If that's the case, then why wasn't this church taken over? Could it be that "wow" they were practicing true Islam and not extremists' twisted view? What is your take on this?
"When Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, the second Caliph, liberated Jerusalem from the Byzantine Roman occupation, he agreed to conditions requested by its Christian inhabitants. Omar happened to be inside the greatest Christian church of Jerusalem at the time for the Muslim afternoon prayer. Omar refused to perform his prayers in the church, for fear that it might give Muslims of future generations a reason to confiscate the church and make it into an Islamic mosque."
2007-08-02 18:18:17 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Allah has answered everything in the Quran Al Karim in perfect detail for those who can see.
If not then go to the Meaning or Translation of such book and you will find all you ever wanted to your very complicated and questions... its not going to have easy answer there is way too much diversity in the world and choice..
and so there is no such thing as dominance anymore hitler is gone, and the East is correcting itself and has no choice of it... as you see the West is already making its revertion back home to repair the homeland and make things peaceful inshAllah tahala
but hypathetic.. I would not live in taliban shareeha law
but I will live in North America where I can live next door to anyone and have peace and enjoy each others neighbourhoods in peace and thrive in peace.. over any domination I don't want Islam to dominate.. besides thats not my job as a Muslim or Believer.. that is where everyone goes wrong... Islam never came by the sword.. Salam
2007-08-02 18:30:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
"liberated Jerusalem from the Byzantine Roman occupation" is an interesting phrase. at that time jerusalem had been 'occupied' by the roman empire for over 600 years. what relation were the arabs who conquered it to the jews who had lost it 600 years previously?
so great, the muslims did not always seek to completely eradicate other faiths. that's something i suppose. even more peaceful behaviour might be refraining from invading foreign countries in the first place.
2007-08-02 18:45:44 · answer #2 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Apparently, the literal meaning of the word "Islam" is "peaceful ones", see:
http://www.fcusd.k12.ca.us/chsweb/Webstaff/BarakatIslam/ms.html
If so; then when certain peoples were given the message that "Islam will dominate" (or whatever)...it simply conveyed the promise that one day "peace will dominate". It simply reflects that one day all "non peaceful" souls will perish (& go to hell) and only the peaceful ones will live (& go to heaven) where it will be "peaceful". (Well, heaven wouldn't remain "heavenly" any other way would it?)
When translated in entirety, this can be seen to be a very straightforward promise that was actually given to MANY peoples...only in different languages.
Perhaps if people are going to spread the scriptures of a foreign land, they should translate ALL the words and not just enough to stir animosity.
One promise...given in many languages...to all peoples!
Anyone who stirs trouble by saying ANYTHING else will obviously find themselves in the "wrong camp." It would not be "peaceful" of them. (That includes "muslims")
2007-08-02 18:43:40 · answer #3 · answered by Amon Ra 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say...
Times have changed, haven't they?
If only he lived many more centuries to this time, I can see that he would have raised up a people who would have been stronger in voice and fought against extremist groups.
2007-08-02 18:24:45 · answer #4 · answered by CurlySue 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd say it's "Christian Bush" invading the Muslim world.
2007-08-02 18:22:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Lock and load. I don't need Islam or any other religion.
2007-08-02 18:22:38 · answer #6 · answered by God 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Why do you answer your own questions?
2007-08-02 18:23:17 · answer #7 · answered by Uncle Meat 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