do you think islamic terrorists will still exist when george bush leaves office and will the massive amount of killing done in the name of islam decline or even cease to exist?

Funny you should mention Bush...
He knew about Bin Ladin waaaaaay before Bin Ladin was gonna do 9/11. He sat reading a bedtime story with the Florida kids ON 9/11. Sad, really.

Funny you should mention Bush...
He knew about Bin Ladin waaaaaay before Bin Ladin was gonna do 9/11. .

Actually, there is a business/political relationship between the 2 families; Bushs & Ladens go way back.

Funny you should mention Bush...
He knew about Bin Ladin waaaaaay before Bin Ladin was gonna do 9/11. He sat reading a bedtime story with the Florida kids ON 9/11. Sad, really.


threadlike,
i think you are confused and postd in the wrong post.

do you think islamic terrorists will still exist when george bush leaves office and will the massive amount of killing done in the name of islam decline or even cease to exist?

Actually, there is a business/political relationship between the 2 families; Bushs & Ladens go way back.

Yes .. i believe Omar Bin Laden and George Bush (or his father) had a business a while ago .. they go way back!

It will still exist. Always has. Though I hate Saddam with a passion and always will he and his cronies were able to control that area with an iron fist and once the curtain came down the terrorists found an excuse to do their will. I say this because you see people killing in the name of Islam and I really don't think that Muslims in general are for that kind of proclamation of faith. Seems to me that these terrorists are misguided and a little on the crazy side....using Islam to get their distorted point across to the masses.

do you think islamic terrorists will still exist when george bush leaves office and will the massive amount of killing done in the name of islam decline or even cease to exist?

as long as US exists in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Jehad agianst the illegal invadors will not stop.

I hope the new president of the states will be wise enough to pull out from Iraq and Afghanistan and save the lives of his soldiers and save on the enormus budget spent on this illegal war, and concentrate more on making the lives of his own citizines better.

Clouds, I think you vision is, how shall I put it, a bit cloudy ?

Let's try to establish some facts here.

Are you claiming that Islamic Jihad only started AFTER the US got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan ?

A simple, direct and to the point answer would be appreciated. An affirmative answer which does not use the words YES + IF + BUT would be even more appreciated.

Let's try to establish some facts here.

Are you claiming that Islamic Jihad only started AFTER the US got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan ?. NO

The best-known mujahideen were the various loosely-aligned Afghan opposition groups that initially fought against the incumbent pro-Marxist Afghan government. At the Afghan government's request, the Soviet Union became involved in the war.

The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter and Reagan administrations, Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China, several European countries, Iran, and Pakistan (during the Zia-ul-Haq military regime). The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistan
A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent organizer and financier of an all Arab islamist group of foreign volunteers; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the muslim world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi and Pakistani governments[2]. In 1988, bin Laden broke away from the MAK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
There every where you go from Somalia to IRAQ

So the Hirsute one is telling us that Islamic Jihad existed BEFORE the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan ?

Color me pink !

Clouds, this one's for you .

So the Hirsute one is telling us that Islamic Jihad existed BEFORE the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan ?
Color me pink ! Clouds, this one's for you .
I do agree. Do you
as long as US exists in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Jehad agianst the illegal invadors will not stop.

I certainly do.

Islamic Jihad has been in existence since the time Islam was born.

Now run along and explain that to Clouds.

Wudjab, I think you are confused about the term Jehad

Yes you are absoluetly right Jihad had started long time ago before this fierce invasion by the US and their allies, and correctly put that the term "Jehad" started in the begining of Islam.

let me give you an example If someone intrude into your house and occupy it and kill your family wouldn't you fight him back ? you may call it self defense but we call it Jehad.

Jehad is to fight the intruders and the invadors of any Islamic country and the muslim who dies in such a battle is called "shaheed" martyr.

so "jehad" or as you call it self defense is a natural instinct in all human beings who reject oppression and fight for Justice.

So explain the jihad that took place on 9/11.

^^If truly what happened in 9/11 was done by muslims, (which I have great doubts about) then this is no Jihad at all.

Killing innocent civilians is not Jihad period.

While you are at it, you can also try the

Madrid
US Embassy bombings in Africa
USS Cole bombing in Yemen
Lebanon barracks bombing
Saudi barracks bombing

and on and on.

