Calling To Hajj Is Calling To Unity Of Power

[Jibrael]

But having read what you posted, I am also aware that some may view the Saudi kingdom in a positive manner, that they stand for something noble, for some of the most important issues in Islam.

Yes. Although I am personally not a Saudi, and people might mistake my enthusiasm for the Saudi Kingdom as blind ultra-nationalism, the reality is that my attachment and love for the Saudi Kingdom is not for such narrow reasons.

Saudi Arabia is unique from the rest of the world. It is a country that has successfully reconciled the challenges of modern technology without sacrificing the fundamental religious and moral values of Islaam. It is the only true theocracy in the world, a world which is drowning in secularism.

Secularism, a diseased ideology which seeks to restrict Religion and eventually exterminate it. Secularism seeks to strategically turn man's attention away from spirituality toward worldliness and materialism, by convincing him that religion is a trifle matter, simply a cultural remnant that has no real value.

This is why I salute Saudi Arabia, because out of all the Muslim nations, it alone has remained true to the fundamental values of our noble Religion, while the rest of the Muslims compromised their faith in the name of alien western and pagan ideals.

And yes, you are right, it is exciting to have an opinion. I believe opinion is not the right word though. It is exciting to have core convictions that you are willing to fight for, and willing to die for. Core convictions that have truly penetrated your heart. It makes you feel like a genuine person to have convictions (even if those convictions might turn out wrong).

But secularism seeks to strip society of all moral convictions.

 

[c0de]

This is why I previously mentioned that your comments give away your ignorance, at least in these matters.

I noticed you didn't respond to my first question. What did I say about the 1979 event that was ignorant? Did I say anything that was counterfactual?

The Saudi family never sided with the British against the Ottomans.

Treaty of Darin, 1915.

"The British entered into a treaty in December 1915 which made the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate. In exchange, Ibn Saud pledged to again make war against Ibn Rashid, who was an ally of the Ottomans."

Also, for your information, the Ottoman Turks may have been Muslim, but they were the most corrupt and deviated Muslims, and that is why ultimately they lost their power, alhamdulillaah for that!

And wahabbis are much better, are they?

This is why I salute Saudi Arabia, because out of all the Muslim nations, it alone has remained true to the fundamental values of our noble Religion

... wow

 

[Jibrael]

I noticed you didn't respond to my first question. What did I say about the 1979 event that was ignorant? Did I say anything that was counterfactual?

I never claimed what you said about those events was not factual. What I said was that you attacking Saudi government's decision to consult with French military advisers in chalking out a strategy to deal with this crisis exposed your ignorance and blind hatred for Saudi Arabia.

Treaty of Darin, 1915.

"The British entered into a treaty in December 1915 which made the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate. In exchange, Ibn Saud pledged to again make war against Ibn Rashid, who was an ally of the Ottomans."

As though the Royal House of Saud had absolutely no other motivation to fight the Rasheedis expect to win the favor of the British?

Even if the Saudis did cooperate with the British, it was justified, because the Saudis were the ones who restored the true and pure Islaam to the Arabian peninsula. They were the ones who brought a complete end to the idolatrous practices that were common among the Arabs, such as veneration of tombs, domes, trees, and intercession through dead prophets and saints...all such practices that violate the very foundation of Islaam...Monotheism or the Oneness of Allaah in being worshiped alone.

As for the Ottoman Turks, they were the ones who started aggressions against the House of Saud, way before the British had any interest in Arabia. I am referring to the Turkish campaigns against the true Muslims and Muwahideen that began in 1811.

Now look, because of the arrogance and oppression of the Turks against the true monotheistic Muslims, Allaah punished them and caused their once great empire to crumble to pieces. A just end for such an oppressive and un-Islamic nation...reminiscent of the destruction of the Sasanian Persian empire in the 7th century, when the true monotheistic Muslims first emerged.

 

[c0de]

What I said was that you attacking Saudi government's decision to consult with French military advisers in chalking out a strategy to deal with this crisis exposed your ignorance and blind hatred for Saudi Arabia.

What? I never criticized the Saudis for consulting the French. I called the French GIGN the best in the business, actually.

What I criticized was the Saudi restriction on allowing them to enter Mecca without converting to Islam, a requirement which is unsupported by the Quran. So are you going to admit your mistake, or not?

