Muslim Leaders Vow To Protect Rights Of Religious Minorities

[Dhara]

I'm more intested In the Charter of Medina than the Pact of Umar.

 

[Dhara]

The Constitution of Medina is the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule. Its principles were also based on the Qur’an and sunnah. Equipped with these principles the Prophet managed to establish the first Islamic state, which included people of multi-religious and several cultural backgrounds in an ummah wahidah (one nation) based on universal principles that constituted the Charter or as it is commonly known the ‘Constitution of Medina'.
The Constitution of Medina

The main idea is that it is unIslamic to persecute religious authorites.

Rather than ally with those who wish to bring forth peace, some would rather support ISIS in making people hate ALL Muslims regardless of their views. We must ally ourselves with the good in others.

 

[Indeependent]

The Constitution of Medina is the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule. Its principles were also based on the Qur’an and sunnah. Equipped with these principles the Prophet managed to establish the first Islamic state, which included people of multi-religious and several cultural backgrounds in an ummah wahidah (one nation) based on universal principles that constituted the Charter or as it is commonly known the ‘Constitution of Medina'.
The Constitution of Medina

The main idea is that it is unIslamic to persecute religious authorites.

It was also not very Christian to torture people to death to accept the Cavalry.
Darn reality!

 

[Dhara]

The Constitution of Madinah or the Charter of Madinah is the constitution of first Islamic State in the city of Madinah which brought an end to around 100 years’ old bitter inter-tribal fighting between the two tribes of Aws and Khazraj within Madinah. The historians further agree on the fact that this Constitution established the following in Madinah:
peace and security of the community,
religious freedom for all the community-members,
acceptance of Madinah as a sacred place (i.e. barring all violence and weapons),
security of women,
stable inter-tribal relations,
parameters for exogenous political alliances,
a system for granting protection of individuals,
a judicial system for resolving disputes,
a regulated system for the paying of Blood-money.
Contrary to the commonly leveled allegations on Islam, the history proves the fact that Islam promotes peace, freedom & equality irrespective of the race, religion or any other basis. The allegations of oppression, injustice, racism, discrimination on Islam are based on lack of knowledge and hence have no sound footings.
Source: http://www.truthaboutislam.net/constitution-of-madinah/

 

[Indeependent]

The Constitution of Madinah or the Charter of Madinah is the constitution of first Islamic State in the city of Madinah which brought an end to around 100 years’ old bitter inter-tribal fighting between the two tribes of Aws and Khazraj within Madinah. The historians further agree on the fact that this Constitution established the following in Madinah:
peace and security of the community,
religious freedom for all the community-members,
acceptance of Madinah as a sacred place (i.e. barring all violence and weapons),
security of women,
stable inter-tribal relations,
parameters for exogenous political alliances,
a system for granting protection of individuals,
a judicial system for resolving disputes,
a regulated system for the paying of Blood-money.
Contrary to the commonly leveled allegations on Islam, the history proves the fact that Islam promotes peace, freedom & equality irrespective of the race, religion or any other basis. The allegations of oppression, injustice, racism, discrimination on Islam are based on lack of knowledge and hence have no sound footings.
Source: http://www.truthaboutislam.net/constitution-of-madinah/

There was always extra taxation on non-Islamics; but they enforced religious adherence; not necessarily a bad thing.
Sadly, the Golden Age lasted a very short time.

 

[Dhara]

Despite misappropriating and misusing the name “Islamic State,” ISIS is little more than a criminal gang that attaches itself like a leech to revered symbols of Islam. It exploits counterproductive Western policies driving desperate people into its fold and uses injustices in the Muslim world as a smokescreen to cover its own cruelty.

When ISIS uses the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada, and the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) seal on its flag, it quite literally – and falsely – claims to uphold the banner of Islam. When ISIS says it is establishing a “Caliphate,” an historic term that resonates with Muslims worldwide, it does so to fool those who have experienced nothing but injustice and oppression into believing past glories will be restored.

Unfortunately, the media, political analysts and public officials – really all of us – are unwilling participants in ISIS’s public relations branding campaign.

Every time we refer to ISIS as the “Islamic State,” call its members “jihadists” or in any way grant it the religious legitimacy that it so desperately seeks, we simultaneously boost its brand, tarnish the image of Islam and further marginalize the vast majority of Muslims who are disgusted by the group’s un-Islamic actions.

Islam prohibits the extremism exhibited by ISIS. An essential part of the faith is moderation.
CAIR Director: ISIS Is Not Just Un-Islamic, It Is Anti-Islamic

 

[irosie91]

Do you mean the Pact of Umar? Is it even practiced in Islamic countries today?