While you are at it, you can also try the

Madrid
US Embassy bombings in Africa
USS Cole bombing in Yemen
Lebanon barracks bombing
Saudi barracks bombing

and on and on.

bin Laden issued two fatwas—in 1996 and then again in 1998—that Muslims should kill civilians and military personnel from the United States and allied countries until they withdraw support for Israel and withdraw military forces from Islamic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

bin Laden's actual goal was "to lure the United States into Afghanistan, which was already being called the graveyard of empires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings

While you are at it, you can also try the

Madrid
US Embassy bombings in Africa
USS Cole bombing in Yemen
Lebanon barracks bombing
Saudi barracks bombing

and on and on.


I will repeat myself again and again Islam is AGAINST killing civilians and innocents being Kaffirs or ethists or hindus or budas or whatever.

to clear the benifit of the doubt :

Madrid and London bombings, innocent civilians killed, this is not Jihad but terrorism.

US Embassy in Africa innocents killed this is no Jihad and not from Islam.

USS Cole bombing in Yemen hostile enemy ship trying to launch attacks against muslims, casualitis all are non civilians this no terrorism it's Jihad.

Lebanon barracks bombing, hostile occupying enemy, all casualities are army personnal, this is Jihad.

Saudi barracks bombing, civilians killed, this is not Jihad but terrorism.

GOT IT wudjab?

next question.

So why do so many muslims not know their faith ?

Why do they quote chapter and verse to justify their actions ?

Do you think the US was ENTIRELY justified in responding to the endless provocation and attacks on its civilians by muslim jihadists ?

So clouds you are saying the US or really any country should not have "government invited" Embassy on muslim soil.

That is not islamic and fair game?

Because all of your examples the said government allowed the US to be there. No invasion ... of muslim soil.

This leads us to which many here love ... "root cause".

Why didn't these brave men hit the rulers of all the countries that "invited the US to be there?

So why do so many muslims not know their faith ?

Why do they quote chapter and verse to justify their actions ?

Do you think the US was ENTIRELY justified in responding to the endless provocation and attacks on its civilians by muslim jihadists ?


some muslims misunderstood Jihad in Islam, and they think killing any Kaffir which belongs to a hostile country is Jihad like Madrid and London.

the US has no justification to invade any muslim country and kill thousands of innocent civilians even though it was provoked by some minority muslim extrimists, I think Bush and the British realised this fact now and I expect withdrawl from Iraq soon, may be when a wise new president of US will take office soon.

^^ Jack I'll be back.

So why do so many muslims not know their faith ?

Why do they quote chapter and verse to justify their actions ?

Do you think the US was ENTIRELY justified in responding to the endless provocation and attacks on its civilians by muslim jihadists ?

Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America

some muslims misunderstood Jihad in Islam, and they think killing any Kaffir which belongs to a hostile country is Jihad like Madrid and London.

the US has no justification to invade any muslim country and kill thousands of innocent civilians even though it was provoked by some minority muslim extrimists, I think Bush and the British realised this fact now and I expect withdrawl from Iraq soon, may be when a wise new president of US will take office soon.

Why not ?

Muslims are justified to retaliate and indulge in offensive Jihad when they believe that muslims lands have been attacked. Why cannot the US do the same ?

Unless, God forbid, you believe there is one standard for moslems and another for the kuffar ?

Back to you .

So clouds you are saying the US or really any country should not have "government invited" Embassy on muslim soil.

That is not islamic and fair game?

Because all of your examples the said government allowed the US to be there. No invasion ... of muslim soil.

This leads us to which many here love ... "root cause".

Why didn't these brave men hit the rulers of all the countries that "invited the US to be there?

what do you mean No invasion of muslim soil?

what do you call the US and their allies when they invaded Iraq, who gave them permission to invade? Saddam government did?

what do you call the US and their allies when they invaded Afghanistan, who gave them permission to invade? the Taliban government did?

their invasion to muslim countries is NOT justified, and muslims have all the right to fight them back and declare Jihad on their troops.

as for the Islamic rulers, muslims have no right to rebel against their rulers, in Islam we must obey the rulers, as long as they let muslims practice their religion freely, that's what the Prophet pbuh asked us to do.

couldy cloudy cloudy ...