Even if the Saudis did cooperate with the British,

There's no "even if"... This happened. This is FACT.

You just didn't know it happened.

it was justified, because the Saudis were the ones who restored the true and pure Islaam to the Arabian peninsula...

by supporting the wahhabis who massacred other muslims?

That's how they "restored true Islam" ??

"Later, in 1801, the Wahhabi army marched to Karbala with a force of 10,000 men and 6,000 camels.Upon reaching Karbala, they mercilessly and indiscriminately attacked its inhabitants for eight hours, massacring about 5,000 people. Moreover, they severely damaged Imam Hussein’s mosque, looted the city, and left the carnage-laden city with its treasures on 200 camels."

Bagot, Blubb, Sir J. (1961). War in the Desert .New York: Norton. Pg. 44.

As for the Ottoman Turks, they were the ones who started aggressions against the House of Saud, way before the British had any interest in Arabia. I am referring to the Turkish campaigns against the true Muslims and Muwahideen that began in 1811.

Seriously, what history books are you reading?

The Ottomans controlled Mecca and Medina since 1517. The Sauds/Wahhabis attacked the Ottomans when they raided their caravans and conquered these cities. They were the rebels who disobeyed the very verse in the Quran which you yourself quoted that Muslims should not take part in rebellion against "those in authority" from among us.

 

[Jibrael]

What I criticized was the Saudi restriction on allowing them to enter Mecca without converting to Islam, a requirement which is unsupported by the Quran. So are you going to admit your mistake, or not?

It is you who are making mistakes left and right my friend. You claim there is nothing in the Quraan which warrants the Saudi restriction on polytheists entering into the holy city of Makkah. Perhaps you never read this Ayah:

إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلاَ يَقْرَبُواْ الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَـذَا
Verily, the polytheists are impure, so let them not come near the Sacred Mosque. [Soorah 9:28]

by supporting the wahhabis who massacred other muslims?

That's how they "restored true Islam" ??

Throwing out the derogatory label "Wahhaabi" without even defining what it means makes no sense whatsoever.

Imaam Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhaab رضى الله عنه was a Mujaddid (reformer) who preached a return back to the fundamentals of Al-Islaam, and turning away from the idolatry that majority of Muslims were involved in at that time in Arabia. They were involved in grave-worship, veneration of tombs, trees, and other "artifacts" which has no basis whatsoever. They sought intercession through the dead, and supplicated to them. They were also involved in all kinds of forbidden things and superstitions, like witchcraft, astrology, fortune-telling, soothe-saying, and wearing of amulets.
The Muwahhideen who answered the call of Imaam Ibn 'Abdul Wahhaab faught against these so called "Muslims" who were Mushrikeen in reality. Fighting and warring against them is no different than how the great ancient prophets of the past fought and made war against the pagan and idolatrous tribes and nations.

"Later, in 1801, the Wahhabi army marched to Karbala with a force of 10,000 men and 6,000 camels.Upon reaching Karbala, they mercilessly and indiscriminately attacked its inhabitants for eight hours, massacring about 5,000 people. Moreover, they severely damaged Imam Hussein’s mosque, looted the city, and left the carnage-laden city with its treasures on 200 camels."

Like I said, read the history of the great ancient prophets which we as Muslims believe in. Read how the great prophet Moses عليه السلام, according to the Quraan, ordered his followers to massacre the apostates who worshiped the idol of the golden calf. Read how the great prophet Yoosha' عليه السلام and his lieutenant Kaalib cleansed the holy promised land of all the idol-worshiping tribes and nations. Read about the famous "Battle of Jericho". Read about the wars of Dawud عليه السلام against Jalut and his forces. Read about the wars and campaigns of our Prophet Muhammad صلى
.الله عليه وسلم
By reading all this history, you will stop bad mouthing the so called "Wahhaabis", because you will come to the realization that they are merely following the footsteps of the ancient prophets that preceded them.

And by the way, there is no "Imaam Hussayn Mosque"...it is not a mosque, it is a pagan shrine, a mausoleum where so called "Muslims" make pilgrimage to and supplicate to the dead.

A Mosque, on the other hand, is a house of worship dedicated to Allaah alone.

The Ottomans controlled Mecca and Medina since 1517. The Sauds/Wahhabis attacked the Ottomans when they raided their caravans and conquered these cities. They were the rebels who disobeyed the very verse in the Quran which you yourself quoted that Muslims should not take part in rebellion against "those in authority" from among us.

