Invitation to Mesmorial:

[MesMorial]

This discussion is meditatively relaxing, like an English comedy.

Likewise "mistranslated" then must be 60:8 where the Arabic also refers to the DEEN.

Deen as in system of religion. The key word is “the”, not “deen”.

In other words those accused with "fighting the Muslims" were not doing so just because the Muslims believed in Allah alone. Agreed? They were fighting against the Muslims' establishment of a SYSTEM (which was clearly an ongoing work at the time of the "revelation" of many Qur'anic passages). The Muslims were fighting to establish the system in the face of fierce RESISTANCE. It is within this context then that Quranic passages like 2:193 must be understood:

And fight them until fitnah is no more and the DEEN is for Allah.

The Muslims had their own system, and some people who felt threated didn’t like it. You seem to add the aspersion that establishing a system amongst those who wanted it meant forcing it onto others. There are many systems, as I discussed with Muhammad bin Lyin.

[Allah] it is Who has sent His messenger with the....SYSTEM of truth [deen al haq], that He may cause it to prevail over all DEENS, however much the idolaters may be averse.

This was also discussed with Muhammad bin Lyin. The Qur’an contained a system, and Allah sent the system so that people would join it and truth would be clear (2:256). The book contained a system, but the aim of sending the system was not to use the system to fight others to spread the system…

So a non-Muslim individual or polity confronted by a Muslim "invitation" to Islam and an accompanying warning of a "painful punishment" on failure to accept said "invitation" would be justified in supposing that there was the possibility that Allah might use the hands of the Muslims to carry out the said punishment. Correct?

Under normal circumstances that would violate 2:256, 60:8 etc… What I implied was that it might happen by the non-Muslims putting themselves in a situation where it was justified for Muslims to fight them, or that a sura like sura 9 might be sent down (which has not happened since).

But they would do it according to the will of Allah?

Allah said he would do it himself.

[MesMorial]

This discussion is meditatively relaxing, like an old English comedy.

Likewise "mistranslated" then must be 60:8 where the Arabic also refers to the DEEN.

Deen as in system of religion. The key word is “the”, not “deen”.

In other words those accused with "fighting the Muslims" were not doing so just because the Muslims believed in Allah alone. Agreed? They were fighting against the Muslims' establishment of a SYSTEM (which was clearly an ongoing work at the time of the "revelation" of many Qur'anic passages). The Muslims were fighting to establish the system in the face of fierce RESISTANCE. It is within this context then that Quranic passages like 2:193 must be understood:

And fight them until fitnah is no more and the DEEN is for Allah.

The Muslims had their own system, and some people who felt threated didn’t like it. You seem to add the aspersion that establishing a system amongst those who wanted it meant forcing it onto others. There are many systems, as I discussed with Muhammad bin Lyin.

[Allah] it is Who has sent His messenger with the....SYSTEM of truth [deen al haq], that He may cause it to prevail over all DEENS, however much the idolaters may be averse.

This was also discussed with Muhammad bin Lyin. The Qur’an contained a system, and Allah sent the system so that people would join it and truth would be clear (2:256). The book contained a system, but the aim of sending the system was not to use the system to fight others to spread the system…

So a non-Muslim individual or polity confronted by a Muslim "invitation" to Islam and an accompanying warning of a "painful punishment" on failure to accept said "invitation" would be justified in supposing that there was the possibility that Allah might use the hands of the Muslims to carry out the said punishment. Correct?

Under normal circumstances that would violate 2:256, 60:8 etc… What I implied was that it might happen by the non-Muslims putting themselves in a situation where it was justified for Muslims to fight them, or that a sura like sura 9 might be sent down (which has not happened since).

But they would do it according to the will of Allah?

Allah said he would do it himself.

[MesMorial]

Unfortunately I will be busy from now, so I most probably will not reply.

[antineoETC]

This discussion is meditatively relaxing, like an old English comedy.

Far more amusing is the sight of you entangling yourself in your own web of deceit!

Deen as in system of religion. The key word is “the”, not “seen”.

Why exactly is "THE" the "key word"?

The Muslims had their own system, and some people who felt threated didn’t like it.

Just like the copts in modern Egypt don't like living under it.

You seem to add the aspersion that establishing a system amongst those who wanted it meant forcing it onto others.

That is clear from:

And FIGHT them until there is no fitnah and THE DEEN is for Allah . (8:39)

and

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.... But if they repent and establish worship and pay the zakat, then are they your brethren in THE DEEN.
(9:5 + 9:11).