US Embassy in Africa innocents killed this is no Jihad and not from Islam.

USS Cole bombing in Yemen hostile enemy ship trying to launch attacks against muslims, casualitis all are non civilians this no terrorism it's Jihad.

Lebanon barracks bombing, hostile occupying enemy, all casualities are army personnal, this is Jihad.

Saudi barracks bombing, civilians killed, this is not Jihad but terrorism.
Which one of these were invaded?

And btw all were before what?

Why not ?

Muslims are justified to retaliate and indulge in offensive Jihad when they believe that muslims lands have been attacked. Why cannot the US do the same ?

Unless, God forbid, you believe there is one standard for moslems and another for the kuffar ?

Back to you .

so do you call what George Bush did is offensive Jihad?

he doesn't even know the meaning of the word Jihad, it's for him jihad have only one meaning: terrorism.

I will agree with you about the Us have the right to invade any muslim country IF that muslim country represented by it's government launch an attack on US soil, in that case war is declared, and the Us will have all the right to invade, as was the case with Lockerbe plane explosion where Libya was responsible for it.

So they can attack ONLY if muslims launch attacks on US Soil ?

What about attacks on US civilians in foreign countries ?

BTW, Afghanistan was attacked BECAUSE there was an attack launched on US soil by muslim terrorists who were guest of the government of Afghanistan - and whom the government of Afghanistan protected.

BTW, GWB is not a muslim, so the term JIHAD does not apply to him.

Also are you saying the the US had a right to attack Libya over the Lockerbie bombing - even though that attack DID NOT take place on US soil ?

couldy cloudy cloudy ...

Which one of these were invaded?

And btw all were before what?

Lebanon was invaded by US troops, in 1982 under the name of peace keeping force, but their intention was to have a stronghold base in Lebanon and they intended to stay there for a long time, but the jihadist, apparently Shia muslims taught them a good lesson, and the US was out from Lebanon in no time.

but apparently the US did not learn their lesson since that time.

Lebanon was invaded by US troops, in 1982 under the name of peace keeping force, but their intention was to have a stronghold base in Lebanon and they intended to stay there for a long time, but the jihadist, apparently Shia muslims taught them a good lesson, and the US was out from Lebanon in no time.

but apparently the US did not learn their lesson since that time.In another thread didn't you say Shia are not muslim ...?

No wait ...I call Shia misguided, innovators, strayed from straight path, but I still consider them muslims, I will not pray with them though, or marrying from them.

Now how about Yemen ... were the USS Cole was fueling at the invitation of the Yemen government.

You seem to rather take these one at a time. Fine

So they can attack ONLY if muslims launch attacks on US Soil ?
if muslim governments not individuals.

What about attacks on US civilians in foreign countries ?
the Us should try to arrest the killers, not punish a whole country.

BTW, Afghanistan was attacked BECAUSE there was an attack launched on US soil by muslim terrorists who were guest of the government of Afghanistan - and whom the government of Afghanistan protected.

what Taliban did wrong to the US? OBL was living in Afghanistan but he is not Afghani, he is Saudi, so why kill the Afghani innocent people?

BTW, GWB is not a muslim, so the term JIHAD does not apply to him.

Also are you saying the the US had a right to attack Libya over the Lockerbie bombing - even though that attack DID NOT take place on US soil ?

but all the casulities were Americans, and Libya admitted that they did it, in that particular case I don't blame the Americans.

Where exactly do you pull all this crap from ?

Not from the fatwas of Mohammad Nasser adeen Al Albani - who I am doing some interesting research on at present.

In another thread didn't you say Shia are not muslim ...?

No wait ...

Now how about Yemen ... were the USS Cole was fueling at the invitation of the Yemen government.

You seem to rather take these one at a time. Fine


I DID NOT call shia non muslims correction there.

do you know where the USS cole was heading after refueling in Yemen?

Where exactly do you pull all this crap from ?

Not from the fatwas of Mohammad Nasser adeen Al Albani - who I am doing some interesting research on at present.

waiting eagrly for the result of your research:)

he is indeed the greatest Imam and scholar of the 20th century.

