Comments on: Muslims Should Raise the Other Finger http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/2009/11/26/muslims-should-raise-the-other-finger/ Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:41:20 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: The Spinning Head » Saying ‘Fuck Off’ In Muslim And Why I Say It So Often! http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/2009/11/26/muslims-should-raise-the-other-finger/comment-page-1/#comment-190 The Spinning Head » Saying ‘Fuck Off’ In Muslim And Why I Say It So Often! Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:41:20 +0000 http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/?p=420#comment-190 [...] a piece called Muslims Should Raise The Other Finger , written in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings and the massive outcry against [...] [...] a piece called Muslims Should Raise The Other Finger , written in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings and the massive outcry against [...]

]]> By: <fb:name linked="false" useyou="false" uid="1">Farhat Rasheed</fb:name> http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/2009/11/26/muslims-should-raise-the-other-finger/comment-page-1/#comment-171 Farhat Rasheed Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:35:49 +0000 http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/?p=420#comment-171 I daresay I have mixed opinions on this. It is a written vent/rant and I am not entirely sure, worthy of applauding. It only serves the writer's emotions and does nothing for the collective Ummah. If a questioning non muslim asks why a certain muslim did x/y, in truth, we do not know, or cannot ever know 'why' and neither should we defend a wrong action but to actually 'not answer back' seems a lost opportunity to educate. Just my humble opinion. Apathy is understandable but an remains an ideal dsespite emotions. How apt that my finger should resonate with the article! I daresay I have mixed opinions on this. It is a written vent/rant and I am not entirely sure, worthy of applauding. It only serves the writer’s emotions and does nothing for the collective Ummah. If a questioning non muslim asks why a certain muslim did x/y, in truth, we do not know, or cannot ever know ‘why’ and neither should we defend a wrong action but to actually ‘not answer back’ seems a lost opportunity to educate. Just my humble opinion. Apathy is understandable but an remains an ideal dsespite emotions. How apt that my finger should resonate with the article!

]]> By: <fb:name linked="false" useyou="false" uid="1">Noreen Barlas</fb:name> http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/2009/11/26/muslims-should-raise-the-other-finger/comment-page-1/#comment-170 Noreen Barlas Sun, 09 May 2010 19:23:43 +0000 http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/?p=420#comment-170 Hi Ali, (long time!), I agree with the individual aspect to any violence committed that a group should not be condeming that action. For instance, I go and rob a bank...I should be penalized as an individual and no group should be representing me. However, I agree with Matt. Let me explain. When I commit a crime and slap on the "in the name of Islam" label, it is very much required by the group which I claim to be a part of to denounce such actions. If no one speaks then it only confirms the myths which relate to the faith and most importantly shows that this type of abuse of Islam and acts of violence is tolerated. When the criminal advertises and commits actions and affiliates themselves with a group, that to me is oppression of that group if they arenot voicing their concerns. As a muslim in the west, at times I feel caught in the middle as you are feeling. I completely relate to the article and your viewpoint but I also understand the significance and delicate situation in which muslims worldwide are in. If you do not denounce, you are indirectly supporting anti-Islamic behaviours, if you denounce, you may be seen as a traitor to not backing up your own kind (belief that these criminals are not muslim at all but are posers). Confusing times indeed. Hi Ali, (long time!),

I agree with the individual aspect to any violence committed that a group should not be condeming that action. For instance, I go and rob a bank…I should be penalized as an individual and no group should be representing me.

However, I agree with Matt. Let me explain. When I commit a crime and slap on the “in the name of Islam” label, it is very much required by the group which I claim to be a part of to denounce such actions. If no one speaks then it only confirms the myths which relate to the faith and most importantly shows that this type of abuse of Islam and acts of violence is tolerated. When the criminal advertises and commits actions and affiliates themselves with a group, that to me is oppression of that group if they arenot voicing their concerns.

As a muslim in the west, at times I feel caught in the middle as you are feeling. I completely relate to the article and your viewpoint but I also understand the significance and delicate situation in which muslims worldwide are in. If you do not denounce, you are indirectly supporting anti-Islamic behaviours, if you denounce, you may be seen as a traitor to not backing up your own kind (belief that these criminals are not muslim at all but are posers). Confusing times indeed.