They don't give a shit. All Muslims are evil.

There are some people for whom "ignore" is the best (rational) option

It seems the Pact of Umar came about during the Islamic expansion in the Middle Ages, as a means to co-exist with other religions. Of course it wasn't "fair" by standards of today (but hey - since when do these people make that distinction?) but they had a hell of a lot more rights and protections than they did in Christendom of that era. According to one source - if they joined the army and fought along side Muslims, they were freed of the pact. Compared to today - it sucked to be a religious minority anywhere in the world.

Other than probably ISIS - does any country actually practice this?

the EXPANSION started at just about the time that the KORAN was written and
Umar succeeded Muhummad as the RULER--------your "it was better than some
other shitty places" is really sick ------it stunk to high heaven. You remind me of
racists in the 60s who insisted blacks were LUCKY to be enslaved, and handed
Christianity. No------in fact under the stink and filth of Islamic law------dhimmis had
a very hard time trying to join the military-----remember---they could not own weapons-------or ride horses or camels-------they got to fight very rarely ----in the armies they carried the shit and wiped the asses of the camels and----made the shoes and--------did metallurgy. You probably heard of some exceptions to the rule----upon which islamo Nazis focus. It is very difficult to communicate with anyone who JUMPS on any exceptional case available------since you like it so much----how about agreeing that muslims should be subjected to the same ADVANTAGES. Re Read the Posts of DHARAH-----the goal is to REVIVE
the stink which is the Mecca constitution which resulted in the comprehensive
genocide of all non muslims of Yathrib AND the PACT OF OMAR which legalizes
the enslavement of non muslim children etc etc ------because those charters are
so JUST

 

[Dhara]

“We made you to be a community of the middle way, so that (with the example of your lives) you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind.” (Quran, 2:143)

 

[Coyote]

The Constitution of Madinah or the Charter of Madinah is the constitution of first Islamic State in the city of Madinah which brought an end to around 100 years’ old bitter inter-tribal fighting between the two tribes of Aws and Khazraj within Madinah. The historians further agree on the fact that this Constitution established the following in Madinah:
peace and security of the community,
religious freedom for all the community-members,
acceptance of Madinah as a sacred place (i.e. barring all violence and weapons),
security of women,
stable inter-tribal relations,
parameters for exogenous political alliances,
a system for granting protection of individuals,
a judicial system for resolving disputes,
a regulated system for the paying of Blood-money.
Contrary to the commonly leveled allegations on Islam, the history proves the fact that Islam promotes peace, freedom & equality irrespective of the race, religion or any other basis. The allegations of oppression, injustice, racism, discrimination on Islam are based on lack of knowledge and hence have no sound footings.
Source: http://www.truthaboutislam.net/constitution-of-madinah/

I would disagree there - Islam was no worse, but also not necessarily better than it's religious counterparts in pre-modern times. They were very more advanced in certain ways, especially compared to the Christian medievil world, they were more tolerant of religious diversity. Freedom, equality and peace is all relative and women certainly did not enjoy it nor did homesexuals. The problem with groups like ISIS is they are taking a Medievil model and force it on today's people.

 

[Dhara]

“And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors,” (The Quran, 2:190).

 

[Coyote]

Do you mean the Pact of Umar? Is it even practiced in Islamic countries today?

They don't give a shit. All Muslims are evil.

There are some people for whom "ignore" is the best (rational) option

It seems the Pact of Umar came about during the Islamic expansion in the Middle Ages, as a means to co-exist with other religions. Of course it wasn't "fair" by standards of today (but hey - since when do these people make that distinction?) but they had a hell of a lot more rights and protections than they did in Christendom of that era. According to one source - if they joined the army and fought along side Muslims, they were freed of the pact. Compared to today - it sucked to be a religious minority anywhere in the world.