I DID NOT call shia non muslims correction there.

do you know where the USS cole was heading after refueling in Yemen?Yes ... out to sea.

Next question.

Or do we move on to the Saudi barracks deal? Were US troops invited by the
Saudi government or what?

Yes ... out to sea.

Next question.

Or do we move on to the Saudi barracks deal? Were US troops invited by the
Saudi government or what?


let's finish with cole first, cole was heading to strike targets in Afghanistan and kill innocent civilian muslims, using the undercover excuse OBL and Al Qaeda.

Next

Dude,

The COLE was bombed BEFORE the US got involved in Afghanistan.

On October 12, 2000, USS Cole, under the command of Commander Kirk Lippold, set in to Aden harbor for a routine fuel stop. Cole completed mooring at 09:30. Refueling started at 10:30. Around 11:18 local time (08:18 UTC), a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 35-by-36-foot gash in the ship's port side.

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

Seems to me like you just made an oopsie.


Care to explain ?

let's finish with cole first, cole was heading to strike targets in Afghanistan and kill innocent civilian muslims, using the undercover excuse OBL and Al Qaeda.

NextDamn ... I didn't know you were prevy to that kind of info. Can you tell me where I can get info like that? Promise I won't repeat your sources.

But since you are so tight in the american navy loop ... what were the names of these innocent muslims?

Dude,

The COLE was bombed BEFORE the US got involved in Afghanistan.

Seems to me like you just made an oopsie.


Care to explain ?

yes, I know it was before 9/11/2001, but Clinton at that time had a strong sense of the danger of OBL and Al Qaeda, so he decided to strike them first in Afghanistan, but what happened to cole made him back up.

WOW.

Don't look under your bed.

You might find some cave dwelling flammable creatures there as well.

yes, I know it was before 9/11/2001, but Clinton at that time had a strong sense of the danger of OBL and Al Qaeda, so he decided to strike them first in Afghanistan, but what happened to cole made him back up.So you endorse the option of 1st strike when there is a percieved threat as the US did in Iraq?

Clouds, do you think the attacks on Sharm-al-Sheikh (in 2005) and Dahab (in 2006), Egypt, were justified? The people in there had been selling alcoholic drinks to tourists for money and the tourists were topless on the beaches. That is very un-Islamic (as I expect you may say) do you think that fighting (even by weapons) against anything un-Islamic is an obligation to Muslims or not? And no matter what happens, how many other Muslims die in the process, the fight will be justified?

I just want a plain answer please...It will give me a lot of insight on how you think for further discussion!

Dude,

The COLE was bombed BEFORE the US got involved in Afghanistan.

On October 12, 2000, USS Cole, under the command of Commander Kirk Lippold, set in to Aden harbor for a routine fuel stop. Cole completed mooring at 09:30. Refueling started at 10:30. Around 11:18 local time (08:18 UTC), a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 35-by-36-foot gash in the ship's port side.

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

Seems to me like you just made an oopsie.


Care to explain ?

Ladenese epistle

Bin Laden's 1996 fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places". This document is sometimes called the Ladenese epistle, a term derived from bin Laden's surname. It is a long piece, and complains of American activities in numerous countrie

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

So what's your point ? (if you even have one ?)

if muslim governments not individuals.


the Us should try to arrest the killers, not punish a whole country.



what Taliban did wrong to the US? OBL was living in Afghanistan but he is not Afghani, he is Saudi, so why kill the Afghani innocent people?



but all the casulities were Americans, and Libya admitted that they did it, in that particular case I don't blame the Americans.

A lot of this and your other (previous) posts seems reasonable.

But I don't understand why it's okay for Muslim individuals (NOT governments to decide that they can just attack American troops on their own when those troops are present in a Muslim country with the invitation of the government of that country. This is what I mean about the Khobar Towers and the Cole and all these other attacks.

As far as the explanation about Afghanistan, it doesn't make sense to me.

If a country is being attacked by people who are being harbored by and have a deep friendship with the government of another country, they have a right to demand cooperation from that government.

The Taliban was asked to hand over Osama bin Laden. They refused. What should we have done? Said, "Okay, well, that's that! Nothing we can do. On to the next order of business. Hope you will be nicer next time!"