]]> By: GETTING THE FINGER FROM A MODERATE MUSLIM: ROBERT SPENCER | RUTHFULLY YOURS http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/2009/11/26/muslims-should-raise-the-other-finger/comment-page-1/#comment-153 GETTING THE FINGER FROM A MODERATE MUSLIM: ROBERT SPENCER | RUTHFULLY YOURS Sat, 09 Jan 2010 05:09:42 +0000 http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/?p=420#comment-153 [...] stayed silent in the face of racist oppression. That was preposterous enough, but now Eteraz has made an even more preposterous move [3], going from supine passivity to defiance: During the salat, or prayer, Muslims raise their [...] [...] stayed silent in the face of racist oppression. That was preposterous enough, but now Eteraz has made an even more preposterous move [3], going from supine passivity to defiance: During the salat, or prayer, Muslims raise their [...]

]]> By: Reuben Moore http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/2009/11/26/muslims-should-raise-the-other-finger/comment-page-1/#comment-150 Reuben Moore Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:27:47 +0000 http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/?p=420#comment-150 Let me quote Bruce Bawer: "A moderate Muslim doesn't see extremist Muslims as getting their religion wrong in quite the same way that, say, a liberal Episcopalian might feel that a conservative Southern Baptist has gotten Christianity wrong; such a Muslim, rather, even though he deeply abhors the actions of his violent coreligionists, may well be unable to shake off the feeling that they're more dedicated to Islam than he is. The result: a profound reluctance to criticize." From: Surrender, Page 63. And Sam Harris: "The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War,” and this latter designation should indicate how Muslims believe their differences with those who do not share their faith will be ultimately resolved. While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed." From: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam Let me quote Bruce Bawer:
“A moderate Muslim doesn’t see extremist Muslims as getting their religion wrong in quite the same way that, say, a liberal Episcopalian might feel that a conservative Southern Baptist has gotten Christianity wrong; such a Muslim, rather, even though he deeply abhors the actions of his violent coreligionists, may well be unable to shake off the feeling that they’re more dedicated to Islam than he is. The result: a profound reluctance to criticize.”
From:
Surrender, Page 63.

And Sam Harris:
“The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War,” and this latter designation should indicate how Muslims believe their differences with those who do not share their faith will be ultimately resolved. While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed.”
From:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam

]]> By: Getting the Finger from a Moderate Muslim – by Robert Spencer | FrontPage Magazine http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/2009/11/26/muslims-should-raise-the-other-finger/comment-page-1/#comment-149 Getting the Finger from a Moderate Muslim – by Robert Spencer | FrontPage Magazine Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:03:26 +0000 http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/?p=420#comment-149 [...] stayed silent in the face of racist oppression. That was preposterous enough, but now Eteraz has made an even more preposterous move, going from supine passivity to defiance: During the salat, or prayer, Muslims raise their index [...] [...] stayed silent in the face of racist oppression. That was preposterous enough, but now Eteraz has made an even more preposterous move, going from supine passivity to defiance: During the salat, or prayer, Muslims raise their index [...]

]]> By: peaceful http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/2009/11/26/muslims-should-raise-the-other-finger/comment-page-1/#comment-148 peaceful Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:30:55 +0000 http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/?p=420#comment-148 Given u these two examples,i would like to stress the fact that knowing about islam should be taken from reliable muslim scholars.Moreover, The Methodologies for the study of hadith have been developed over centuries by Islamic scholars and jurists and are commonly referred to as the science of hadith study. Verification of hadith as reliable, and the use of hadith to verify or disavow Islamic practice, is left to Ulama, or Islamic scholars, with a deep understanding of Islamic jurisprudence and history. Since Islamic legal scholars were utilizing hadith as an adjunct to the Qur'an in their development of the Islamic legal system, it became critically important to have reliable collections of hadith. While the early collections of hadith often contained hadith that were of questionable origin, gradually collections of authenticated hadith called sahih (lit. true, correct) were compiled. Such collections were made possible by the development of the science of hadith criticism, a science at the basis of which was a critical analysis of the chain of (oral) transmission (isnad) of the hadith going all the way back to Muhammad. The two most highly respected collections of hadith are the authenticated collections the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. (Sahih literally means "correct, true, valid, or sound.") In addition to these, four other collections came to be well-respected, although not to the degree of Bukhari and Muslim's sahih collections. These four other collections are the Sunan of Tirmidhi, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, and Abu Da'ud. Together these four and the two sahih collections are called the "six books" (al-kutub al-sitta). Two other important collections, in particular, are the Muwatta of Ibn Malik, the founder of the Maliki school of law, and the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school of law. Given u these two examples,i would like to stress the fact that knowing about islam should be taken from reliable muslim scholars.Moreover, The Methodologies for the study of hadith have been developed over centuries by Islamic scholars and jurists and are commonly referred to as the science of hadith study. Verification of hadith as reliable, and the use of hadith to verify or disavow Islamic practice, is left to Ulama, or Islamic scholars, with a deep understanding of Islamic jurisprudence and history.
Since Islamic legal scholars were utilizing hadith as an adjunct to the Qur’an in their development of the Islamic legal system, it became critically important to have reliable collections of hadith. While the early collections of hadith often contained hadith that were of questionable origin, gradually collections of authenticated hadith called sahih (lit. true, correct) were compiled. Such collections were made possible by the development of the science of hadith criticism, a science at the basis of which was a critical analysis of the chain of (oral) transmission (isnad) of the hadith going all the way back to Muhammad. The two most highly respected collections of hadith are the authenticated collections the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. (Sahih literally means “correct, true, valid, or sound.”) In addition to these, four other collections came to be well-respected, although not to the degree of Bukhari and Muslim’s sahih collections. These four other collections are the Sunan of Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, and Abu Da’ud. Together these four and the two sahih collections are called the “six books” (al-kutub al-sitta). Two other important collections, in particular, are the Muwatta of Ibn Malik, the founder of the Maliki school of law, and the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school of law.

