Ed.), The New Encyclopedia Of Archaeological Excavations In The Holy Land, 1993, Volume 2, Simon & Schuster, p. 596; For a similar description see W. Keller, The Bible As History In Pictures, 1964, Hodder And Stoughton, p. 128. He described the statue as a "seated stone figure" and that "libations were poured into the hollow between its open arms".

[17] A. Ben-Torr, "Hazor" in E. M. Meyers (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia Of Archaeology In The Near East, 1997, Volume 3, Oxford University Press: Oxford & New York, p. 3.

[18] A. Mazar, Archaeology Of The Land Of The Bible 10,000 - 586 B.C.E., 1990, The Lutterworth Press: Cambridge (UK), p. 254.

Clearly, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars concerning this statue. It is not too hard to understand why this is the case. It seems illogical that a god should hold offering vessels in his hand; the god is usually the one who receives offerings. Therefore, the statue should, in all probability, depict a priest or a worshipper of a god, who himself is in a way considered present, either invisibly or in the upright stela of the sanctuary. Furthermore, the statue of a man holding an offering was seated at the left hand side of the shrine

I could go into this in real depth and technical data ranging from linguistics, to archaeological data. I have only scratched surface so far and if I go any further I believe you will be way in over your head!

Perhaps the missionaries have forgotten that the knowledge-base in our world these days also exists in the form of zeros and ones. A quick search on Google for "Allah Moon God" throws up more than a million websites! A quick sampling would reveal that the majority of these websites belong to Christians. It can be confirmed that the huge popularity of Allah being a Moon-god has alarmed those missionaries who are involved with and are experienced in field work with Muslims, and compelled them to write an article addressing this issue. Rick Brown in an article entitled "Who Is "Allah"?" in the International Journal Of Frontier Missions - a well-known missiology journal - which appeared in the summer of 2006, addressed the issue of various claims concerning Allah by his fellow Christian brethren. He starts by saying in the beginning of his article:

Much of the anger expressed in the West has taken the form of demonizing the Islamic religion, to the extent of accusing Muslims of worshipping a demon. A key element of this attack has been the claim of some that the name Allah refers to a demon or at least a pagan deity, notably the so-called "moon god." Such claims have even been made by scholars who are reputable in their own fields but who are poorly acquainted with the Arabic language and Middle-Eastern history. The Kingdom of God, however, is never advanced by being untruthful, so this matter bears further investigation.[137]

Moon God?

Those who claim that Allah is a pagan deity, most notably the moon god, often base their claims on the fact that a symbol of the crescent moon adorns the tops of many mosques and is widely used as a symbol of Islam. It is in fact true that before the coming of Islam many "gods" and idols were worshipped in the Middle East, but the name of the moon god was Sîn, not Allah, and he was not particularly popular in Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. The most prominent idol in Mecca was a god called Hubal, and there is no proof that he was a moon god. It is sometimes claimed that there is a temple to the moon god at Hazor in Palestine. This is based on a representation there of a supplicant wearing a crescent-like pendant. It is not clear, however, that the pendant symbolizes a moon god, and in any case this is not an Arab religious site but an ancient Canaanite site, which was destroyed by Joshua in about 1250 BC. There is also an ancient temple in the ruins of the kingdom of Sheba (Saba), in Yemen, and it includes inscriptions to the kingdom's patron god Almaqah. It has been claimed that Almaqah was a moon god, but there is no solid evidence for this, and scholars now think Almaqah was a sun god. If the ancient Arabs worshipped hundreds of idols, then no doubt the moon god Sîn was included, for even the Hebrews were prone to worship the sun and the moon and the stars, but there is no clear evidence that moon-worship was prominent among the Arabs in any way or that the crescent was used as the symbol of a moon god, and Allah was certainly not the moon god's name.[138]

Further more he adds:

 Suppose for the sake of argument that the ancient Arabs did worship the moon. This would have no bearing on the name Allah, for there is no inscription that identifies Allah as a moon god or as a pagan deity. This contrasts with the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English words for God, all of which descend from words that were commonly used by pagans in reference to pagan deities. So the name Allah is freer of pagan roots than are these other names![139]

Ref: [137] R. Brown, "Who Is "Allah"?", International Journal Of Frontier Missions, 2006, Volume 23, No. 2, p. 79.