According to all the classic rules of war, the US had a perfect right--indeed an obligation--to go to war in Afghanistan. That's why the entire world supported us when we did so. Even China, which always abstains, supported us.

There are two sides to sovereignty. You not only have the right to control your territory, you have the OBLIGATION to CONTROL your territory and make sure people aren't using it as a base to attack others.

If you CAN'T do that, other countries have a right to intervene if the matter is serious enough. If you WON'T do that, you might as well just issue a declaration of war yourself...it amounts to the same thing.

If someone living in my house goes and shoots in your window, can I just tell you, "Oh, you know, it's not me, it's him and he's my guest. What can I do?"

Besides, I know many Afghans here in the US. Unlike Iraqis, I don't know A SINGLE ONE who felt that the US was attacking THEM when we attacked the Taliban. Some supported them for tribal reasons, a few for religious reasons, but most Afghans seemed to have loathed them with total hatred. There we really DO have film of Afghans dancing in the streets of Kabul after the Taliban was overthrown.

I understand differences of opinion about Iraq. I don't understand differences of opinion over Afghanistan. Unless you really just think there should be general war between Muslims and the US because of Israel or something.

But if you think there should be general war, why should you be surprised if that's what you get?

Clouds, do you think the attacks on Sharm-al-Sheikh (in 2005) and Dahab (in 2006), Egypt, were justified? The people in there had been selling alcoholic drinks to tourists for money and the tourists were topless on the beaches. That is very un-Islamic (as I expect you may say) do you think that fighting (even by weapons) against anything un-Islamic is an obligation to Muslims or not? And no matter what happens, how many other Muslims die in the process, the fight will be justified?

I just want a plain answer please...It will give me a lot of insight on how you think for further discussion!

Threadlike,

I think you should know my point of view from previous posts if you read them.

but no harm in repeating,

a muslim must NOT kill his brother muslim no matter what unless Hadd (punishment by by Islamic law) is carried out in these three cases:

1- a soul by soul
2- married adultries
3- apostates.

as for killing innocent civilians non muslims that's also haram in Islam.

I hope I made myself clear.

eager to know what do you think on this issue yourself.

Threadlike,

I think you should know my point of view from previous posts if you read them.

but no harm in repeating,

a muslim must NOT kill his brother muslim no matter what unless Hadd (punishment by by Islamic law) is carried out in these three cases:

1- a soul by soul
2- married adultries
3- apostates.

as for killing innocent civilians non muslims that's also haram in Islam.

I hope I made myself clear.

eager to know what do you think on this issue yourself.


What about self-defense or the defense of innocents?

And do you think private citizens have the right to decide who is an apostate and kill them?

A lot of this and your other (previous) posts seems reasonable.

But I don't understand why it's okay for Muslim individuals (NOT governments to decide that they can just attack American troops on their own when those troops are present in a Muslim country with the invitation of the government of that country. This is what I mean about the Khobar Towers and the Cole and all these other attacks.

As far as the explanation about Afghanistan, it doesn't make sense to me.

If a country is being attacked by people who are being harbored by and have a deep friendship with the government of another country, they have a right to demand cooperation from that government.

The Taliban was asked to hand over Osama bin Laden. They refused. What should we have done? Said, "Okay, well, that's that! Nothing we can do. On to the next order of business. Hope you will be nicer next time!"

According to all the classic rules of war, the US had a perfect right--indeed an obligation--to go to war in Afghanistan. That's why the entire world supported us when we did so. Even China, which always abstains, supported us.

There are two sides to sovereignty. You not only have the right to control your territory, you have the OBLIGATION to CONTROL your territory and make sure people aren't using it as a base to attack others.

If you CAN'T do that, other countries have a right to intervene if the matter is serious enough. If you WON'T do that, you might as well just issue a declaration of war yourself...it amounts to the same thing.

If someone living in my house goes and shoots in your window, can I just tell you, "Oh, you know, it's not me, it's him and he's my guest. What can I do?"

Besides, I know many Afghans here in the US. Unlike Iraqis, I don't know A SINGLE ONE who felt that the US was attacking THEM when we attacked the Taliban. Some supported them for tribal reasons, a few for religious reasons, but most Afghans seemed to have loathed them with total hatred. There we really DO have film of Afghans dancing in the streets of Kabul after the Taliban was overthrown.