Remember, you have already acceded that the sunnite rendering into English of part of 9:13 as "and did attack you first", is unjustifiable from a Qur'an-only viewpoint, so don't be tempted to bring it into the discussion.

There are many systems, as I discussed with Muhammad bin Lyin.

You mean Allah is OK with people living under DEENS other than Islam?

This was also discussed with Muhammad bin Lyin. The Qur’an contained a system, and Allah sent the system so that people would join it and truth would be clear (2:256).

So what does Allah mean by THE MESSENGER causing the Deen al haq to PREVAIL over ALL other deens REGARDLESS of whether the idolaters want this or not?

The book contained a system, but the aim of sending the system was not to use the system to fight others to spread the system…

Part of the "system" of Islam is to SPREAD that system is it not?

Under normal circumstances that would violate 2:256, 60:8 etc…

Only if you insist on tendentiously "interpreting" those passages as establishing a general principle of "self defense" in Islam.

What I implied was that it might happen by the non-Muslims putting themselves in a situation where it was justified for Muslims to fight them,

How did they do that exactly?

Allah said he would do it himself.

Where?

[antineoETC]

Unfortunately I will be busy from now, so I most probably will not reply.

But non-Muslims who you wish to convert to supposedly "REAL" Islam might be put off from doing so from what I have written.

[antineoETC]

Anyway picking up on a number of unaddressed previous posts of Mesmorial's, starting with this exchange between us on page 3 of this thread:

Fighting those who fight you [as in 2:190] means you cannot fight people who are not already fighting you. If you wanted to context otherwise, you would be squashed.

to which I replied.

Really? If a hostile Muslim army invades a neighboring territory, as has happened many times in history, then the invaded population has two options:

1) Submit to the military occupation of their territory without a fight.

2) seek to drive out the invader which requires force.

To which Mesmorial eventually responded with:

I don’t discuss history, because history is in human hands and does not represent scriptural authority.

Mesmorial's original argument above was that "fighting those who fight you" must BY DEFINITION mean fighting those who are already AGGRESSIVELY fighting you.

My point was that history shows that this is not the case. There are numerous historical examples of actual FIGHTING being instigated by people as a matter of self-defense because their territory has been invaded or, pre-emptively, because they have had good reason to expect such an invasion eg because they have seen a neighboring territory overrun. That history does not represent "scriptual authority" is neither here nor there since there is nothing in the Qur'an that confines "fight those who fight you" to the situation "fight those who AGGRESSIVELY attack you first" (and certainly not 9:13 as Mesmorial has had to concede). The example of history is entirely relevent to this matter.

[antineoETC]

Now mesmorial has conceded that the sunni english rendering of surah 9:13 to say that the kafirs "did attack you [Muslims] first" is not a literal translation of the original Arabic which actually says nothing about anybody "attacking" anybody. This leaves us with the statements in 9:13 that the idolaters

1) "Broke their oaths"

and

3) "Plotted to expel the messenger" [Muhammad]

Dealing with (1) first:

There is no reason to suppose from a study of the Qur'an alone that the alleged "breaking of oaths" is necessarily equivalent, as mesmorial would have it, to an act of AGGRESSION as non-Muslims would understand the word "aggression". If 9:13 establishes a general principle on this matter it is simply that violence is to be inflicted on disbelievers who break oaths made to the Muslims eg as in surah 6:109:

And they swear their strongest oaths by Allah, that if there came to them a sign, they would surely believe therein.

Perhaps Mesmorial would care to explain why it was not this very oath that 9:13 is accusing the idolaters of breaking. BTW, Mesmorial, 6:109 also contradicts your claim on page 1 of this thread that "NON-MUSLIMS CANNOT BEAR WITNESS TO ALLAH" (a lynchpin of your dishonest assertion that the penalty for adultery is applicable only to Muslims) since this is clearly happening here.

So we are left with (3), the idolaters "plotted to expel the messenger" (Muhammad).

All that can really be said about this is:

So What?

A group of German generals in WWII plotted to kill Hitler. Therefore, plotting against someone is not necessarily the same as "being aggressive" and it is up to Mesmorial to explain why those who allegedly plotted to expel Muhammad didn't have similarly valid reasons for doing so as did von Staffenberg and co vis a vis their own megalomaniac.