Other than probably ISIS - does any country actually practice this?

the EXPANSION started at just about the time that the KORAN was written and
Umar succeeded Muhummad as the RULER--------your "it was better than some
other shitty places" is really sick ------it stunk to high heaven. You remind me of
racists in the 60s who insisted blacks were LUCKY to be enslaved, and handed
Christianity. No------in fact under the stink and filth of Islamic law------dhimmis had
a very hard time trying to join the military-----remember---they could not own weapons-------or ride horses or camels-------they got to fight very rarely ----in the armies they carried the shit and wiped the asses of the camels and----made the shoes and--------did metallurgy. You probably heard of some exceptions to the rule----upon which islamo Nazis focus. It is very difficult to communicate with anyone who JUMPS on any exceptional case available------since you like it so much----how about agreeing that muslims should be subjected to the same ADVANTAGES. Re Read the Posts of DHARAH-----the goal is to REVIVE
the stink which is the Mecca constitution which resulted in the comprehensive
genocide of all non muslims of Yathrib AND the PACT OF OMAR which legalizes
the enslavement of non muslim children etc etc ------because those charters are
so JUST

I think you miss the whole point of what I said. How good or how bad something is often relative to the times in which it exists. In the Middle Ages it sucked to be the wrong religion (and to be a lot of other things too). But it might have been better than was available in other countries. Comparing it to modern standards of freedom, equality and rights is silly because standards were different then and most people had NO rights.

Do any countries still practice the Pact of Umar?

 

[irosie91]

Despite misappropriating and misusing the name “Islamic State,” ISIS is little more than a criminal gang that attaches itself like a leech to revered symbols of Islam. It exploits counterproductive Western policies driving desperate people into its fold and uses injustices in the Muslim world as a smokescreen to cover its own cruelty.

When ISIS uses the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada, and the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) seal on its flag, it quite literally – and falsely – claims to uphold the banner of Islam. When ISIS says it is establishing a “Caliphate,” an historic term that resonates with Muslims worldwide, it does so to fool those who have experienced nothing but injustice and oppression into believing past glories will be restored.

Unfortunately, the media, political analysts and public officials – really all of us – are unwilling participants in ISIS’s public relations branding campaign.

Every time we refer to ISIS as the “Islamic State,” call its members “jihadists” or in any way grant it the religious legitimacy that it so desperately seeks, we simultaneously boost its brand, tarnish the image of Islam and further marginalize the vast majority of Muslims who are disgusted by the group’s un-Islamic actions.

Islam prohibits the extremism exhibited by ISIS. An essential part of the faith is moderation.
CAIR Director: ISIS Is Not Just Un-Islamic, It Is Anti-Islamic

^^^^^^ ROFLMAO----Isis is a replica of BAGHDAD---the abbasid caliphate----
----faithful to the original in detail

 

[irosie91]

Do you mean the Pact of Umar? Is it even practiced in Islamic countries today?

They don't give a shit. All Muslims are evil.

There are some people for whom "ignore" is the best (rational) option

It seems the Pact of Umar came about during the Islamic expansion in the Middle Ages, as a means to co-exist with other religions. Of course it wasn't "fair" by standards of today (but hey - since when do these people make that distinction?) but they had a hell of a lot more rights and protections than they did in Christendom of that era. According to one source - if they joined the army and fought along side Muslims, they were freed of the pact. Compared to today - it sucked to be a religious minority anywhere in the world.

Other than probably ISIS - does any country actually practice this?

the EXPANSION started at just about the time that the KORAN was written and
Umar succeeded Muhummad as the RULER--------your "it was better than some
other shitty places" is really sick ------it stunk to high heaven. You remind me of
racists in the 60s who insisted blacks were LUCKY to be enslaved, and handed
Christianity. No------in fact under the stink and filth of Islamic law------dhimmis had
a very hard time trying to join the military-----remember---they could not own weapons-------or ride horses or camels-------they got to fight very rarely ----in the armies they carried the shit and wiped the asses of the camels and----made the shoes and--------did metallurgy. You probably heard of some exceptions to the rule----upon which islamo Nazis focus. It is very difficult to communicate with anyone who JUMPS on any exceptional case available------since you like it so much----how about agreeing that muslims should be subjected to the same ADVANTAGES. Re Read the Posts of DHARAH-----the goal is to REVIVE
the stink which is the Mecca constitution which resulted in the comprehensive
genocide of all non muslims of Yathrib AND the PACT OF OMAR which legalizes
the enslavement of non muslim children etc etc ------because those charters are
so JUST

I think you miss the whole point of what I said. How good or how bad something is often relative to the times in which it exists. In the Middle Ages it sucked to be the wrong religion (and to be a lot of other things too). But it might have been better than was available in other countries. Comparing it to modern standards of freedom, equality and rights is silly because standards were different then and most people had NO rights.

Do any countries still practice the Pact of Umar?

I already answered-------the PACT OF OMAR still exists-----its victims have largely escaped the filth you trivialize. That enslavement of dhimmi orphan thing that
you insisted was MY LIE-------is still happening-----to amuse you and still considered an IDEAL and a HOLY LAW by adherent muslims
"standards were different then'??? actually they were not-----enslavement was FILTH for the enslaved

 

[Coyote]

Do you mean the Pact of Umar? Is it even practiced in Islamic countries today?