]]> By: peaceful http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/2009/11/26/muslims-should-raise-the-other-finger/comment-page-1/#comment-147 peaceful Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:16:44 +0000 http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/?p=420#comment-147 If we compare the following pact with the one i stated above, that the one from from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230. [This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given CAN NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH OMAR IBN AL KHATAB SINCE Modern scholars have questioned the authenticity of this agreement (which exists in several different textual forms), claiming it to be the product of later jurists who attributed it to the caliph Umar in order to lend greater authority to their own opinions: Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the Pact, arguing that it is usually the victors, not the vanquished, who propose, or rather impose, the terms of peace, and that it is highly unlikely that the people who spoke no Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could draft such a document. Academic historians believe that the Pact of Umar in the form it is known today was a product of later jurists who attributed it to the venerated caliph Umar I in order to lend greater authority to their own opinions. The striking similarities between the Pact of Umar and the Theodesian and Justinian Codes suggest that perhaps much of the Pact of Umar was borrowed from these earlier codes by later Islamic jurists. At least some of the clauses of the pact mirror the measures first introduced by the Umayyad caliph Umar II or by the early Abbasid caliphs.[3] In addition, it should be noted that for muslims the only two sources of religious law and practice are the Qur'an and the Sunnah (documentation of the deeds and actions) of Prophet Muhammed. Both sources make it clear that the religions of others and their religious institutes should be respected, and as a result in the early history of Islam the institutes of other religions were kept intact and in fact tax monies would be used to help repair, for example, broken churches. An example of this would be how Salahuddin cleaned up a church after the conquest of Jerusalem, and similarly a church which had burnt down was repaired in Jerusalem. Scholars have argued that the Pact may have direct pre-Islamic inspiration: taken from This is the true pact This is the protection which the servant of God, 'Umar, the Ruler of the Believers has granted to the people of Eiliya [Jerusalem]. The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their coreligionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in any way. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion... Whatever is written herein is under the covenant of God and the responsibility of His Messenger, of the Caliphs and of the believers, and shall hold good as long as they pay Jizya [the tax for their defense] imposed on them." Those non-Muslims who took part in defense together with the Muslims were exempted from paying Jizya, and when the Muslims had to retreat from a city whose non-Muslim citizens had paid this tax for their defense, the tax was returned to the non-Muslims. The old, the poor and the disabled of Muslims and non-Muslims alike were provided for from the public treasury and from the Zakat funds If we compare the following pact with the one i stated above, that the one from from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given CAN NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH OMAR IBN AL KHATAB SINCE Modern scholars have questioned the authenticity of this agreement (which exists in several different textual forms), claiming it to be the product of later jurists who attributed it to the caliph Umar in order to lend greater authority to their own opinions:

Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the Pact, arguing that it is usually the victors, not the vanquished, who propose, or rather impose, the terms of peace, and that it is highly unlikely that the people who spoke no Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could draft such a document. Academic historians believe that the Pact of Umar in the form it is known today was a product of later jurists who attributed it to the venerated caliph Umar I in order to lend greater authority to their own opinions. The striking similarities between the Pact of Umar and the Theodesian and Justinian Codes suggest that perhaps much of the Pact of Umar was borrowed from these earlier codes by later Islamic jurists. At least some of the clauses of the pact mirror the measures first introduced by the Umayyad caliph Umar II or by the early Abbasid caliphs.[3]

In addition, it should be noted that for muslims the only two sources of religious law and practice are the Qur’an and the Sunnah (documentation of the deeds and actions) of Prophet Muhammed. Both sources make it clear that the religions of others and their religious institutes should be respected, and as a result in the early history of Islam the institutes of other religions were kept intact and in fact tax monies would be used to help repair, for example, broken churches. An example of this would be how Salahuddin cleaned up a church after the conquest of Jerusalem, and similarly a church which had burnt down was repaired in Jerusalem.