The Turks never had any jurisdiction over Central Arabia. Look at any map of the Ottoman empire, when it was at its peak, they never ruled over Central Arabia. Therefore, you cannot categorize the Al-Saud and the various Bedouin tribes of Central Arabia which waged war against the tyrannical Turks as "rebels". They were independent of the Turks, and had every right to fight them, to liberate the holiest shrines of our Religion, which were being defiled with pagan and un-Islaamic practices.

 

[c0de]

You claim there is nothing in the Quraan which warrants the Saudi restriction on polytheists entering into the holy city of Makkah. Perhaps you never read this Ayah:

إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلاَ يَقْرَبُواْ الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَـذَا
Verily, the polytheists are impure, so let them not come near the Sacred Mosque. [Soorah 9:28]

1. Do you realize that there is a Quranic distinction between "polytheists" and "people of the book"? In fact, in the very next verse (9:29) this is made clear when Jews and Christians are mentioned as "people of the book" and not "polytheists." The verse which you quoted is specifically talking about "polytheists." There is no reason why Jews and Christians should be forbidden to enter, as according to the Quran the restriction only applies to "polytheists" who are not "people of the book"
2. You did not quote the entire verse, which makes this more clear: "And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise." Clearly, this verse is talking about the pagans who came to the Sacred Mosque to perform pagan pilgrimage, not the Jews or Christians who never made any pilgrimage to Mecca.
3. The Saudi government also forbids entry to Jews and Christians from the Prophet's Mosque in Medinah. But the Prophet himself received the Christians from Najran when they sent a delegation in the mosque. He also allowed them to pray in the Mosque. Clearly, the Saudi government and its wahhabbi idealogues are not following the Prophet's example.
4. Lastly (even though I don't care about this, but it's still relevant) as far as I know, most Muslim jurists (Maliki, Shaafi, Hanafi etc.) allowed Jews and Christians entry.

By reading all this history, you will stop bad mouthing the so called "Wahhaabis", because you will come to the realization that they are merely following the footsteps of the ancient prophets that preceded them.

So now you are justifying the murder of Muslims by the wahhabbi horde? In other words, all Muslims who do not agree with your version of Islam are fit for slaughter, right? I have already shown you one example of how the wahhabi version of Islam contradicts the Quran and the practice of the Prophet. Believe me, there are many others. Remember brother, shirk can come in many forms. Blindly obeying wahhabbi scholars can also be considered as one form of shirk.

The Turks never had any jurisdiction over Central Arabia. Look at any map of the Ottoman empire, when it was at its peak, they never ruled over Central Arabia. Therefore, you cannot categorize the Al-Saud and the various Bedouin tribes of Central Arabia which waged war against the tyrannical Turks as "rebels".

Fine, they weren't "rebels"... just murderous lunatics who abused the name of Islam to get power and control.

It is you who are making mistakes left and right my friend.

Do you deny that I did not criticize the Saudi government for accepting French advisers? You made a mistake, yes or no? That's a simple question. Why are you so afraid to admit your mistakes? Do you think you are infallible?



p.s.

I will be absent from the internet for a few days. So if I don't reply soon, don't get anxious. Rather, take the time to re-analyze your views.

 

[Jibrael]

1. Do you realize that there is a Quranic distinction between "polytheists" and "people of the book"? In fact, in the very next verse (9:29) this is made clear when Jews and Christians are mentioned as "people of the book" and not "polytheists." The verse which you quoted is specifically talking about "polytheists." There is no reason why Jews and Christians should be forbidden to enter, as according to the Quran the restriction only applies to "polytheists" who are not "people of the book"

The Jews and Christians are polytheists, despite being People of the Book. Anyone who commits shirk is a mushrik, even if he calls himself a "Muslim". Shirk is shirk, and anyone guilty of shirk is a mushrik.

How can you say that Christians, who worship Jesus عليه السلام, Virgin Mary, and believe in the Trinity, and many other polytheistic aspects of their religion, are not Polytheists?

The Saudi government also forbids entry to Jews and Christians from the Prophet's Mosque in Medinah. But the Prophet himself received the Christians from Najran when they sent a delegation in the mosque. He also allowed them to pray in the Mosque. Clearly, the Saudi government and its wahhabbi idealogues are not following the Prophet's example.

The Saudi government forbids Jews and Christians from entering Madeenah for security reasons. Jews and Christians are allowed to visit other parts of Saudi Arabia. After all, Jews and Christians don't want to visit our mosques anyways, they only go to Saudi Arabia for business or diplomatic reasons. There is no business for them in Makkah or Madeenah.

So now you are justifying the murder of Muslims by the wahhabbi horde? In other words, all Muslims who do not agree with your version of Islam are fit for slaughter, right?

the most basic fundamental of Islaam is Tawheed, the Oneness of Allaah. A person calls himself a Muslim, has a Muslim name, even prays and fasts and does all the pillars of Islaam. But at the same time he supplicates to the dead and calls upon them for succor. Such a person is obviously a Mushrik and a Kaafir, no matter how much he insists otherwise.

 

[c0de]

.

First of all, why don't you admit your mistakes? You were wrong about the Ottoman-Saudi-British history. You were also wrong in accusing me of critiquing the Saudi government for accepting French advisers. Are you too proud to admit your mistakes and would rather ignore pretend they never happened?

The Jews and Christians are polytheists, despite being People of the Book.

That's besides the point because the Quran makes a distinction between the two. The Quran does not refer to the Jews and Christians with the word "polytheists" but calls them "people of the book." You are clearly taking verses out of context.

Such a person is obviously a Mushrik and a Kaafir, no matter how much he insists otherwise.

How does that justify the wahhabbi slaughter of 5,000 civilians in Karbbala? Even if they were kaafir? Do you know the Quran forbids the killing of civilians in war and aggressive actions? What were these wahhabbi raiders doing in Karballah in the first place (except for looting and pillaging)? You think Islam allows Muslims to just kill anyone who they label as "kaaffir"?

Medinah during the Prophet's time contained known hypocrites. The Prophet never had them killed. Nor did the prophet launch aggressive wars or wantonly kill kaaffirs.

The Saudi government forbids Jews and Christians from entering Madeenah for security reasons.

You are changing your argument. First you misused the Quran's verse for polytheists as the justification, not security reasons. Now when your case has been refuted via Quranic, juristic and historical proof, you are trying to backtrack.

After all, Jews and Christians don't want to visit our mosques anyways,

How can you say that when this very thread contains a person (non-Muslim) who expressed a desire to visit Mecca to see the Kaabah?

 

[Jibrael]

How does that justify the wahhabbi slaughter of 5,000 civilians in Karbbala? Even if they were kaafir? Do you know the Quran forbids the killing of civilians in war and aggressive actions? What were these wahhabbi raiders doing in Karballah in the first place (except for looting and pillaging)? You think Islam allows Muslims to just kill anyone who they label as "kaaffir"?

In war, civilians get killed. True, in Islaam, civilians cannot be targeted intentionally.

But if they are killed unintentionally, then it is okay. For example, even in the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, he used to order raids in the night, which resulted in many unarmed women and children being killed. This matter was brought to the attention of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, but he said: "They are from them."

And by the way, do you have any authentic historical sources which describe these "Wahhaabi" campaigns of Karbala? For example, where did you get the figure of 5,000 civilian deaths?

 

[Muslimwoman]

sally,

"interesting"? but you don't still think it's OK? you think i would "taint" mecca?

b'shalom

bananabrain

Salam BB

Well I find history interesting particularly pertaining to the development of faith.

I used "." because I couldn't think of a decent term ... perhaps protecting the sanctity of the Holy Mosque would be a better term.

I just wouldn't want it to become a tourist attraction, it is the most important place of worship and peace for Muslims. Some poor Muslims save their whole lives to visit Mecca and it would make a mockery of such devotion to our faith if a load of rich tourists were wandering through taking pictures and poking fun of the "ragheads grovelling in the dirt".

Interesting story: there was a HUGE hostage crises in Mecca some time ago and the Saudi Government called in the French GIGN as advisors, cuz they are the BEST in these situations.

I looked that up as I hadn't heard it before c0de but so far I have found the New Statesman declaring they were CIA operatives, the Pakistani's claiming they were Pakistani commandos and the story of them being French .... considering there was a news blackout at the time it's amazing how many nations managed to get people there!!