They don't give a shit. All Muslims are evil.

There are some people for whom "ignore" is the best (rational) option

It seems the Pact of Umar came about during the Islamic expansion in the Middle Ages, as a means to co-exist with other religions. Of course it wasn't "fair" by standards of today (but hey - since when do these people make that distinction?) but they had a hell of a lot more rights and protections than they did in Christendom of that era. According to one source - if they joined the army and fought along side Muslims, they were freed of the pact. Compared to today - it sucked to be a religious minority anywhere in the world.

Other than probably ISIS - does any country actually practice this?

the EXPANSION started at just about the time that the KORAN was written and
Umar succeeded Muhummad as the RULER--------your "it was better than some
other shitty places" is really sick ------it stunk to high heaven. You remind me of
racists in the 60s who insisted blacks were LUCKY to be enslaved, and handed
Christianity. No------in fact under the stink and filth of Islamic law------dhimmis had
a very hard time trying to join the military-----remember---they could not own weapons-------or ride horses or camels-------they got to fight very rarely ----in the armies they carried the shit and wiped the asses of the camels and----made the shoes and--------did metallurgy. You probably heard of some exceptions to the rule----upon which islamo Nazis focus. It is very difficult to communicate with anyone who JUMPS on any exceptional case available------since you like it so much----how about agreeing that muslims should be subjected to the same ADVANTAGES. Re Read the Posts of DHARAH-----the goal is to REVIVE
the stink which is the Mecca constitution which resulted in the comprehensive
genocide of all non muslims of Yathrib AND the PACT OF OMAR which legalizes
the enslavement of non muslim children etc etc ------because those charters are
so JUST

I think you miss the whole point of what I said. How good or how bad something is often relative to the times in which it exists. In the Middle Ages it sucked to be the wrong religion (and to be a lot of other things too). But it might have been better than was available in other countries. Comparing it to modern standards of freedom, equality and rights is silly because standards were different then and most people had NO rights.

Do any countries still practice the Pact of Umar?

I already answered-------the PACT OF OMAR still exists-----its victims have largely escaped the filth you trivialize. That enslavement of dhimmi orphan thing that
you insisted was MY LIE-------is still happening-----to amuse you and still considered an IDEAL and a HOLY LAW by adherent muslims
"standards were different then'??? actually they were not-----enslavement was FILTH for the enslaved

Which countries still practice the Pact of Umar in their laws?

 

[Dhara]

Charter of Medina-- discuss that. That is what this conference wants to re-establish.

 

[Dhara]

How Did the Muslim Community Start?
As Mohammed set about communicating the messages to the people of Mecca, a couple things happened. First, a small but devoted group in the city embraced this new message. Second, the ruling tribe in Mecca did not like that. The Islamic message flew directly in the face of their polytheistic religions. As such, over 12 years, the new adherents to Islam trickled out of Mecca to safer places, and in 622, Mohammed snuck out of Mecca at night to avoid assassination by the ruling tribe. He and his followers traveled north, to Medina.
In Medina, Mohammed encountered tribes in conflict, and he served as a mediator between the tribes. In that mediation, we see one of the first examples of a political outgrowth of what Mohammed was reciting. He drafted what you might call a constitution for Medina, outlining the relationship between the Jewish and Muslim people in the city, establishing processes for maintaining peace and dividing authority. And it was here that Mohammed delivered longer, more robust suras with far more information about how to follow and understand Islam.
Every tribe on the Peninsula at that time used warfare as an expected part of trade and movement. In the United States, we litigate. In the 6th and 7th centuries, conflict resolution was substantially bloodier for everyone. As the population of Muslim believers grew, they naturally accrued a sizable military force, one that could pose a threat to the ruling tribe in Mecca. When Mohammed led his followers back to Mecca, the city surrendered and dramatically swelled the number of believers who, in some cases, weren’t offered much choice in what the city religion would be going forward. (For the interested reader, check out the prosthelytizing activity in ancient Israel that occurred more than a millennium before Mohammed. Not much choice there either. Likewise, Constantine did not provide his subjects a choice when he declared his empire Christian.)
After the conquest of Mecca, the community of Muslims grew rapidly, and alongside this growth, the Persian and Byzantine empires, exhausted from constant war, left a power vacuum in the region. The unified tribes on the Arabian Peninsula, with their newly acquired belief system, filled that vacuum. It became an empire governed by a religious tradition, just as the Persian and Byzantine empires had operated before it.


