Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Myst" data-source="post: 34618" data-attributes="member: 24">بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ(In the name of allah, the most gracious, the most merciful.)Islam was not spread in medina through war, it was through alliances, treaties and peaceful interactions, the issue with the jewish tribes in medina is that they had insulted and plotted against the muslims, the prophet (PBUH) was initially seeking to establish peaceful relations with them and had treated them with respect and recognized their faith and even one time had jews come to him seeking wisdom regarding a certain matter and ruled according to their own jewish law. Their relationship eventually broke down due to religious disputes aka their rejection of prophet muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) despite many of them actually recognizing him as a prophet but had rejected him because he wasn't of the children of israel ethnically speaking.The jewish tribes had also violated multiple agreements that they had with the muslims, banu nadir ahd plotted to kill the prophet muhammad (PBUH), banu qaynuqa insulted a muslim woman and broke the consitution of medina which they had had with the muslims, and banu qurayza had allied with the attacking forces during the battle of the trench but were still judged by the torah by the muslims after the siege was lifted. The actions taken against the jewish tribes weren't motivated by religious animosity but by political treason and broken agreements, the punishment of banu qurayza has been controversial, I'll admit that BUT it is consistent with what would have been punishment under jewish law at the time. Prophet muhammad (PBUH) had allowed the judgement to be passed by a member of the tribe, sa'id ibn mu'adh, which reflects prophet muhammads (pbuh) respect for their legal and judicial traditions, if he had been such a ruthless warlord out to conquer for his own personal interests, would he have still consistently showed such mercy towards his enemies? not just the jewish tribes but all of his enemies.These events do not represent a systemic pattern of violence against jews, there are many instances where jews lived peacefully in the muslim state and many including the head rabbi if you will, had embraced islam. In later periods of muslim states, non-muslims had to pay jizya tax in exchange for protection and exemption from the military and the dhimmi (aka non-muslims) were taxed based on the region, individual financial situations and time period, the jizya tax was generally modest, muslims overall had to actually pay more tax than the dhimmis because of zakat, khums and other taxes.And I agree with you on the matter of muhammad hijab and jesus (PBUH) but in both islamic and christian traditions, both prophets muhammad and jesus (PBUT) did not advocate for violence except for specific historical cases and situations which required violence to be warranted, violence is never a first resort in islam and never should be and again, is ONLY permitted under certain ethical limitations that I have previously mentioned in earlier posts.As for slavery and captives being taken, slavery was a widely practiced in many parts of the world before modern times including pre-islamic arabia and the early muslim community. While islam did not *introduce* slavery, it regulated it in ways that were intended to gradually improve the treatment of slaves and captives, though the practice continued for centuries. You need to understand that before Islam, slavery was a deeply entrenched institution in many cultures, including pre-Islamic Arabia. Slaves were typically prisoners of war, people born into slavery, or those who had fallen into debt, and in the pre-islamic context, slaves were often treated harshly and their rights were very limited, almost treated like cattle at times. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “Your slaves are your brothers. So, if Allah has placed them under your authority, feed them what you eat and clothe them with what you wear. Do not overburden them with tasks beyond their strength, and if you do, then help them” (Sahih Bukhari 6050).In some cases,the emancipation of slaves was encouraged, and freeing a slave was considered a virtuous act. For example, the Quran offers a way to atone for sins through the freedom of slaves (e.g., freeing a slave as an expiation for breaking an oath in Surah Al-Mujadila, 58:3). Marriages between slaves and free people were also recognized, and children born from these unions were free. The children of slaves (if they were born to a free man) would also be free. The capturing of prisoners in war was a common practice in the ancient world, under Islamic law, captives were treated with dignity and had their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) met. And after military victories, captives could either be ransomed (if they had the means to pay for their freedom or if a family member or tribe could pay), freed (sometimes as an act of kindness or for religious reasons), or kept as slaves (if no ransom was possible and they were not freed).In the Quran, the treatment of captives is addressed in several places. For example, in Surah Muhammad (47:4), it mentions that captives should either be set free as an act of kindness or in exchange for a ransom. Take banu qurayze for example like I had previously mentioned: The banu qurayza incident is one example where captives, in this case, from a tribe that had broken their treaty with the Muslims, were judged according to Jewish law, and the men were executed for treason, while the women and children were taken captive. The historical context of this is important because it was a punishment for treason during a time of war, not a religiously motivated act against Jews as a group, again, like I have already mentioned.I ask allah to let this response be sufficient for me, you and anyone else that comes across this.[USER=10]@Sovereign[/USER]</blockquote>

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread