true2god:
Not all protest are justified especially if its certain that life will be lost. The man that allegedly made the statement left unscathed while hundreds of non-muslims were killed and churches burnt. How can you justify Nigerians protesting over a cartoon drawn in far away Denmark? How does it affect us as a nation? And again, you can't censor and regulate how people should talk and think because it affects your religion. That's a crazy way of thinking! Comparing Islam to a scorpion is also derogatory, even if you don't know.

I am not justifying the killing of innocent non-Muslims and those who do it will face Allah on the day of Judgement, I didn't know that non-muslims were killed. I was not comparing Islam to a scorpion I am just giving you an example. Who is it in the world that doesn't know how the Muslims regard Muhammad S.A.W.

true2god:


You are listing all the atrocities against Muslims without listing the atrocities of Muslims against non-muslims. Islam has been at war with non-muslims since its inception; I don't have to school you on this.

Islam has never done anything like massacre in its history before. We spread the word of Allah, where ever the people start to kill the Muslims and stop the word of Allah from spreading it is obligatory upon the Muslims to fight them. Anyone who does something order than this is on his own.

true2god:


All the first rightly guided khalifas are warmongers who spread the religion through the sword. On the Rohyinga issue, the Rohyinga people are from Bangladesh (formerly part of India) who supported the British war effort against the Japanese in the 2nd world war. After the defeat of Japan, they were gifted with large chunk of land in Burma, now Myanmar, (the Burmanese supporting the Japanese) where they settle for over 50 years. The Myanmar people are only kicking the Rohyinga people out from their ancestral land. The Indian and the Bangladesh govt understood this simple historical fact hence they can do little by only ensuring that the Rohyinga people are relocated back to Bangladesh where they rightfully belong to. Read history and not media propaganda.

If this people were Christians or any other religion they wouldn't have been kicked out. If you support this then, that means you justify the presence of the whites in South Africa.

true2god:


You are only blaming the west while Muslims are all ready to relocate to the west in their hundreds of millions. As long as many people don't put their house in order, they west will continue to play you like a 'ludo'. The Chinese people put their house in order and are now free from western control and interference. Put your house in order and no troublesome neighbour will disorganize your home.

You're right but it's not as easy as you think. The presence of the French and British people have disunited the Muslims and many tribes around the world. So it's not as easy as you think. Besides it's all prophesy that's happening when the time comes the forces of evil shall crawl on their knees.

true2god:
Which country then represents Islam? Muslims are always denying the Saudis anytime they 'misbehave'. The Saudis determines who performs hajj, and who don't, hence holding the key to the spiritual fulfilment of millions of Muslims.

By their fruits we shall know them. The fruits of Islam are there for all to see. You can't be a more Islamic than the prophet and the 'rightly' guided khalifas. I don't need to tell you that your prophets grandchildren were not killed by the Jews and the Christians but by fellow Muslims, hence the descendants of the prophet were completely WIPED OUT!

I tried rationalize what you just posted

Empiree:
So caging Rohingya and burning them alive and many were buried alive is "chasing them out" from their ancestral land?. Whats the point of judicial process?. then, blame the british. British created problems we are seeing in the world today not islam. The issues of sahaba you raised are within muslims. Compare that to what British(christians/Jews) did to the world of mankind. So you are justifying indiscriminate killing of Rohingya muslims over a land just like many of you guys justified killing of Palestinians. Kontinu

You are obviously not a christlike

I don't justify what is happening to the Rohyinga people but just to keep the record straight. Many Muslims are ignorant of the genesis of the crisis which was caused by the British people. You will agree with me that the Rohyjnga people can't be Myanmar people and Bangladeshi at the same time. If you have taken time to study their facial and physiological make up you will know that they are more Indian than Myanmarn hence are naturally Bangladeshis.

The Islamic Turks repatriated millions of Christian Armenians to Eastern Europe and where is the outcry from the Muslim world? The Turkish genocide against the Armenians is still fresh but no Muslim talk about it. As far as Muslims are not the victims it is OK to Muslims. Does the land belong to the Rohyinga people or the Burmese?

If you acquire land illegally, it will be forcefully consficated from you.

Empiree:
I tried rationalize what you just posted

Read and again and slowly.

true2god:
I don't justify what is happening to the Rohyinga people but just to keep the record straight. Many Muslims are ignorant of the genesis of the crisis which was caused by the British people. You will agree with me that the Rohyjnga people can't be Myanmar people and Bangladeshi at the same time. If you have taken time to study their facial and physiological make up you will know that they are more Indian than Myanmarn hence are naturally Bangladeshis.