Muslimwoman,

I, too, question the idea of 'tainting.' I remember when Pope John-Paul II died and members of the American presidentialial cabinet attended the Pope's funeral. Do you feel the Pope's funeral was 'tainted' by these non-Catholics attending the funeral? In what way was the Pope 'tainted'?

Salam Nick

What makes the Vatican a holy place? That's not a rude question but as far as I know it's simply the administrative centre for the Catholic church. Did a Prophet ever go there?

However if the Catholics said they only wanted Catholics to visit then of course I would respect that and I would not feel excluded or slighted by it.



found this and thought it was interesting given the conversation:

The Associators are impure. So they must not come near “Almasjid al-Haram” the Holy Mosque of Makkah.

But the Muslim jurists are not unanimous in the interpretation of this verse. Their different views are as follows :


1. According to the view of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal and Imam Shafi’i this verse has banned the entry of the non- Muslims not only to the Holy Mosque, but also to the whole precincts of Haram including the city of Makkah.


2. Imam Malik extends this prohibition to all the masjids of the world. He says that the prohibition is based on the impu- rity of the non-Muslims and every masjid in every part of the world deserves to be immune from such impurity.


3. Imam Abu Hanifah interprets the verse in a quite different way. He says that it is not the non-Muslims that has been banned by this verse, but the context of the verse suggests that the non-Muslims have been forbidden from performing Hajj and Umrah. Before the revelation of this verse, the pagans of Arabia used to perform Hajj and Umrah. Even in the 9th year after Hijrah, when Abu Bakr (R.A) was made the leader of the Hajj a large number of the pagans of Arabia perf- ormed Hajj with him.
On this occasion the Surah of Bara’ah was revealed and their Hajj and Umrah was totally banned with effect from the next year. The Holy Prophet ( Sallaho Alaihai Wasallam ) sent Sayyidna ‘Ali (R.A) to announce his prohibition in the plain of ‘Arafat where he conveyed the injunctions of the Surah al-Bara’ah to all present in that Hajj. On that occasion he did not announce that the non-Muslims cannot enter the Holy Mosque after his year. Instead, he announced :


“No Associator shall perform Hajj after this year.” Keeping in view the context of the verse of Surah al-Bara’ah and this historical background, Imam Abu Hanifah has not taken the verse as a prohibition against the entry of non-Muslims into the limits of Haram or into the Holy Mosque, but has confined the prohibition to the performance of Hajj or Umrah only.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

MW,

I would say the vatican is a 'holy place' because of the number of 'holy people' who live there. I also believe in the 'power of holy objects' because these objects become highly 'magnitiezed' and they also have a strong influence on the people, both in a 'magnetic' way and in the way they inspire the people.

"...I would not feel excluded or slighted by it."

--> I would.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I would say the vatican is a 'holy place'

Then I feel they are quite within their rights to close it off to non Catholics and they also have the right to invite in anyone they wish to invite. I really can't speak for the Catholic church .. or anyone but myself.

"...I would not feel excluded or slighted by it."

--> I would.

Why?

I have been to monasteries where, as a woman, I was not permitted to enter the building or sections of the buildings .. why should that offend me? The men live and work there to devote themselves to God and don't need the distraction and possible problems caused by women tramping about.

If the Catholic church or synagogues or Mecca wish a place to remain for the sole purpose of worship by that faith's followers what is the problem with that?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

MW,

I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. Even in Buddhism there are prohibitions of what a male monk can and cannot do with a woman. (For example, some Buddhist traditions do not allow their monks to touch a women or ride in a car with a woman.) I think the reason for this is fairly obvious. But I am not a woman, so such an Islamic restriction should not (in my opinion) apply to me.

I think the key issue here is a sense of muslims being 'better' than non-muslims. It also gives the feeling that non-muslims cannot get to heaven, so keep them out of Mecca because they are 'wasting their time and everyone else's time.' (Does Islam teach that non-muslims cannot get to heaven?) And, quite frankly, it is outright discrimination.

Just to make a point, churches and synogogues do NOT remain places solely for Christians and Jews. Christianity and Judiasm reject such exclusivity, and I think they are right in doing so.

 

[c0de]

apparently, theres a computer and the interent in my hotel!! w00t

In war, civilians get killed. True, in Islaam, civilians cannot be targeted intentionally.

