Page 4 of 6

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:58 am
by skynightblaze
@BOT
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 125:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What kind of fighting is in Allah's cause? (I ask this), for some of us fight because of being enraged and angry and some for the sake of his pride and haughtiness." The Prophet raised his head (as the questioner was standing) and said, "He who fights so that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah's cause."


You are not asked just to fight in self defense but you are also supposed to take on offensive jihad as to spread islam. In other words you are supposed to spread islam by force.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:23 pm
by Balls_of_Titanium_1
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:@BOT

[Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah loves those who are just. Allah only forbids you with regard to those who fight you for your faith, and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out, from turning to them for protection (or taking them as wali). Those who seek their protection they are indeed wrong- doers.] (Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8-9)


The above verse is self-explanatory.



47.35.
[047:035] So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds..


You brought up 60:8 -9 to tell us that you are supposed to fight only those who oppress you but 47:35 tells us that you are not supposed to make peace while you have the upper hand which means having a upper hand is a sufficient condition for you to fight and not engage in peace.So tells us what is the condition for you to fight? Is it having the upper hand or is it self defense?


The condition for the fight in stipulated in Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8-9.

And you are involved in a wrong interpretation of the second verse you quoted.

It does not say what you say it does. First of all, your translation is a mallicious one. It is not the standard translation of the Qur'an used by Muslims.

Quote this verse in the standard Qur'anic translations like Yousuf Ali, or Pickthal.

I do not give self-proclaimed Arabic speakers and translators at FFI more importance than I give to the flies that caught my dodg last summer.



Pickthall:
[047:035] So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actio


Yes. What is wrong with it?

At any point, the verses 8-9 from Surah 60 guide the behaviour of Muslims towards non-Muslims. That is, Muslims must be just and kind to Kufar who do not fight against them on the basis of Islam.

This is the general teaching of Islam.


The above verse that you quoted has to do with the attitude of Muslims. Muslim behaviour must not be cowardly. We should not BEG peace. We should seek it, we should prefer it, but we should not sit on our knees in front of the Kufar to mercy on us, if they desire fighting. This is the general impression the verse leaves on a reader who has read other Qur'anic verses.

Now I will look at your tafsirs.



The verse is clear itself. I dont need tafsirs to determine but lets what they say : After reading all the tafsirs why should we take your opinion as the standard over all these tafsir scholars? The condition for you to fight is self defense as well as to fight when you are in majority. This is the true and ugly face of islam.


What is this "ugly face of Islam"? Are you trying to have a reasonable debate, or would rely on tantrums like my previous debate opponent?

Debate in a scholarly manner. I do not care your behaviour in other threads, but on these topics, if you want my time, you must make talk with some seriousness.

Tafsir Jalalain wrote:So do not falter, [do not] be weak, and [do not] call for peace (read salm or silm), that is to say, a truce with the disbelievers should you encounter them, when you have the upper hand (al-a‘lawna: the third letter of the triliteral root, wāw, has been omitted), [when you are] the victors, the vanquishers, and God is with you, helping and assisting, and He will not stint you, diminish you, in [the reward for] your works, that is to say, of the reward for them.


Let's for a moment believe the above exegesis must have to be accepted by any and every Muslim - which is definitely not the case.

I have two issues with you then -

Quote Tafsir Jalalain in the case of the verses 8-9 of Chapter no. 60.

Secondly, let's see whether even the above tafsir supports your contention. It says that when you encounter the disbelievers, when you have a battle with them, do not offer a truce when you have the upperhand. An understandable military strategy. It SAYS NOTHING about THE REASON why this "enoucter" is taking place. It may be that the Kafirs are fighting Muslims "on the basis of their religion" in which case - as stated in verse 60:8-9, Muslims are to fight disblievers.

Tafsir Tabrasi wrote:Not get weak from the fighting and let not any infidels to peaceful reconciliation when you have upper hand


Ditto - quote their tafsir of 60:8-9.

Not get weak - very understandable.

Again, don't accept true - fight the war to total victory if you have the upper hand.

Why is there a war? No comment.


Tafsir Al-Razi wrote:Obey Allah and his messenger requires fighting and do not make your position weakened nor tolerate “Kufr” when you (Muslims) are advancing
. [/quote]

Ditto. (You know by now what I mean by that).

Secondly, "do not make your position weakened". NOTHING wrong.

"nor tolerate Kufr" - in which sense Razi says that, I don't know, when according to 60:8-9 we are to just and kind to kafirs if they do not against us on the basis of our religion.