Scholars have argued that the Pact may have direct pre-Islamic inspiration:
taken from
This is the true pact
This is the protection which the servant of God, ‘Umar, the Ruler of the Believers has granted to the people of Eiliya [Jerusalem]. The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their coreligionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in any way. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion… Whatever is written herein is under the covenant of God and the responsibility of His Messenger, of the Caliphs and of the believers, and shall hold good as long as they pay Jizya [the tax for their defense] imposed on them.”

Those non-Muslims who took part in defense together with the Muslims were exempted from paying Jizya, and when the Muslims had to retreat from a city whose non-Muslim citizens had paid this tax for their defense, the tax was returned to the non-Muslims. The old, the poor and the disabled of Muslims and non-Muslims alike were provided for from the public treasury and from the Zakat funds

]]> By: peaceful http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/2009/11/26/muslims-should-raise-the-other-finger/comment-page-1/#comment-146 peaceful Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:25:29 +0000 http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/?p=420#comment-146 IN THE NAME OF ALLAH MOST GRACIOUS MOST MERCIFUL. As a Muslim i dennounce any terrorist act against civilians and innocents.There is no verse on Quran nor the prophet Mohamed saying that support this crime and this biggest major sin . This so called sheikh who writes against muslims with his emotional speeches and rhetoric and has no firm basis of the Quran and Sunnah, should know that the prophet Mohamed forbids killing innocents by saying Do not kill any man far advanced in years, nor a child, a baby, or a woman. In the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, declared the principle that people's lives, property, and honor are inviolable until the Day of Judgment. This ruling is not restricted to Muslims; rather, it includes non-Muslims . According to another hadith, the Prophet once said, “By God, he is not a believer, by God, he is not a believer, by God, he is not a believer, with whom his neighbors are not secure.” In the holy QURAN,God says [Quran 49:13] O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is Omniscient, Cognizant. Therefore, the religion of Islam (Submission), advocates freedom, peace and mutual agreement and admonishes aggression. The following verses make it very clear. [Quran 5:87] ...and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors. [Quran: 7:199] ...You shall resort to pardon, advocate tolerance, and disregard the ignorant. The relations of Muslims (Submitters) with others are based primarily on peace, mutual respect and trust. The theme in the Quran is peace, unless there is oppression or injustice that cannot be resolved by all the peaceful means available. As for jihad is concerned, fighting without the permission of the legal elected ruler is a transgression against his rights and over stepping the mark. If it were permissible for the people to fight without the permission of the ruler, that would lead to chaos.Moreover, pledging allegiance to him Bay’ah can only be given by the decision makers – i.e., the scholars and people of virtue and status. Once they give their allegiance to him, his position of leadership is confirmed, and the common folk do not have to give allegiance to him themselves, rather they have to obey him . The Prophet forbidden taking arms against the rulers and revolting against them even if they were unjust as long as long as they established prayers. He said this in order to prevent great corruption and evil that could emanate from taking arms against them. He also said Whoever rebels against my Ummah and fights the righteous and unrighteous of them, does not avoid its believers and does not fulfill his obligation to whom he has a contract, then they are not from me and I am not from them . [Muslim 1848] . Anyone who examines the groups that have deviated from the Straight Path will see that they have confused the people by quoting a verse or a hadeeth out of context. Therefore, We as muslim stand united against all kinds of terrorism, as only through unity will we be able to eradicate terrorists and bring them to justice. We only serve the terrorists’ cause by name-calling and false accusations of everyone who happens to be a TRUE God-fearing Muslim. Let conclude with this pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar_II The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule After the rapid expansion of the Muslim dominion in the 7th century, Muslims leaders were required to work out a way of dealing with Non-Muslims, who remained in the majority in many areas for centuries. The solution was to develop the notion of the "dhimma", or "protected person". The Dhimmi were required to pay an extra tax, but usually they were unmolested. This compares well with the treatment meted out to non-Christians in Christian Europe. The Pact of Umar is supposed to have been the peace accord offered by the Caliph Umar to the Christians of Syria, a "pact" which formed the patter of later interaction. We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows: In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you: We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims. We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days. We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims. We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children. We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it. We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit. We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas. We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons. We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals. We shall not sell fermented drinks. We shall clip the fronts of our heads. We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims. We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims. We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims. (When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.") We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct. If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition. Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact." from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230. [This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.] IN THE NAME OF ALLAH MOST GRACIOUS MOST MERCIFUL.
As a Muslim i dennounce any terrorist act against civilians and innocents.There is no verse on Quran nor the prophet Mohamed saying that support this crime and this biggest major sin . This so called sheikh who writes against muslims with his emotional speeches and rhetoric and has no firm basis of the Quran and Sunnah, should know that the prophet Mohamed forbids killing innocents by saying
Do not kill any man far advanced in years, nor a child, a baby, or a woman.