[MesMorial]

Far more amusing is the sight of you entangling yourself in your own web of deceit!

Many people I talk to wish out loud. It becomes sad.

You reveal your lack of logic here:

Part of the "system" of Islam is to SPREAD that system is it not?

As for the rest, I am not engaging with you on those verses since I have already adequately addressed them in another debate. The same problem (e.g. about "deen") was brought up.

Cheers.

[antineoETC]

As for the rest, I am not engaging with you on those verses since I have already adequately addressed them in another debate.

Do you at least concede my above point that there is no reason to equate the "breaking of oaths", of which the idolaters are accused in sura 9:13, with one or more acts of physical aggression by those idolaters against the Muslims? You might also like to address my above refutation of your earlier claim that "non-Muslims cannot bear witness to Allah".

[MesMorial]

As for the rest, I am not engaging with you on those verses since I have already adequately addressed them in another debate.

Do you at least concede my above point that there is no reason to equate the "breaking of oaths", of which the idolaters are accused in sura 9:13, with one or more acts of physical aggression by those idolaters against the Muslims? You might also like to address my above refutation of your earlier claim that "non-Muslims cannot bear witness to Allah".

I will spare you the 9:33 and deen refutation (copy-paste), since it is a separate topic. 9:13 was already discussed, and they had already been hostile and the hostility was still on. Thus, as I keep repeating, Allah guided those Muslims in that particular situation to respond in that way. If Islam is true, it makes sense. If it is not, whoever wrote the Qur'an was dishonest anyway. We could reference it as the "Book of Lies", like Aleister Crowley's. However, we must talk as if it were true here.

As for swearing by Allah whilst being a non-Muslim, it is possible to swear by the concept of the "supreme God", but of course Allah is not Allah when He has associates. Also, if the person sincerely does not believe in religion, the oath is pointless. The point is that a Muslim is demonstrating to OTHERS that he/she is a truthful believer, not to Allah. Allah already knows, which is why non-Muslims would only be expected to deny it 4 times. However it assumes that all married couples have at least one Muslim person (meaning both are Muslim), thus it only applies to Muslims. The reason it does not say "not for non-Muslims" is the same reason it does not say "Muslim women may marry men from the people of the book". The Muslims were their own community, and non-Muslims were not a part of the deen or system in which they lived. Combined with the other evidences, there is nothing to support the claim that non-Muslims must receive hidings. Likewise, non-Muslims do not have to issue them (24:2).

[antineoETC]

I will spare you the 9:33 and deen refutation (copy-paste), since it is a separate topic.

This doesn't answer my above questions of:

1) what you think Allah means by his DEEN "prevailing" over ALL Deens

2) Do you think Allah is OK with people living under DEENS other than Islam?

3) Is it not the case that SPREADING the system of Islam is an inherent component OF the system of Islam?

9:13 was already discussed, and they had already been hostile and the hostility was still on.

The disbelievers may well have been "hostile" to Muhammad, just like those fighting on the allied side during WWII were "hostile" to Hitler and his Nazis. However, being HOSTILE does not mean the same as being the PRIMARY AGGRESSOR in the overall conflict. That the disbelievers, according to 9:13, "plotted" to "drive out the messenger" does not tell us anything other than what it says. It certainly does not establish a general principle of "Fight only those who attack you first" as you would have it. No more does the charge in 9:13 that some idolaters "broke their oaths" - since it does not tell us the nature of the "oaths" the idolaters are supposed to have broken. It could have been oaths to render military assistance that wasn't forthcoming (IF we accept your assertion that Muslims can take"friendly" disbelievers as allies). It could have been oaths to cease idolatry and settle down as good Muslims (on the outside at least). It could have been oaths forced on the idolaters at the point of a sword.

Thus, as I keep repeating, Allah guided those Muslims in that particular situation to respond in that way.

IE to fight those who allegedly broke some unspecified "oaths", "plotted to expel the messenger" and did some unspecified thing "first". Again, NOT equivalent to "Fight only those who attack you first". Like I said above, in the absence of a "messenger" for idolaters to "plot" against, the only general principle that can reasonably be gleaned from 9:13 is "Kill those who break their oaths with the Muslims".

As for swearing by Allah whilst being a non-Muslim, it is possible to swear by the concept of the "supreme God", but of course Allah is not Allah when He has associates.