Ibid

Ibid

But he was not the first and surely not the last:

A recent popular theory asserts that Allah was originally the moon god worshiped in Arabia before and during Muhammad's time. According to this theory, when Muhammad came on the scene, the Ka‘bah contained 360 idols, among which was the moon god called 'ilah, or "a god." Then it is said that Muhammad declared this moon god to be the chief god and called it 'al 'ilah by adding the article 'al to 'ilah, thus yielding the meaning "the god."... Morey, who is foremost in popularizing this theory, cites many references from encyclopedias, dictionaries, works of philosophy and history, as well as various writers. However, though there is little doubt about the existence of moon god worshiped in Arabia before and during Muhammad's time, there are several weaknesses with identifying this moon god with Allah. In fact Muhammad initially adopted the name "Allah" as it was used by the Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians of his day in referring to the true God of the Bible. This assertion is based on four factors: textual, lexical, historical, and theological.[140]

Ref:

[140] I. N. Shehadeh, "Do Muslims And Christians Believe In The Same God?", Bibliotheca Sacra, 2004, Volume 161, pp. 15-16.

I mean if that is not enough and you wish to go really deep into this PM because I'm done with discussing this on UM it's been exhausted! Leave you with a little more to ponder, I wonder even if you have actually read in of the text books by Morey (do you even know who I'm talking about?).

 His own evidence proves that the name of the Moon-god was not Allah. On page 9 Morey reports on the findings of Coon and Thompson in Southern Arabia where they discovered a temple of the Moon-god. What did they find? Morey tells us:

The symbols of the crescent moon and no less than twenty-one inscriptions with the name Sin were found in this temple (see Diagram #5); (Morey, p. 9).

So what was the name of that Moon-god? Allah? No! It was Sin according to Morey's own words. But that does not stop him for claiming two paragraphs later that the Moon-god was Allah.

But he invented a clever device to save face. Now he claims that

....while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," ... (Morey, p. 19).

Lmao!!!! Al ilah is a description that's all!!!!

Rather neat. Now al-ilah which he says later becomes Allah (p. 11) is no longer a name, but a title. Morey has a way with words.

Does Morey then retract what he wrote in his book The Islamic Invasion? In that book published just two years earlier he was calling Allah a name again and again. On page 48 he quoted from Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics that "Allah" is a proper name.

Then on the same page he quoted from the Encyclopedia of Religion that

"Allah" is a pre-Islamic name (Morey, Invasion, p. 48).

Then in his own words Morey said:

Allah was a pagan name (Morey, Invasion, p. 48).

Lmao!!!! I could do this all day but I have better things to do. Let me knw if you wanna continue on this or shall I move on to the next tripe- Hubal ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. This translation is right out of the book. You probably missed the second or third sentence where it clearly states," if they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. "

It didn't pan out like that, though, did it? Check the history (no emotional bias, just the facts).

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this topic now.

Thank you all for your contributions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't pan out like that, though, did it? Check the history (no emotional bias, just the facts).

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this topic now.

Thank you all for your contributions.

You are welcome, any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. This translation is right out of the book. You probably missed the second or third sentence where it clearly states," if they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. "

I think P's problem lies not with the "stay your hand" bit, but the "ask them to leave" bit. Basically it comes across as "either bow to me and my religion or bugger off of your land".

Which is somewhat rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think P's problem lies not with the "stay your hand" bit, but the "ask them to leave" bit. Basically it comes across as "either bow to me and my religion or bugger off of your land".

Which is somewhat rude.

Just plain evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

bowing to anyone other than god is not part of islam .. but rather to western influenced religions

no one forces any one to bow or accept religion they exist with equal rights and only different they pay taxes

which at the times such things were put to practice in western countries used to enslave and kill " infedels "

and hunt witches to burn them

so i say compared to the western countries in that era of time .. these were indeed very good rules

and more human and merciful than any of that time

bear in mind we're talking about practices that were put to use .. when you guys where in the dark ages

it's not offesnive statement .. it's fact

Edited by Knight Of Shadows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to go off topic but here's brief summary of the other religions treated people " non-believers "

while those islamic laws were in practice :

In the later Middle Ages, a number of religious wars aimed to not only defeat but eliminate their enemies. In Christian Europe, the extermination of the heretics or "non-believers" was considered desirable. Examples include the 13th century Albigensian Crusade and the Northern Crusades.[5] When asked by a Crusader how to distinguish between the Catholics and Cathars once they'd taken the city of Béziers, the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric famously replied, "Kill them all, God will know His own".[6]

Likewise the inhabitants of conquered cities were frequently massacred during the Crusades against the Muslims in the 11th and 12th centuries. Noblemen could hope to be ransomed; their families would have to send to their captors large sums of wealth commensurate with the social status of the captive.

