Remembering Freedom fighters.

[IndianSuperpower]

Please explain how someone can change the status of Islamic land? By killing people and genocide them?

Yes if it does happen.... (I pray it never happens in real) then does that land still continues to be Islamic land.........

For example like we have Israel. Israel has occupied the place which was originally for palestine. But today we have Jew majority population. But there was a time it had Jew(or other I am actually not sure on this) population and then it was occupied. So does it actually qualify for being Islamic land?

 

[salman nedian]

What actually you mean by a Islamic land?
The place where muslims live in majority. But the whole planet belongs to Allah. How are you justified in calling the place only where Muslims live as the Islamic land. The whole universe is Islamic so how a single place where muslims dont live becomes unislamic... Whole world belongs to Allah so everything is Islamic..

Coming back to topic.
Palestinians and Kashmiris, they are freedom fighters. till they dont end up killing innocent civilians or firing rockets which kills the civilian population. In such a case it becomes a aggression towards the concerned state and state has the right to deal with them severly.

I agree that freedom fighters should not target the civilians. And similarly Kashmiri Mujahideens have denied any association with such elements many times and they are fighting with the occupier Indian forces only. As I have said earlier it could be possible that Indian army may be using such tactics to spread a bad name of the Kashmiri freedom struggle.

Now as far as Israel is concerned, it is not a state, it is Palestine which is occupied by Jews who are not local and given the name of Israel; unlike Kashmir where Kashmiri Hindus are locals hence killing them is not justified. Israeli civilians are not civilians, they are trained soldiers who can be called at the time of war and hence are reserve troops whereas Kashmiri Hindus are unarmed civilians.

 

[IndianSuperpower]

Now as far as Israel is concerned, it is not a state, it is Palestine which is occupied by Jews who are not local and given the name of Israel; unlike Kashmir where Kashmiri Hindus are locals hence killing them is not justified. Israeli civilians are not civilians, they are trained soldiers who can be called at the time of war and hence are reserve troops whereas Kashmiri Hindus are unarmed civilians.

Actually you did not get me....I was not trying to provoke emotional sentiments. I was trying to learn the concept. That area is currently occupied with Jews. And so it is Jew majority area now. So will it be justified to call it Islamic land?
And in the past that land was not Muslim populated before the palestenians. So in the same light how justified would it be to call it a Islamic land.

 

[salman nedian]

Yes if it does happen.... (I pray it never happens in real) then does that land still continues to be Islamic land.........

For example like we have Israel. Israel has occupied the place which was originally for palestine. But today we have Jew majority population. But there was a time it had Jew(or other I am actually not sure on this) population and then it was occupied. So does it actually qualify for being Islamic land?

Then it will be wrong and still it will remain Islamic land because majority of people accepted Islam as their religion and it will become an obligation to recover that land.

Muslims did not capture Jerusalem from Jews. It was the result of Muslim-Christian war (Muslims vs Byzantine Empire) because Jerusalem is a holy place for Muslims . With the Muslim conquest, Jews were allowed back into the city(which was not allowed during Christian period).The Rashidun caliph Hazrat Umar (RA) signed a treaty with Christian Patriarch Sophronius, assuring him that Jerusalem's Christian holy places and population would be protected under Muslim rule.

 

[salman nedian]

Actually you did not get me....I was not trying to provoke emotional sentiments. I was trying to learn the concept. That area is currently occupied with Jews. And so it is Jew majority area now. So will it be justified to call it Islamic land?
And in the past that land was not Muslim populated before the palestenians. So in the same light how justified would it be to call it a Islamic land.

Palestinians/locals of Palestine accepted Islam and it became the Islamic land. Israelis are not locals they are Europeans and displaced by the European governments so it will be considered as an aggression against the Palestine if they form Israel there.

The thing to understand is there is a misconception about Muslims displaced Jews from Palestine. In reality Jews were displaced by Christians and Muslims allowed them back as a gesture of peace and harmony because Jerusalem is the common sacred place for Muslims,Jews and Christians whereas Jews Backstabbed Palestinians( The locals).

 

[salman nedian]

Another point which we need to understand is that Islam spread by the words of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). When he preached Islam the oppressed people accepted his teachings and Arab land(including Paestine) become Muslim majority. Muslims did not commit any genocide to become the majority.

 

[vsdoc]

Another point which we need to understand is that Islam spread by the words of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). When he preached Islam the oppressed people accepted his teachings and Arab land(including Paestine) become Muslim majority. Muslims did not commit any genocide to become the majority.

There are numerous people across the world, including my own, who would LOL at your holier-than-thou statement my friend, so please spare us the religious discourse.

IndianSuperpower gets exactly what I was getting at.

What is "Islamic Majority" today was not so yesterday, and may not be so tomorrow.

So your concept of Islamic Land is the here and now, which others who came and were there before you do not accept or give any credence to.