Read more: Don’t Know Much About Islam…And That’s a Problem

 

[Dhara]

What then is the threat we face today? Is it Islam? No, that’s far too simplistic. Is it “political Islam?” That’s almost a nonsensical phrase; all religions are to a degree political. Is it “political Islam that governs a caliphate?” Only if that caliphate looks like ISIS and declares war on us (and right now, ISIS accounts for 0.01% of the world’s Muslims).
No, it’s more fundamental than that. Our greatest threat is twofold:

1. Unchecked growth of a violent ideology that draws from but does not define Islam; and
2. An uncontested worldview that pits Muslims against non-Muslims.
We will not be able to address either of these points if we talk, plan and operate from a position of ignorance. Neither the fear-mongering pundits on TV nor the murderers in Iraq and Syria are helping this. They’re making it worse by the minute. We can undercut both of their hurtful messages with just a little information, understanding and communication.


Read more: Don’t Know Much About Islam…And That’s a Problem

 

[irosie91]

Do you mean the Pact of Umar? Is it even practiced in Islamic countries today?

They don't give a shit. All Muslims are evil.

There are some people for whom "ignore" is the best (rational) option

It seems the Pact of Umar came about during the Islamic expansion in the Middle Ages, as a means to co-exist with other religions. Of course it wasn't "fair" by standards of today (but hey - since when do these people make that distinction?) but they had a hell of a lot more rights and protections than they did in Christendom of that era. According to one source - if they joined the army and fought along side Muslims, they were freed of the pact. Compared to today - it sucked to be a religious minority anywhere in the world.

Other than probably ISIS - does any country actually practice this?

the EXPANSION started at just about the time that the KORAN was written and
Umar succeeded Muhummad as the RULER--------your "it was better than some
other shitty places" is really sick ------it stunk to high heaven. You remind me of
racists in the 60s who insisted blacks were LUCKY to be enslaved, and handed
Christianity. No------in fact under the stink and filth of Islamic law------dhimmis had
a very hard time trying to join the military-----remember---they could not own weapons-------or ride horses or camels-------they got to fight very rarely ----in the armies they carried the shit and wiped the asses of the camels and----made the shoes and--------did metallurgy. You probably heard of some exceptions to the rule----upon which islamo Nazis focus. It is very difficult to communicate with anyone who JUMPS on any exceptional case available------since you like it so much----how about agreeing that muslims should be subjected to the same ADVANTAGES. Re Read the Posts of DHARAH-----the goal is to REVIVE
the stink which is the Medina constitution which resulted in the comprehensive
genocide of all non muslims of Yathrib AND the PACT OF OMAR which legalizes
the enslavement of non muslim children etc etc ------because those charters are
so JUST

I think you miss the whole point of what I said. How good or how bad something is often relative to the times in which it exists. In the Middle Ages it sucked to be the wrong religion (and to be a lot of other things too). But it might have been better than was available in other countries. Comparing it to modern standards of freedom, equality and rights is silly because standards were different then and most people had NO rights.

Do any countries still practice the Pact of Umar?

Try again , Coyote-----your fellow islamo Nazi dogs are LAUDING the Pact of Omar and the Medina Constitution as FAIR AND JUST for the PRESENT WORLD------may you and yours
fall under the PROTECTION of both plans ----- or the analogous Nuremburg laws----which ever you like best

 

[Unkotare]

iloony is obsessed with her bigotry.

 

[irosie91]

What then is the threat we face today? Is it Islam? No, that’s far too simplistic. Is it “political Islam?” That’s almost a nonsensical phrase; all religions are to a degree political. Is it “political Islam that governs a caliphate?” Only if that caliphate looks like ISIS and declares war on us (and right now, ISIS accounts for 0.01% of the world’s Muslims).
No, it’s more fundamental than that. Our greatest threat is twofold:

1. Unchecked growth of a violent ideology that draws from but does not define Islam; and
2. An uncontested worldview that pits Muslims against non-Muslims.
We will not be able to address either of these points if we talk, plan and operate from a position of ignorance. Neither the fear-mongering pundits on TV nor the murderers in Iraq and Syria are helping this. They’re making it worse by the minute. We can undercut both of their hurtful messages with just a little information, understanding and communication.


Read more: Don’t Know Much About Islam…And That’s a Problem

your citation is PROPAGANDA dhara-----I know about islam from muslims and from relatives who SURVIVED it-----I laughed my way thru the crappy citation