while islam forbade killing non-combatants individual at that time we witness alot types of faith who urged killing all people

there's alot of examples coming from the crusades

i think when we need t compare something to get fair results we should compare something that belong to that period of time

so instead of killing them islam made them pay taxes .. and those weren't paid for free also they got protection and services in return

which is more human and modern in my opinion .. and every one opinion i think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

yet here's a brief yet a deep explaination to " Jyziah " that in my opinion any logic mind would accept

of course if one is willing to side with logic .. not some blind criticism

Al-Jyziah : is certain amount of money paid by christians and other non-muslims living in muslim ruled country

during the islamic rise and spread till the middle ages or so

bear in mind that kinda of practice was made in certain point of time and therfore shall be compared to that time

now as some criticizm that suggest that's unfair and treating non-muslims as " second degree people "

is simply flawed logic because that Jizyah paid by non-muslims is not a freebie

muslims in islam who are able have to serve in army but non-muslims are not compelled to serve in muslim army

instead they pay off that amount of money as in our modern times in countries that have compulsory (military) service

people can pay off certain amount of money to avoid serving in army

should and if a non-muslim wish not to pay they can serve in army ..

should they not want that .. they can teach 10 muslims children to read and write

so the money they pay is well earned and there is something in return for services muslims does and non-muslims are not compelled to

there's an incident worth to mention

when the muslim leader Abo Obaida was taking Jizya from the non-muslims the town of Homs

and there was threat of the romans coming to town the muslim army had to withdraw

so Abo Obadia gave the Jizya money back to the non-muslims and told them that this money was paid for their protection

but as the muslims army are doing tectical withdrawl Jizya is no longer suppose to apply on them

and should the muslims come back again to the town and offer protection they'd take Jizya then

so the money was given back because the muslims were doing withdrawl therefore not offering the protection

they getting Jizya for so the money was giving back to the non-muslims

i doubt that's cruel as many make it out to be .. if we are using logic sense

Edited by Knight Of Shadows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KoS, just so you know the words "protection money" has a slightly different connotation in the West - it implies "money taken from someone under the threat of violence" (ie Mobsters coming into your business and saying "pay us to protect you" and if you say no, mysteriously you end up with both your legs broken and your shop burnt down. The Mobster will then say "see, we could have protected you from that").

the way you put it though, it's basically "there's a tax for the Muslim, and there's a tax for the non-Muslim - the money from each goes to pay for the same services (although the Muslim pays less)", would I be right in that summation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KoS, just so you know the words "protection money" has a slightly different connotation in the West - it implies "money taken from someone under the threat of violence" (ie Mobsters coming into your business and saying "pay us to protect you" and if you say no, mysteriously you end up with both your legs broken and your shop burnt down. The Mobster will then say "see, we could have protected you from that").

the way you put it though, it's basically "there's a tax for the Muslim, and there's a tax for the non-Muslim - the money from each goes to pay for the same services (although the Muslim pays less)", would I be right in that summation?

yeah i know the concept used by the mafia and has bad reputation in the west

which is why i explained it deeply as it is money paid instead of serving army

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jizya was taken from taken non Muslim citizens of the Islamic state. This tax insured that the state and the army would protect them, their property, land, assets, places of worship etc. This tax was the only tax they paid which gave them access to the state welfare health care, protection and services. Just like we all pay taxes today for our states to do well by us. Jizya was the only tax they paid, where as muslin citizens had hundreds of taxes placed on them. You see when seen in factual context it's a mercy to non Muslim citizens who paid one tax only which gave them everything including the fact they never had to fight to protect the state, the jizya meant we fight for them!!!!

As for the verse regarding escorting the enemy away. It's context is this and there are examples of it in history including salahudin! Islam was the first thing that gave mankind rules of engagement in war, prior anything was fair in love and war as you all know!!!

The verses in the entire context set out the rules of engagement which today's UN international law on what's permissible and not in war are based on the same principles. Except the Quran goes even further by instructing the Muslims that if the enemy ceases it's hostilities or surrender, those who do not wish to be Muslim (as this often happened amongst the Christians who wanted to stay and live as Muslims and escape the tyranny of the church in Europe) to escort them out of the land, remember these are the enemies who have attacked or taken land, massacred the Muslims etc, yet the Quran and allahs mercy is that, we escort these enemies to a place of safety whereby they cannot be harmed! That's the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jizya was taken from taken non Muslim citizens of the Islamic state. This tax insured that the state and the army would protect them, their property, land, assets, places of worship etc. This tax was the only tax they paid which gave them access to the state welfare health care, protection and services. Just like we all pay taxes today for our states to do well by us. Jizya was the only tax they paid, where as muslin citizens had hundreds of taxes placed on them. You see when seen in factual context it's a mercy to non Muslim citizens who paid one tax only which gave them everything including the fact they never had to fight to protect the state, the jizya meant we fight for them!!!!