The Islamic Turks repatriated millions of Christian Armenians to Eastern Europe and where is the outcry from the Muslim world? The Turkish genocide against the Armenians is still fresh but no Muslim talk about it. As far as Muslims are not the victims it is OK to Muslims. Does the land belong to the Rohyinga people or the Burmese?

If you acquire land illegally, it will be forcefully consficated from you.

Again, who do you blame, British or Rohingya?. Aren't the same british that forced marriage on different tribes and ethnic groups in nigeria?. Their horrible crimes are well and alive far more than Turks treatments of armenia. I do not condone Armenian genocide. Up to this mins, it is western world that constantly reminds the world of Armenia genocide while ignoring theirs. If we put percentages side by side, obviously Judeo/christian terrorists did worst. Let's just start from 18 century alone. Or have you forgotten Italian brutal invasion and genocide of Libyans under Mussolini and general Graciani?. Apart from Armenian genocide, you can hardly point to where muslim authority was invading countries and on killing rampage. it is very rare. But Judeo/christian terrorist have long record of invading muslim countries and killing them till this second. But if you want to use the terrorists created by them to make us believe they are muslims, you wrong. We all know isis and co are covert operations. Therefore, they can't be solely muslim vs others.

true2god:
Read and again and slowly.

no, i understand you but you missed. I said clearly that we respect Saudi and also showed "brotherly affection and love" bcus of presence of Makkah and Medina. Other than this they are nothing. We have detailed reality about them in hadith.

It seems Saudi is now embracing secularism, they now see the enjoyment and benefit associating with secular things.

They should keep it up.

true2god:
I don't justify what is happening to the Rohyinga people but just to keep the record straight. Many Muslims are ignorant of the genesis of the crisis which was caused by the British people. You will agree with me that the Rohyjnga people can't be Myanmar people and Bangladeshi at the same time. If you have taken time to study their facial and physiological make up you will know that they are more Indian than Myanmarn hence are naturally Bangladeshis.

The Islamic Turks repatriated millions of Christian Armenians to Eastern Europe and where is the outcry from the Muslim world? The Turkish genocide against the Armenians is still fresh but no Muslim talk about it. As far as Muslims are not the victims it is OK to Muslims. Does the land belong to the Rohyinga people or the Burmese?

If you acquire land illegally, it will be forcefully consficated from you.

The Armenians were oppressing Muslims until Turkey changed the picture besides Armenians had the support of fellow Greeks.

An advice to true2god:
if you're truly true2god then you should study Islam from the orthodox creed if you continue jumping around you'll not see the truth. Start from the bottom to the top, not from the top to the buttom. Islam doesn't have any faults it is the Muslims who have faults.

Empiree:
Again, who do you blame, British or Rohingya?. Aren't the same british that forced marriage on different tribes and ethnic groups in nigeria?. Their horrible crimes are well and alive far more than Turks treatments of armenia. I do not condone Armenian genocide. Up to this mins, it is western world that constantly reminds the world of Armenia genocide while ignoring theirs. If we put percentages side by side, obviously Judeo/christian terrorists did worst. Let's just start from 18 century alone. Or have you forgotten Italian brutal invasion and genocide of Libyans under Mussolini and general Graciani?. Apart from Armenian genocide, you can hardly point to where muslim authority was invading countries and on killing rampage. it is very rare. But Judeo/christian terrorist have long record of invading muslim countries and killing them till this second. But if you want to use the terrorists created by them to make us believe they are muslims, you wrong. We all know isis and co are covert operations. Therefore, they can't be solely muslim vs others.

Yes, the British run the most genocidal empire known to man. You have to understand that the Arabs are also guilty as the British people. Both are expansionist and imperialist by nature.

The British created the mess in Myanmar and run away for the current generation to clear the mess; the same thing they did in Palestine after the Balfour declaration that sealed the creation of the state of Israel. When you remove the religious lens in appraising the global politics, you will understand better the complex issues affecting this world.

true2god:
Yes, the British run the most genocidal empire known to man. You have to understand that the Arabs are also guilty as the British people. Both are expansionist and imperialist by nature.

The British created the mess in Myanmar and run away for the current generation to clear the mess; the same thing they did in Palestine after the Balfour declaration that sealed the creation of the state of Israel. When you remove the religious lens in appraising the global politics, you will understand better the complex issues affecting this world.

So you can tell me to remove the religion lens after I mentioned "Judeo/Christian TERRORISTS", abi?. But you comfortably attributed violence to Muslims but you don't want to do the same with Jews and Christians.

najib632:
An advice to true2god:
if you're truly true2god then you should study Islam from the orthodox creed if you continue jumping around you'll not see the truth. Start from the bottom to the top, not from the top to the buttom. Islam doesn't have any faults it is the Muslims who have faults.

No religion without its fault; no perfect religion bro.

Empiree:
So you can tell me to remove the religion lens after I mentioned "Judeo/Christian TERRORISTS", abi?. But you comfortably attributed violence to Muslims but you don't want to do the same with Jews and Christians.

Check my old post; I have always advised people to remove the religious lens on certain issues.

true2god:
Check my old post; I have always advised people to remove the religious lens on certain issues.

But you said this earlier

true2god:


By their fruits we shall know them. The fruits of Islam are there for all to see. You can't be a more Islamic than the prophet and the 'rightly' guided khalifas. I don't need to tell you that your prophets grandchildren were not killed by the Jews and the Christians but by fellow Muslims, hence the descendants of the prophet were completely WIPED OUT!

And now because I mentioned Judeo/Christian TERRORISTS you backtracked

true2god:
I read from somewhere that the Saudi Royal families are actually of Jewish ancestry and are directly reporting to the Rotschild Jewish family in all their affairs. They must claim Muslims for internal and international legitimacy but are secret Jews. Have you wondered why the Saudi Royal family and the British Royal family are so close? The British Royal family are equally loyal to the Rothschild family who owned over 50% of global wealth.

The Saudis would rather destroy the Shi'a Iran yet make a good friend of the Israelis. No matter what the Israeli do, the Saudis will always back them up secretly while the ignorant Muslims will protest in their various countries or embassies.

The world have to wake up to the fact that they are being mentally played.

Yeah, there are lots of submissions establishing the Jewish origin of al-Saud; however, non of them is credible. The fact is, Saudi regime (of whatever origin) does not represent Islam or Muslim. Only fool and slowpoke can be deceived.

Saudi regime sold Palestine to the British and U.S. to allow the Israeli occupation.

Saudi regime orchestrated the Sunni Othoman Caliphate, destroyed the Prophet's lineage of Hijaz and exiled rest of them; then with British help established al-Saud dynasty.

Saudi's hypocrisy and atrocities are second to none but Muslim world continues to be fooled thinking they are custodian of kaaba.

Empiree:
But you said this earlier




And now because I mentioned Judeo/Christian TERRORISTS you backtracked

The submission was based on the claim by 'najib632' that Islam is very peaceful when the opposite is true. At least it is on record that Mohammed's household was not wiped out by the Jews or the Christians but by the Muslims. And it is also on record that the new Islamic state went to a civil war immediately after the demise of the prophet, the battle against the apostates led by Abu Bakr.

The records are there for you to verify. I will however agree with you that the so-called Christian world have been the greatest threat to human existence, especially in this atomic age. The Christians world will surely destroy this world with their atomic weapon stockpile. And note, the Islamic world are also developing a new weapon program (Pakistan and Iran for now).

true2god:
The submission was based on the claim by 'najib632' that Islam is very peaceful when the opposite is true. At least it is on record that Mohammed's household was not wiped out by the Jews or the Christians but by the Muslims. And it is also on record that the new Islamic state went to a civil war immediately after the demise of the prophet, the battle against the apostates led by Abu Bakr.

The records are there for you to verify. I will however agree with you that the so-called Christian world have been the greatest threat to human existence, especially in this atomic age. The Christians world will surely destroy this world with their atomic weapon stockpile. And note, the Islamic world are also developing a new weapon program (Pakistan and Iran for now).

Need I say more?. You summed it all by acknowledging facts but spoiled it by adding "so called"to suggest they are not necessarily CHRISTIANs. Anyways you agree that Jews and Christian terrorists are greatest threats to humanity right now.

Even though you decided to bring about way against apostates by Abu Bakr (ra), I can also go back to history. Before prophet muhammad (saw), didn't Jews and CHRISTIANS at war as well?. How about Roman army that invaded Jerusalem and destroyed it?. And other countless wars like that before the advent of Nabi Muhammad, were they muslims?

true2god:
The submission was based on the claim by 'najib632' that Islam is very peaceful when the opposite is true. At least it is on record that Mohammed's household was not wiped out by the Jews or the Christians but by the Muslims. And it is also on record that the new Islamic state went to a civil war immediately after the demise of the prophet, the battle against the apostates led by Abu Bakr.

The records are there for you to verify. I will however agree with you that the so-called Christian world have been the greatest threat to human existence, especially in this atomic age. The Christians world will surely destroy this world with their atomic weapon stockpile. And note, the Islamic world are also developing a new weapon program (Pakistan and Iran for now).

Some of the Apostates were still mourning the death of the messenger of Allah S.A.W, some were his companions, while some of the them became apostates because of greed and power. They had to be dealt with in order to preserve, Islam. I swear by Allah there are no leaders from amongst the Christian rulers that are even close to the piety of Abubakar R.A, Umar R.A, Uthman R.A and Ali R.A. All the people that caused fitnah are lovers of the world and Allah will Judge them. Since when that Jew named Abdullah ibn Sabah became a Muslim in order to cause problems amongst the Muslims. He started to spread lies about Usman R.A in Medina, he failed. Then he went to greater Syria, were there wasn't a great presence of the companions of the messenger of Allah S.A.W, he succeeded in this until he was able to cause the death of Usman R.A.
Another problem was when some of the companions refused to listen to Ali R.A. Mu'awiyya R.A refused to reason with Ali R.A, this caused the troubles to escalate. Mu'awiyya R.A later became the khalifah after the death of Ali R.A and after Hassan ibn Ali R.A abdicated. Out of carelessness tyrants were appointed as governors, these caused the massacre of the lineage of the prophet Muhammad S.A.W and there's no one to blame for their deaths but the people of Kuffah and their governor. Yazid will also take a share of the blame for not executing the murderers, there's a hadith that said he cried when he saw the head of Hussein R.A, but I say that his tears were crocodile tears since he didn't execute the murderers. He let one of the descendants of Hussein R.A survive and that's Ali ibn Hussein commonly known as Zayn al-abideen. The same thing happened when the son of Zayn al-abideen went to Kuffa and the same thing was carried out by the people of Kuffa whom have become shia. The shia will come and say things out of ignorance.

Empiree:
Need I say more?. You summed it all by acknowledging facts but spoiled it by adding "so called"to suggest they are not necessarily CHRISTIANs. Anyways you agree that Jews and Christian terrorists are greatest threats to humanity right now.

Even though you decided to bring about way against apostates by Abu Bakr (ra), I can also go back to history. Before prophet muhammad (saw), didn't Jews and CHRISTIANS at war as well?. How about Roman army that invaded Jerusalem and destroyed it?. And other countless wars like that before the advent of Nabi Muhammad, were they muslims?

I used the words 'so-called' because their activities ran against the teachings of Christ. And using the word 'Christian terrorist' is very strange and equally funny.

The destruction of Jerusalem was foretold in Matthew 24 by Jesus and this event took place in 70AD while led to the sacking of the Jews from Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple of Solomon. This is the 'abomination of desolation' standing on the holy place which the Bible foretold by the prophet Daniel. The Romans, at least in the 1st and the 2nd century of the Christian era does not identify with Christianity and not until the 4th century, in the council of nicea, 'integrated' Christianity into their sociopolitical order headed by the pope. You are often equating the Romans with Christianity but history proved that the greatest persecutor of the Christian church is the papacy or the Roman Catholic. I don't want to drag this issue off tangent so much.

My argument is summarized thus: the rightly guided khalifas can be said to understand Islam more than any contemporary Muslim hence their actions can be judge as sunnah of the prophet. If all the rightly guided khalifas are warmongers and battle field generals, it will be difficult to conclude that Islam is a religion of peace. The battle of Badr was not provoked by the apostates but by Abu Bakr in order to forcefully bring the apostates back to the fold and Islam and to ensure that they pay zakat to the Islamic state under the new leadership of Abu Bakr as sadiq. This action by Abu Bakr, in this modern world, will be viewed as unwanted provocation and forceful conversion of unwilling citizens. The apostates never threatened the Muslims here.

Check taarikhul khulafaa' and see how imam suyuti cursed yazid for the atrocity he did against aali Muhammad sawa, by killing imam hussein as, history has it that when the head of the imam was brought to him he said, this- he has just taken his revenge on the prophet sawa for what he sawa did to his father muawiyah. Shia are not speaking out of ignorance but base on facts.

najib632:
Some of the Apostates were still mourning the death of the messenger of Allah S.A.W, some were his companions, while some of the them became apostates because of greed and power. They had to be dealt with in order to preserve, Islam. I swear by Allah there are no leaders from amongst the Christian rulers that are even close to the piety of Abubakar R.A, Umar R.A, Uthman R.A and Ali R.A. All the people that caused fitnah are lovers of the world and Allah will Judge them. Since when that Jew named Abdullah ibn Sabah became a Muslim in order to cause problems amongst the Muslims. He started to spread lies about Usman R.A in Medina, he failed. Then he went to greater Syria, were there wasn't a great presence of the companions of the messenger of Allah S.A.W, he succeeded in this until he was able to cause the death of Usman R.A.
Another problem was when some of the companions refused to listen to Ali R.A. Mu'awiyya R.A refused to reason with Ali R.A, this caused the troubles to escalate. Mu'awiyya R.A later became the khalifah after the death of Ali R.A and after Hassan ibn Ali R.A abdicated. Out of carelessness tyrants were appointed as governors, these caused the massacre of the lineage of the prophet Muhammad S.A.W and there's no one to blame for their deaths but the people of Kuffah and their governor. Yazid will also take a share of the blame for not executing the murderers, there's a hadith that said he cried when he saw the head of Hussein R.A, but I say that his tears were crocodile tears since he didn't execute the murderers. He let one of the descendants of Hussein R.A survive and that's Ali ibn Hussein commonly known as Zayn al-abideen. The same thing happened when the son of Zayn al-abideen went to Kuffa and the same thing was carried out by the people of Kuffa whom have become shia. The shia will come and say things out of ignorance.

You said the apostates has to be dealt with in order to preserve Islam. In order words, if Abu Bakr had not fought the apostates, Islam would have collapsed. That means that much credit should be given to Abu Bakr for the battle of Badr, at least from your own point of view.

If Abu Bakr will fight a civil war to keep Islam from collapsing, why did you the conclude that Islam is a peaceful religion?

true2god:
You said the apostates has to be dealt with in order to preserve Islam. In order words, if Abu Bakr had not fought the apostates, Islam would have collapsed. That means that much credit should be given to Abu Bakr for the battle of Badr, at least from your own point of view.

If Abu Bakr will fight a civil war to keep Islam from collapsing, why did you the conclude that Islam is a peaceful religion?

First, it is not "battle of badr" but "battle of ridda".

Second, those fought at the battle of ridda by Caliph Abubakar were NEVER apostates. Unfortunately history painted them so to save the Caliph's face and judgment. Abubakar murdered Muslims and Sahabah of the Prophet based on what? Their refusal to pay him zakat.
Same happened at the time of the Prophet when a Sahabah refused to pay zakat but the merciful Prophet never murdered anyone.

Third, it is very true that Muslim leaders were very cruel after the demise of the Prophet. However, there are some war you just have to fight to maintain justice and equity.

AlBaqir:

First, it is not "battle of badr" but "battle of ridda".

Thanks for the correction.

true2god:
I used the words 'so-called' because their activities ran against the teachings of Christ. And using the word 'Christian terrorist' is very strange and equally funny.

"strange & funny"? but "Islamic terrorists" is relative and not oxymoron?. Media is fantastic. They successfully brainwashed you people to believe that every slight misdeed of muslims is act of terrorism.

The destruction of Jerusalem was foretold in Matthew 24 by Jesus and this event took place in 70AD while led to the sacking of the Jews from Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple of Solomon. This is the 'abomination of desolation' standing on the holy place which the Bible foretold by the prophet Daniel. The Romans, at least in the 1st and the 2nd century of the Christian era does not identify with Christianity and not until the 4th century, in the council of nicea, 'integrated' Christianity into their sociopolitical order headed by the pope. You are often equating the Romans with Christianity but history proved that the greatest persecutor of the Christian church is the papacy or the Roman Catholic. I don't want to drag this issue off tangent so much.