But if they are killed unintentionally, then it is okay. For example, even in the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, he used to order raids in the night, which resulted in many unarmed women and children being killed. This matter was brought to the attention of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, but he said: "They are from them."

Which hadith is this, exactly? What raids, where and how many civillians were killed?

And by the way, do you have any authentic historical sources which describe these "Wahhaabi" campaigns of Karbala? For example, where did you get the figure of 5,000 civilian deaths?

1. I already provided the book and page number. It is by a well known historian and his work is respected.
2. If one or two civillians die as an accident, that's one thing. But if 5000 civillians died in a single raid (in which there was looting and pillaging) how can you excuse that as an accident?

p.s.


@ MW

The Pakistani SSG did the fighting, the French were advising and the CIA (probably SOG) according to some, recon'd the area. These units have the ability to respond anywhere in the world in a very short period of time. And the Saudis have a lot of pull.

 

[Jibrael]

Which hadith is this, exactly? What raids, where and how many civillians were killed?

Its a hadeeth as recorded in Saheeh Muslim: Kitaab-ul-Jihaad was-Siyaar, narrated by Sa'b bin Jaththama. The Hadeeth does not mention a specific number of civilians that were killed, just that women and children were killed during the night raids, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was asked about it, and he said: "They are from them".

As for the campaign against Karbalah in which allegedly 5,000 people were killed, you gave a source from a non-Muslim writer who published this book in 1961. This is obviously a second-hand source, where did the writer get his information from?

Even if 5,000 people were killed, I'm sure they were heretics and apostates. Haven't you read the Quraan where Moosaa عليه السلام is quoted as commanding the Banee Israa'eel to kill the guilty from among them who worshiped the idol of the calf? [Soorah 2:54]

According to the Old Testament, thousands of people were killed on that day, as the true followers of Moses went throughout the camps armed with swords and slaughtering their "brothers, friends, and neighbors" [Exodus 32:27-29]

 

[c0de]

Even if 5,000 people were killed, I'm sure they were heretics and apostates. Haven't you read the Quraan where Moosaa عليه السلام is quoted as commanding the Banee Israa'eel to kill the guilty from among them who worshiped the idol of the calf? [Soorah 2:54]

Look at the lengths you will go to defend these lunatics. How many more verses will you need to take out of context?

1. this verse does not deal with war.
2. it deals with the history of the Jews, not what is allowed to Muslims
3. the purpose for which you are trying to use this verse contradicts all known Quranic and Juristic conducts of Islamic warfare that have been established in Islamic jurisprudence. You can not point to a single verse in the Quran which (taken in proper context) supports the killing of non-combattants, nor a single historical action of the Prophet to support such warcrimes.​

As for the campaign against Karbalah in which allegedly 5,000 people were killed, you gave a source from a non-Muslim writer who published this book in 1961. This is obviously a second-hand source, where did the writer get his information from?

This is a point about history. The fact that he was a Muslim or not doesn't mean anything. What matters is that he is an academic source who reported this in a peer-reviewed work, whose reputation is untarnished. The 5000 figure stands.

Its a hadeeth as recorded in Saheeh Muslim: Kitaab-ul-Jihaad was-Siyaar, narrated by Sa'b bin Jaththama. The Hadeeth does not mention a specific number of civilians that were killed, just that women and children were killed during the night raids, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was asked about it, and he said: "They are from them".

Then why did you say "many" non-combattants were killed? It was probably very, very few. A whole lot less then 5000, intentional victims.

 

[Jibrael]

wow... Look at the lengths you will go to defend these lunatics.


How many more verses will you need to take out of context?

1. this verse does not deal with war.
2. it deals with the history of the Jews, not what is allowed to Muslims
3. the purpose for which you are trying to use this verse contradicts all known Quranic and Juristic conducts of Islamic warfare that have been established in Islamic jurisprudence. You can not point to a single verse in the Quran which (taken in proper context) supports the killing of non-combattants, nor a single historical action of the Prophet to support such warcrimes.​

1. ​

The ayah I quoted deals with the punishment of apostasy. The people who were killed were from Banee Israa'eel, but they had committed apostasy and began to worship the idol of the calf.

Similarly, the so called "Muslims" of Karbala are also heretics, as they were (and still) worship the dead saints. They build shrines over the graves of their imaams, peers, and saints. Perhaps you have seen the picture of the shrine in Karbala, the golden dome and minarets and structure that is over the grave of Hussain رضى الله عنه. This despite the fact that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم cursed the Jews and Christians for building places of worship over the graves of their prophets, and even commanded that all high graves be leveled flat to the ground.