As for the verse regarding escorting the enemy away. It's context is this and there are examples of it in history including salahudin! Islam was the first thing that gave mankind rules of engagement in war, prior anything was fair in love and war as you all know!!!

The verses in the entire context set out the rules of engagement which today's UN international law on what's permissible and not in war are based on the same principles. Except the Quran goes even further by instructing the Muslims that if the enemy ceases it's hostilities or surrender, those who do not wish to be Muslim (as this often happened amongst the Christians who wanted to stay and live as Muslims and escape the tyranny of the church in Europe) to escort them out of the land, remember these are the enemies who have attacked or taken land, massacred the Muslims etc, yet the Quran and allahs mercy is that, we escort these enemies to a place of safety whereby they cannot be harmed! That's the facts.

This is an extract from Wikipedia (not a 'missionary' web-site), from the aftermath of the Battle of the Trench in 627:

Following the retreat of the Confederate army, the Banu Qurayza neighbourhoods were besieged by the Muslims, in revenge for their treachery. After a 25 day siege of their neighbourhood the Banu Qurayza unconditionally surrendered.

When the Banu Qurayza tribe surrendered, the Muslim army seized their stronghold and their possessions.[26] On the request of the Banu Aus, who were allied to the Qurayza, Muhammad chose one of them, Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh, as an arbitrator to pronounce judgment upon them. Sa'ad, who would later die of his wounds from the battle, decreed the sentence according to the Torah, in which the men shall be killed and women and children enslaved. Muhammad approved of this decision, and the next day the sentence was carried out.[26]

The men - numbering between 400 and 900[27] - were bound and placed under the custody of Muhammad ibn Maslamah, while the women and children were placed under Abdullah ibn Salam, a former rabbi who had converted to Islam.[9][28]

Ibn Ishaq describes the killing of the Banu Qurayza men as follows:

Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.[27][29][30]

Several accounts note Muhammad's companions as executioners, Ali and Al-Zubayr in particular, and that each clan of the Aws was also charged with killing a group of Qurayza men.[31][32]

It is also reported that one woman, who had thrown a millstone from the battlements during the siege and killed one of the Muslim besiegers, was also beheaded along with the men.[33] Ibn Asakir writes in his History of Damascus that the Banu Kilab, a clan of Arab clients of the Banu Qurayza, were killed alongside the Jewish tribe.[34]

The spoils of battle, including the enslaved women and children of the tribe, were divided up among the Islamic warriors that had participated in the siege and among the emigrees from Mecca (who had hitherto depended on the help of the Muslims native to Medina.[35][36]

Muhammad took a fifth of the booty for himself, as was customary among Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religions are the tools, not the goal, hence you are not obsessed with names. It's the purpose that people find out and reach holy spiritual perfectness (the perfect human being), through incarnations.

In the exterior existence there are separations, differences and conflicts, but in the interior existence (or in the esoteric meaning) All is One and everything serves the goal that people are raised upper reality.

there are five effective ways to reach this purpose,

1)Meditating on god

2)The regular mentioning of God names(it is not important which you use but Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic names are more strong) Islam describes this as Dhikr.

3)Binding everything that you experience in your life, with God ( as the inner meaning- for more good explanation, please click here or here)

4) Pray to God

5) Fasting

you might choose all of those or any of those, the life is your life ;)

and for good measure I want to give three samples,

first;

"The Lord says, "These people worship me with their mouths and honor me with their lips.

But their hearts are far from me, and their worship of me is [based on] rules made by humans."

Isaiah 29:13

just like written there, all everything becomes reality in your heart and mind.

God looks into your heart and watches your mind.

second;

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Matthew 22:36-40

it's clear enough! the love is the basic power to improve souls, yes!

third;

"Now my people will know my name. When that day comes, [they will know] that I am the one who says, "Here I am!"

Isaiah 52:6

all people discover the existence of god in their inwardness, so they come together with divinity happiness. It comes to mean this.

As you can see, this is the real end (of our creation).

in short; there are just two perceptions to attain the being: the creator and the human. The rest is diversion. (maybe there are people that wonder it, I wrote about the name of God, here

http://www.unexplain...60#entry4557450)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.