My argument is summarized thus: the rightly guided khalifas can be said to understand Islam more than any contemporary Muslim hence their actions can be judge as sunnah of the prophet. If all the rightly guided khalifas are warmongers and battle field generals, it will be difficult to conclude that Islam is a religion of peace. The battle of Badr was not provoked by the apostates but by Abu Bakr in order to forcefully bring the apostates back to the fold and Islam and to ensure that they pay zakat to the Islamic state under the new leadership of Abu Bakr as sadiq. This action by Abu Bakr, in this modern world, will be viewed as unwanted provocation and forceful conversion of unwilling citizens. The apostates never threatened the Muslims here.

and what happens if you live in the West and don't pay Tax? Govt will declare "war" on you by throwing you in jail. Zakat is obligatory in Islam, therefore it must be enforced by said authority. The same way world power today enforced their will on developing countries without provocation. If they don't comply, unwarranted sanctions follow.

You can try harder to excuse Christianity from terrorism but it is not gonna werk!

spiritualmubi:
so the headquater of islam hosting a satanic event is not a problem, huh? Savage.

HQ of Islam.. Who told you that?

Saudi is practicing Islam. Alhamdulilah. They might have some lapses.. As long as the lapses is not aqeedah nor bidia nor shirk.. Alhamdulilah..

And this sinful act is totally condemned.. But if you think you can badmouth Saudi Arabia because of that.. You are big fool

Abuheekmat:


HQ of Islam.. Who told you that?

Saudi is practicing Islam. Alhamdulilah. They might have some lapses.. As long as the lapses is not aqeedah nor bidia nor shirk.. Alhamdulilah..

And this sinful act is totally condemned.. But if you think you can badmouth Saudi Arabia because of that.. You are big fool

I think I should not engage in a discussion with you, is like what Al-Baqir said about you is true, lol. They are responsible for the agony the muslim world is facing today. A female must not drive in saudi, but a male can drive for her, initiating the worst scenario of fitnah. The western world controls saudi like her pet and you still think a reasonable man shouldnt file the necessary allegation against them. HadaakaLlah.

AlBaqir:


First, it is not "battle of badr" but "battle of ridda".

Second, those fought at the battle of ridda by Caliph Abubakar were NEVER apostates. Unfortunately history painted them so to save the Caliph's face and judgment. Abubakar murdered Muslims and Sahabah of the Prophet based on what? Their refusal to pay him zakat.
Same happened at the time of the Prophet when a Sahabah refused to pay zakat but the merciful Prophet never murdered anyone.

Third, it is very true that Muslim leaders were very cruel after the demise of the Prophet. However, there are some war you just have to fight to maintain justice and equity.

Salaam AlBaqir I have a question which goes like this- what is the importance and reward for saying salaat on the prophet sawa in sujud and ruku'. Shukran.

Empiree:
"strange & funny"? but "Islamic terrorists" is relative and not oxymoron?. Media is fantastic. They successfully brainwashed you people to believe that every slight misdeed of muslims is act of terrorism.


and what happens if you live in the West and don't pay Tax? Govt will declare "war" on you by throwing you in jail. Zakat is obligatory in Islam, therefore it must be enforced by said authority. The same way world power today enforced their will on developing countries without provocation. If they don't comply, unwarranted sanctions follow.

You can try harder to excuse Christianity from terrorism but it is not gonna werk!

# As far as Zakat is obligatory on those capable of paying it, it does not meant such person/people should be killed or labeled apostate for refusing to pay it.


Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Messenger (p.b.u.h) ordered (a person) to collect Zakat, and that person returned and told him that Ibn Jamil, Khalid bin Al-Walid, and `Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib had refused to give Zakat." The Prophet said, "What made Ibn Jamil refuse to give Zakat though he was a poor man, and was made wealthy by Allah and His Apostle ? But you are unfair in asking Zakat from Khalid as he is keeping his armor for Allah's Cause (for Jihad). As for `Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib, he is the uncle of Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) and Zakat is compulsory on him and he should pay it double."


Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 1468
In-book reference : Book 24, Hadith 71
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 2, Book 24, Hadith 547
 https://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/24/71



 Narrated Abu Dhar:
Once I went to him (the Prophet (s) ) and he said, "By Allah in Whose Hands my life is (or probably said, 'By Allah, except Whom none has the right to be worshipped) whoever had camels or cows or sheep and did not pay their Zakat, those animals will be brought on the Day of Resurrection far bigger and fatter than before and they will tread him under their hooves, and will butt him with their horns, and (those animals will come in circle): When the last does its turn, the first will start again, and this punishment will go on till Allah has finished the judgments amongst the people."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 1460
In-book reference : Book 24, Hadith 63
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 2, Book 24, Hadith 539
 https://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/24/63


It is only in the interpretation of the wahabi that whoever abandoned salat or refused to pay zakat should be killed.

spiritualmubi:
Salaam AlBaqir I have a question which goes like this- what is the importance and reward for saying salaat on the prophet sawa in sujud and ruku'. Shukran.