Allah, in 6:109 (and 35:42), is clearly regarding idolaters' oaths taken "in the name of Allah" as referring to his good self, not just a supreme god in a polytheistic pantheon who happens to also be called Allah - otherwise why would he be calling them to account for their failure to abide by oaths taken in his name?

Also, if the person sincerely does not believe in religion, the oath is pointless.

But a munafiq (hypocrite) - a disbeliever in Muslim guise - would according to you take just such a "pointless" oath if they were accused of adultery.

The point is that a Muslim is demonstrating to OTHERS that he/she is a truthful believer, not to Allah. Allah already knows, which is why non-Muslims would only be expected to deny it 4 times.

So if a Muslim accused a non-Muslim of sleeping with his wife, the non-Muslim would only be expected to deny it four times?

[antineoETC]

The onus is now on Mesmorial to demonstrate, using the Qur'an alone, that the Mushriks were the primary aggressors in the conflict between themselves and the Muslims that had clearly been going on for some time when surah 9 was "revealed".

[antineoETC]

Interesting what Mesmorial wrote: OVER HERE

4:6 says when they reach marriage, not the age of marriage

For all you know, it could mean girls can be married at 3, but only when their minds are sound do they get property.

And if Mesmorial was honest and consistent in his analysis of Qur'anic passages he would acknowledge that "Fight those who fight you" in surah 2:190 could likewise apply to several scenarios other than just "Fight those who attack you first". It could, for instance, apply (in addition to scenarios I have listed earlier in this thread) to "Fight those who fight you in defense of a party of unarmed non-Muslims whom you Muslims set out with the intention of plundering". Don't you think Mes?

[MesMorial]

Yes but remember 4:6 does not actually make marriage compulsory before getting property (17:34).

Fight those who fight you must mean not to attack or harass anyone who is not already doing so. Unfortunately Mecca was considered an enemy after the "hijra". From an obvious point of view, raiding caravans would not have been necessary had they not done that.

Cheers.


P.S. Your points about "deen" display a lack of care and understanding. I also already told you that the pont of swearing by Allah is to demonstrate something to Muslims, but you ignored that.

[antineoETC]

Yes but remember 4:6 does not actually make marriage compulsory before getting property (17:34).

My point was that, when it suits your purposes (in this case to "prove" that the Qur'an-alone does not permit child marriage etc that non-Qur'anic sources allege Muhammad engaged in), you posit alternate scenarios where a particular verse might apply. I am simply saying that if you were honest and therefore consistent in your methodology you would acknowledge that "fight those who fight you" can likewise apply in scenarios other than "Fight those who aggressively attack you first".

Fight those who fight you must mean not to attack or harass anyone who is not already doing so.

According to which Qur'anic passage(s)?

Unfortunately Mecca was considered an enemy after the "hijra".

According to which Qur'anic passage(s)?

From an obvious point of view, raiding caravans would not have been necessary had they not done that.

You mean "obvious" from a study of the Qur'an? Or "obvious" meaning axiomatic?

Your points about "deen" display a lack of care and understanding.

How so?

I also already told you that the pont of swearing by Allah is to demonstrate something to Muslims, but you ignored that.

Your original "argument" was that the punishment for zina is applicable only to Muslims because non-Muslims cannot swear by Allah. I above pointed out that 6:109 contradicts this claim. You responded with:

As for swearing by Allah whilst being a non-Muslim, it is possible to swear by the concept of the "supreme God", but of course Allah is not Allah when He has associates.

to which I replied:

Allah, in 6:109 (and 35:42), is clearly regarding idolaters' oaths taken "in the name of Allah" as referring to his good self, not just a supreme god in a polytheistic pantheon who happens to also be called Allah - otherwise why would he be calling them to account for their failure to abide by oaths taken in his name?

The question is still open to you.

I also asked:

So if a Muslim accused a non-Muslim of sleeping with his wife, the non-Muslim would only be expected to deny it four times?

Please answer this question.

[MesMorial]

Antineo (sorry if this posts twice);

When it suits your purpose you accuse me of suiting my purpose, but really I am not sure why you quote-mined me. 17:34 makes it clear that 4:6 refers to the age of marriage, which must be at full-strength (average 16).

2:190 says what it says, and nowhere does the Qur’an even tell anyone to attack caravans. Thus I do not have to show where Mecca was considered an enemy (though there is sura 9).

Your points about deen ignore the fact that there are more than one deen, and the Qur’an says THE deen (the one that was provided). I discussed that elsewhere.

And about zina, you are ignoring my point, like a machine.