Now this is exactly what the so called "Wahhaabis" did. They were fulfilling the commandment of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. They went to Karbala and wished to level the shrine of Hussain رضى الله عنه to the ground. Obviously they were met by stiff resistance by those people who are attached to the tombs and seek intercession through the dead. Therefore, they had no choice but to fight them.

In the time of our fourth Khaleefah, 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib رضى الله عنه, a group of heretics emerged who proclaimed 'Ali to be divine and began to worship him. 'Ali responded by seizing these people, throwing them in a ditch, and having them burnt alive. That is how severely he dealt with the heretics and polytheists.

This is a point about history. The fact that he was a Muslim or not doesn't mean anything. What matters is that he is an academic source who reported this in a peer-reviewed work, whose reputation is untarnished. The 5000 figure stands.

you are still dodging my question. I don't blindly accept any source just because it is "peer-reviewed", especially by the disbelievers. I want historical evidence, i.e. a first hand account, not a second-hand source. Until than, your claim and allegation cannot stand, and you should withdraw them up until you get some solid evidence.

 

[c0de]

The ayah I quoted deals with the punishment of apostasy. The people who were killed were from Banee Israa'eel, but they had committed apostasy and began to worship the idol of the calf.

Similarly, the so called "Muslims" of Karbala are also heretics, as they were (and still) worship the dead saints. They build shrines over the graves of their imaams, peers, and saints. Perhaps you have seen the picture of the shrine in Karbala, the golden dome and minarets and structure that is over the grave of Hussain رضى الله عنه. This despite the fact that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم cursed the Jews and Christians for building places of worship over the graves of their prophets, and even commanded that all high graves be leveled flat to the ground.

Now this is exactly what the so called "Wahhaabis" did. They were fulfilling the commandment of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. They went to Karbala and wished to level the shrine of Hussain رضى الله عنه to the ground. Obviously they were met by stiff resistance by those people who are attached to the tombs and seek intercession through the dead. Therefore, they had no choice but to fight them.

They didn't go there to stamp out heresy. They went there with that excuse, to loot and pillage. Who the hell gave the wahhabbis any authority to do anything in Karballah? You think any Muslim can get up, take a sword, and just kill anyone who he sees committing shirk?

In the time of our fourth Khaleefah, 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib رضى الله عنه, a group of heretics emerged who proclaimed 'Ali to be divine and began to worship him. 'Ali responded by seizing these people, throwing them in a ditch, and having them burnt alive. That is how severely he dealt with the heretics and polytheists.

Again, he was the leader of HIS OWN community, like Musa (pbuh). What he did is between him and Allah. What right did the Wahhabbis have in Karballah? That was an aggressive action, plain and simple.

you are still dodging my question.

That's funny coming from you, who has dodged entire arguments. That by itself means you have technically lost this debate.

I don't blindly accept any source just because it is "peer-reviewed", especially by the disbelievers.

I don't have to provide you with anything other then valid academic sources. If you don't want to accept them, then don't. Why should I care?

 

[Muslimwoman]

The Hadeeth does not mention a specific number of civilians that were killed, just that women and children were killed during the night raids, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was asked about it, and he said: "They are from them".

asalam aleykum

I am curious as to how you reconcile your attitude toward this hadith with these:

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 4, book 52, hadith number 257

Narrated by 'Abdullah: During some of the ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 4, book 52, hadith number 258

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: During some of the ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

Saheeh Muslim, Book 19, hadith number 4319 (the chapter is called "prohibition of killing women and children in war)

It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah. He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

 

[Jibrael]

asalam aleykum

I am curious as to how you reconcile your attitude toward this hadith with these:

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 4, book 52, hadith number 257

Narrated by 'Abdullah: During some of the ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 4, book 52, hadith number 258

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: During some of the ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

Saheeh Muslim, Book 19, hadith number 4319 (the chapter is called "prohibition of killing women and children in war)

It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah. He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

The woman who was killed was killed deliberately, and that is forbidden in our Religion.

However, during the night raids, the women and children were killed accidentally (it's called collateral damage).

Collateral damage is unavoidable in such situations.