I understand differences of opinion about Iraq. I don't understand differences of opinion over Afghanistan. Unless you really just think there should be general war between Muslims and the US because of Israel or something.

But if you think there should be general war, why should you be surprised if that's what you get?


so you telling me Jeff that the US have the right to kill and murder INNOCENT afghani civilians? that's what we hear in the news every day, ok if the main reason of attacking Afghanistan was to capture OBL and demonish al Qaeda, the US failed terribly to accomplish this goal, so what they are still doing in Afghanistan after seven years of the invasion?

I will make it easy for you, the main goal of the US not only OBL and al Qaeda only but to stop Taliban from establishing an Islamic state.

Yes this is the main goal of the US they will not allow an Islamic state anywhere in the world, cause they think Islam is a real danger to their very existance, which they are very wrong about it.

I feel sad that the west and the US do not understand Islam very well and it's a religion of peace and equity, Islam is not OBL and al Qaeda or some lunatics bombing innocent people, let them go back to history and find out the real beauty of Islam.

What about self-defense or the defense of innocents?

And do you think private citizens have the right to decide who is an apostate and kill them?

good questions Jeff,

If a muslim is attacked by another muslim, and the intention of the attacker is to kill the other then in that case it's natural to do self defense but the victim must try his level best not to kill the attacker, he can injure him, or stop him by any possible means.

as there is a hadith of the prophet :PBUH: pbuh said in the meaning " if two muslims fight and kill each others they are both in hell fire "


as for apostates private citizens has no right to kill them, this matter is left to the "waliyu al amr" the ruler to carry out the punishment.

Threadlike,

I think you should know my point of view from previous posts if you read them.

but no harm in repeating,

a muslim must NOT kill his brother muslim no matter what unless Hadd (punishment by by Islamic law) is carried out in these three cases:

1- a soul by soul
2- married adultries
3- apostates.

as for killing innocent civilians non muslims that's also haram in Islam.

I hope I made myself clear.

eager to know what do you think on this issue yourself.

I find the highlighted statement interesting. Is this restriction ONLY restricted to killing another muslim ? What about us dirty kuffar ?

Also, why is the blood money different for a muslim man, a muslim woman and us dirty kuffar ?

I wait with bated breath for your latest literary triumph.

I find the highlighted statement interesting. Is this restriction ONLY restricted to killing another muslim ? What about us dirty kuffar ?

i alredy answered this:
as for killing innocent civilians non muslims that's also haram in Islam.



Also, why is the blood money different for a muslim man, a muslim woman and us dirty kuffar ?

blood money or "Deyah" is the same for muslim men and women

as for infidels if killed by mistake I am not sure about the ruling.

These are the diya rates in Saudi Arabia :

In Saudi Arabia, when a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the prescribed blood money rates are as follows[7]:

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
50,000 riyals if a Christian man
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.

Your opinion please.

repeated post

These are the diya rates in Saudi Arabia :

In Saudi Arabia, when a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the prescribed blood money rates are as follows[7]:

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
50,000 riyals if a Christian man
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.

Your opinion please.

Wudjab...

That makes you worth 15 Hindu Women, what else do you want?

These are the diya rates in Saudi Arabia :

In Saudi Arabia, when a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the prescribed blood money rates are as follows[7]:

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
50,000 riyals if a Christian man
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.

Your opinion please.

very intersting

I thought the diya for both muslim men and women are same, may be I was wrong.

as for people of the book it seems that their diya is half of the muslims, never heard of it before

for other non muslims is also different

I need to find out more about this

thanks for sharing.

These are the diya rates in Saudi Arabia :

In Saudi Arabia, when a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the prescribed blood money rates are as follows[7]:

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
50,000 riyals if a Christian man
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.

Your opinion please.

But what if you are a White American Man? That is like a million riyals, right? lol....

Actually that price list reminds me of the movie Hostel.

Anybody see that?

JFT,

You would be included in the Christian Man category.

The poor Hindu, garbage in the eyes of Islam.

JFT,

You would be included in the Christian Man category.

The poor Hindu, garbage in the eyes of Islam.Yea but you can get 30 hindu women for the price of one muslim male.

Think volume ...

Your women, sell them to me. How much for the little girl?