In the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, declared the principle that people’s lives, property, and honor are inviolable until the Day of Judgment. This ruling is not restricted to Muslims; rather, it includes non-Muslims .
According to another hadith, the Prophet once said, “By God, he is not a believer, by God, he is not a believer, by God, he is not a believer, with whom his neighbors are not secure.”
In the holy QURAN,God says
[Quran 49:13] O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is Omniscient, Cognizant.

Therefore, the religion of Islam (Submission), advocates freedom, peace and mutual agreement and admonishes aggression. The following verses make it very clear.

[Quran 5:87] …and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.

[Quran: 7:199] …You shall resort to pardon, advocate tolerance, and disregard the ignorant.

The relations of Muslims (Submitters) with others are based primarily on peace, mutual respect and trust. The theme in the Quran is peace, unless there is oppression or injustice that cannot be resolved by all the peaceful means available.

As for jihad is concerned,
fighting without the permission of the legal elected ruler is a transgression against his rights and over stepping the mark. If it were permissible for the people to fight without the permission of the ruler, that would lead to chaos.Moreover, pledging allegiance to him
Bay’ah can only be given by the decision makers – i.e., the scholars and people of virtue and status. Once they give their allegiance to him, his position of leadership is confirmed, and the common folk do not have to give allegiance to him themselves, rather they have to obey him .
The Prophet forbidden taking arms against the rulers and revolting against them even if they were unjust as long as long as they established prayers. He said this in order to prevent great corruption and evil that could emanate from taking arms against them.
He also said
Whoever rebels against my Ummah and fights the righteous and unrighteous of them, does not avoid its believers and does not fulfill his obligation to whom he has a contract, then they are not from me and I am not from them . [Muslim 1848] .
Anyone who examines the groups that have deviated from the Straight Path will see that they have confused the people by quoting a verse or a hadeeth out of context.
Therefore,
We as muslim stand united against all kinds of terrorism, as only through unity will we be able to eradicate terrorists and bring them to justice. We only serve the terrorists’ cause by name-calling and false accusations of everyone who happens to be a TRUE God-fearing Muslim.

Let conclude with this pact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar_II

The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule
After the rapid expansion of the Muslim dominion in the 7th century, Muslims leaders were required to work out a way of dealing with Non-Muslims, who remained in the majority in many areas for centuries. The solution was to develop the notion of the “dhimma”, or “protected person”. The Dhimmi were required to pay an extra tax, but usually they were unmolested. This compares well with the treatment meted out to non-Christians in Christian Europe. The Pact of Umar is supposed to have been the peace accord offered by the Caliph Umar to the Christians of Syria, a “pact” which formed the patter of later interaction.

We heard from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.”

from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.]

]]> By: Ali Eteraz, the Great Masturbator — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/2009/11/26/muslims-should-raise-the-other-finger/comment-page-1/#comment-145 Ali Eteraz, the Great Masturbator — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:06:43 +0000 http://trueslant.com/alieteraz/?p=420#comment-145 [...] supine passivity to defiance:“Muslims Should Raise the Other Finger,” by Ali Eteraz at True/Slant, November 26 (thanks to JW): Share and Enjoy:google_ad_client = "pub-3877091396723485"; /* 468x60, [...] [...] supine passivity to defiance:“Muslims Should Raise the Other Finger,” by Ali Eteraz at True/Slant, November 26 (thanks to JW): Share and Enjoy:google_ad_client = "pub-3877091396723485"; /* 468×60, [...]

]]>