It is not established but of course it's not haram. It is regarded as part of many dhikr (allowed to be said) after the recommended "subhana rabiyal a'la wa bihamdih".

AlBaqir:


It is not established but of course it's not haram. It is regarded as part of many dhikr (allowed to be said) after the recommended "subhana rabiyal a'la wa bihamdih".

JazaakaLlahu khayran.

AlBaqir:



# As far as Zakat is obligatory on those capable of paying it, it does not meant such person/people should be killed or labeled apostate for refusing to pay it.


Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Messenger (p.b.u.h) ordered (a person) to collect Zakat, and that person returned and told him that Ibn Jamil, Khalid bin Al-Walid, and `Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib had refused to give Zakat." The Prophet said, "What made Ibn Jamil refuse to give Zakat though he was a poor man, and was made wealthy by Allah and His Apostle ? But you are unfair in asking Zakat from Khalid as he is keeping his armor for Allah's Cause (for Jihad). As for `Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib, he is the uncle of Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) and Zakat is compulsory on him and he should pay it double."


Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 1468
In-book reference : Book 24, Hadith 71
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 2, Book 24, Hadith 547
 https://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/24/71



 Narrated Abu Dhar:
Once I went to him (the Prophet (s) ) and he said, "By Allah in Whose Hands my life is (or probably said, 'By Allah, except Whom none has the right to be worshipped) whoever had camels or cows or sheep and did not pay their Zakat, those animals will be brought on the Day of Resurrection far bigger and fatter than before and they will tread him under their hooves, and will butt him with their horns, and (those animals will come in circle): When the last does its turn, the first will start again, and this punishment will go on till Allah has finished the judgments amongst the people."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 1460
In-book reference : Book 24, Hadith 63
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 2, Book 24, Hadith 539
 https://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/24/63


It is only in the interpretation of the wahabi that whoever abandoned salat or refused to pay zakat should be killed.

I certainly understood these ahadith above but then, there are always example we can deduce from our contemporary society (Nigeria) today. It is true that we don't necessarily kill those who refused to pay zakah.

But we know zakah is only paid by those who are well enough. Abu Bakr did the right thing by enforcing payment on them. We all know the benefit of zakat. Look at Nigeria environment today. If govt is firm and upright, they would enforced zakah on these rich people and looters. Rather, they are permanently rich and poor are permanently poor. This is why zakah was established (to spread wealth). It is not all about killing those who refused to pay zakah. Abu Bakr (ra)'s decision was based on ijma at that time even though some top sahaba frown at outstart.

His approach emphasized importance of zakat. But today many don't take zakah serious until they enter their graves. I have equated zakat with modern Western civilization tax system. The same way Abu Bakr (ra) chastised those he considered apostates for refusing to pay zakah, is the same way US govt put their citizens in jail if they do not pay income tax. And if you are not citizen but green card holder, and you do not pay tax, forget about getting citizenship. You may even be deported for that.

So you can see how importance of zakat is. Do you blame US?. Absolutely not because these taxes they collected go a long way. This is why the country is what it is. From these taxes they are able to fund elderly and disabled, retirement funds, all types of social benefits, roads, electric, water and sewer and the list is very long.

This is what zakat also do. So if US does not take tax lightly, why would Abu take those people lightly?. Abu Bakr waged war on apostates at that time is tantamount to US govt jailing or deporting people because of tax.

The only difference is one has religious connotation the other is seen from another perspective but they both shared same goal.

In addition to the above, ^ modern tax system begins to tax you the moment you are considered adult whether you make money or not unless you can display you have no job or disabled. Zakat is tax. Tax is zakat. It is very serious thing that we seem to overlook. The West don't take it lightly at all.

Famous Hollywood actor, Wesley Snipe was jailed for evading tax and many many more were jailed for tax fraud. Why would Abu Bakr decision be any different?

Waging war on zakah evaders was his way of enforcing tax on them. Of course in modern time they not gonna kill bcus of tax but some people serve significant jail time for tax evasion or pay hefty fines.