Therefore by your definition, he who is a freedom fighter for you and yours, is a terrorist who needs to be wiped out without mercy for others.

Different strokes for different folks my friend ..... its what makes the world go around.

Cheers, Doc

 

[salman nedian]

There are numerous people across the world, including my own, who would LOL at your holier-than-thou statement my friend, so please spare us the religious discourse.

IndianSuperpower gets exactly what I was getting at.

What is "Islamic Majority" today was not so yesterday, and may not be so tomorrow.

So your concept of Islamic Land is the here and now, which others who came and were there before you do not accept or give any credence to.

Therefore by your definition, he who is a freedom fighter for you and yours, is a terrorist who needs to be wiped out without mercy for others.

Different strokes for different folks my friend ..... its what makes the world go around.

Cheers, Doc

I haven’t said that you should agree to me mate I am talking about our definition of freedom fighters.My point was that since people have accepted a way of life for themselves and they are the locals, they were not ethnically cleaned to make way; when some tries to suppress them it is become inevitable that they will fight for their honor and about how they want to live.

 

[vsdoc]

I haven’t said that you should agree to me mate I am talking about our definition of freedom fighters.My point was that since people have accepted a way of life for themselves and they are the locals, they were not ethnically cleaned to make way; when some tries to suppress them it is become inevitable that they will fight for their honor and about how they want to live.

This post of yours makes more sense than the all your others of "Islamic Land" combined, I'll give you that bro

Cheers, Doc

 

[IndianSuperpower]

Another point which we need to understand is that Islam spread by the words of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). When he preached Islam the oppressed people accepted his teachings and Arab land(including Paestine) become Muslim majority. Muslims did not commit any genocide to become the majority.

Yes I do agree with your post. There was no genocide or something like that but what my point was if there is a piece of land which was with someone else and then Muslims have it and then it goes to some one other. So initially it was an Islamic land then with the muslims it becomes islamic but when again it is with someone who is not Islamic so how can one claim that land to be Islamic because there is no Muslim majority. I mean in general without relating to the current socio-political scenerio across the world............

Do not relate it to Israel or Palestine.... Because I would like to relate it more of like fighting it against the oppressor rather than on religious grounds. Nothing like I am not Muslim so I am saying so. It is my personal belief that state and its affairs should be kept aside from religion.....

 

[salman nedian]

Yes I do agree with your post. There was no genocide or something like that but what my point was if there is a piece of land which was with someone else and then Muslims have it and then it goes to some one other. So initially it was an Islamic land then with the muslims it becomes islamic but when again it is with someone who is not Islamic so how can one claim that land to be Islamic because there is no Muslim majority. I mean in general without relating to the current socio-political scenerio across the world............

Do not relate it to Israel or Palestine.... Because I would like to relate it more of like fighting it against the oppressor rather than on religious grounds. Nothing like I am not Muslim so I am saying so. It is my personal belief that state and its affairs should be kept aside from religion.....

That is only possible by genocide or bringing the people from outside which will be considered as aggression.

 

[IndianSuperpower]

That is only possible by genocide or bringing the people from outside which will be considered as aggression.

And for the case if Muslims occupy a land forcibly........ and settle down there and after that if the locals recapture it will it still be an Islamic land.

 

[salman nedian]

And for the case if Muslims occupy a land forcibly........ and settle down there and after that if the locals recapture it will it still be an Islamic land.

Attacking any land to occupy its resources and to occupy the land has never been the teachings of Islam until and unless if the majority of people of the land are Muslims or if Muslims of that land are oppressed and they ask for help against foreign aggressors.

 

[EjazR]

This is not related to the topic discussion but I just want to clarify something.
If a state provides freedom to practice and preach religion then Jihad is not valid. This is the theological perspective.
In Kashmir, muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, they can elect their govt. and even the head of state is a muslim. Kashmiri muslims are not driven out of their lands. This is the reason why almost all Kashmiri leaders including head mufti of Kashmir and separatist leaders of the JKLF (except Geelani) have agreed that there is no Jihad in Kashmir.
Check this link out

The militant groups in kashmir do not fight the army but mostly targeted assassinations of pro-indian or pro-independence politicians. For example separatist leader Mirwaiz's father was killed by Hizb.

Another article here also covers some points I mentioned although I don't agree with everything there. Is Jehad sustainable against India?

 

[vsdoc]

Attacking any land to occupy its resources and to occupy the land has never been the teachings of Islam until and unless if the majority of people of the land are Muslims or if Muslims of that land are oppressed and they ask for help against foreign aggressors.

Again kind sir I must intercede with a humble request ..... please give us a break.

Mohameddan jihad of Zoroastrian Persia 6th century AD.

Systematic cleansing of Hindu Kashmiri Pandits from their homeland in the 1980s.

Cheers, Doc