“If a Muslim accused a non-Muslim of sleeping with his wife…”

I am sorry but is this non-Muslims sleeping with his wife, or is the Muslim accusing him of sleeping with his wife? The non-Muslim would actually not have to deny anything. In absence of witnesses, his wife would simply have to deny.

Back to the start, the punishment for adultery would be applied to non-Muslims in the absence of specific arrangements.

Cheers.

[antineoETC]

2:190 says what it says, and nowhere does the Qur’an even tell anyone to attack caravans.

Did I mention caravans? I thought I wrote:

"Fight those who attack you first". It could, for instance, apply (in addition to scenarios I have listed earlier in this thread) to "Fight those who fight you in defense of a party of unarmed non-Muslims whom you Muslims set out with the intention of plundering".

That the Muslims did indeed set out in the expectation of attacking unarmed non-Muslims is clear from 8:7 where "Allah" refers to an instance when:

Allah promised you [Muslims] one of the two groups - that it would be yours - and you wished that the unarmed one would be yours.

Or do you have another explanation?

And about zina, you are ignoring my point, like a machine.

And in support of your "point" you claimed that "non-Muslims cannot swear by Allah" which I have shown is belied by surah 6:109 where Allah is clearly calling idolaters to account for their failure to abide by an oath taken in the name of Allah. I asked why Allah does this if he has not taken this oath as being in HIS name rather than a polytheistic god who just happens to be called Allah. You have failed to address this matter.

Thus I do not have to show where Mecca was considered an enemy

Your position is that if an alleged historical situation at the time of "revelation" is not explicitly stated or deducible from the qur'an then it cannot be accepted. Right? Thus your claim that Mecca was "considered an enemy" at the time must be backed up by a Qur'anic reference. So what about surah 9 in this regard?

(though there is sura 9).

Your points about deen ignore the fact that there are more than one deen, and the Qur’an says THE deen (the one that was provided). I discussed that elsewhere.

You are trying to make a spurious distinction between "THE deen" and "YOUR deen". There is none.

I am sorry but is this non-Muslims sleeping with his wife, or is the Muslim accusing him of sleeping with his wife?

The Muslim is accusing the non-Muslim man of sleeping with his (the Muslim's) wife.

[MesMorial]

8:7 simply says that when confronted with the proposition of having to fight, the Muslims wanted it to be the easy one.

And in support of your "point" you claimed that "non-Muslims cannot swear by Allah" which I have shown is belied by surah 6:109 where Allah is clearly calling idolaters to account for their failure to abide by an oath taken in the name of Allah. I asked why Allah does this if he has not taken this oath as being in HIS name rather than a polytheistic god who just happens to be called Allah. You have failed to address this matter.

You just keep ignoring me when I remind you that it is to demonstrate something to other Muslims, not Allah. If Muslims know the accused is not a Muslim, their oaths will not mean anything. You have lost the point here.

Your position is that if an alleged historical situation at the time of "revelation" is not explicitly stated or deducible from the qur'an then it cannot be accepted. Right? Thus your claim that Mecca was "considered an enemy" at the time must be backed up by a Qur'anic reference. So what about surah 9 in this regard?

Firstly nowhere in the Qur’an does it say Muslims can attack unarmed people, and secondly nowhere does it say they can attack unarmed people who were not part of the hostile party.

You are trying to make a spurious distinction between "THE deen" and "YOUR deen". There is none.

Never mentioned “my deen”. …

The Muslim is accusing the non-Muslim man of sleeping with his (the Muslim's) wife.

Yes I thought so, so I answered accordingly.

[antineoETC]

8:7 simply says that when confronted with the proposition of having to fight, the Muslims wanted it to be the easy one.

Mesmorial. 8:7 says that ALLAH PROMISED the Muslims that they would encounter

1) An unarmed group of non-Muslims

0r

2) An armed group of non-Muslims

It can therefore not be seriously argued that the hope of attacking and plundering an unarmed group of non-Muslims was some unIslamic impulse that arose in the hearts of the Muslims which Allah disapproved of. Why would Allah hold out the possibility of attacking and plundering a group of unarmed non-Muslims if he was not perfectly OK with Muslims attacking unarmed people?

[MesMorial]

Well if Allah said something strange like that, they would obviously hope for the easier option. There is the possibility that these unarmed people were part of the hostile camp.

The point is, this verse does not actually contain an allowance to attack people without justification.