Thus, no more comment on Al Razi behalf for me. Allah knows best.

Tafsir Al-Shoukani wrote:Those who disbelieve and die in disbelief will not be forgiven.


Point to be noted is that a Jews prosptitute was fogiven by God for her single good deed.

But I do not take much issues with that. What happens in Muslim after life must be of no consequence to you.

Then the Almighty forbade believers from the weakness and vulnerability, he said: do not get weak from the fighting, and not to let the infidels peace from you. Qatada said: the meaning of the verse is "be not the first to offer peace"


"forbade believers from the weakness and vulnerability" - NOTHING wrong.

Again, why the fighting is occuring is not made clear.

Qatada says be not the first to make peace - which means, if Kafirs come to peace first, then it is ok - that's the collaray, isn't it?

Ibn Kathir wrote:(So do not lose heart) meaning, do not be weak concerning the enemies.


Would you want to be weak regarding your enemy?


(and beg for peace) meaning, compromise, peace, and ending the fighting between you and the disbelievers while you are in a position of power, both in great numbers and preparations.


Again, talkign about a conflict that is already under way. There is nothing about WHY the conflict is under way. as such, in a conflict, do not get weak, do not beg peace, do not compromise, but if you have the upperhand, follow the war to your goal - something that every major western miiltary strategtist will agree to.

As to Ibn Kathir comparing Prophet (P) attitude attitude towars Meccans, there is a prevalent thought among Muslims scholars represented by modern scholars like Ghamdi (this site also brags about debating him) which holds that the the specific commandments towards the Meccans and the disbelievers of those days cannot be applied in general circumstances - as that was the time when a prophet of God was on earth, while in generally, this is not the case.

That's enough, I think, for this argument from tafsir, and not Qur'an.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:26 pm
by Balls_of_Titanium_1
skynightblaze wrote:@BOT
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 125:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What kind of fighting is in Allah's cause? (I ask this), for some of us fight because of being enraged and angry and some for the sake of his pride and haughtiness." The Prophet raised his head (as the questioner was standing) and said, "He who fights so that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah's cause."


You are not asked just to fight in self defense but you are also supposed to take on offensive jihad as to spread islam. In other words you are supposed to spread islam by force.


"He who fights"? In which sense? Fighting does not always have a lethal connotation.

I am fighting LIES on this forum.

I am FIGHITNG hatred on this forum.

Police FIGHTS crime.

Judiciary FIGHTS corruption.

MUSLIMS FIGHT DISBEILEF!

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:46 pm
by ygalg
"He who fights so that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah's cause."

the highlights words are applying imposition.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:44 pm
by winston
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:Muslims must be just and kind to Kufar who do not fight against them on the basis of Islam.
This is the general teaching of Islam.


Is it not simply the case that when a non-Muslim refuses to accept the invitation of Islam, or the position of a Dhimmi under Islamic law, then they are viewed as people who are 'fighting' Muslims on the basis of Islam? Islam is about political dominance and anyone who opposes the Shariah is a legitimate target of warfare, especially (as skynightblaze has already noted) when Muslims have the upper hand (through numbers or resources).

When you say that Muslims must be just and kind to Kufar who do not fight Muslims, you mean that Muslims must behave according to the rules of Dhimmitude which Muslims view as kindness and justice but which the Kufar most certainly do not.

Mohammed himself instigated physical hostilities against all of his non-Muslim neighbours, Jews, Christians and Pagans on the very basis that they rejected Islam and Dhimmitude to boot.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:30 pm
by KhaliL
winston wrote: Is it not simply the case that when a non-Muslim refuses to accept the invitation of Islam, or the position of a Dhimmi under Islamic law, then they are viewed as people who are 'fighting' Muslims on the basis of Islam? Islam is about political dominance and anyone who opposes the Shariah is a legitimate target of warfare, especially (as skynightblaze has already noted) when Muslims have the upper hand (through numbers or resources).


Exactly; It is what Quran says in Chapter: 47:35. See Al-Shoukani (A prominent Quran interpreter) quotes Al-Dajaj saying:
قال الزجاج: منع الله المسلمين أن يدعوا الكفار إلى الصلح، وأمرهم بحربهم حتى يسلموا

Translation: Al-Dajaj said (about the verse) "Allah has forbidden Muslims to invite Kaffirs to peace but commanded to fight them until they become Muslims."

More from more authentic Tafsirs can be brought on this matter. There is no way for a Muslim to escape at all because the command of their god is: to fight and subjugate infidels. The only time they can rest and be in peace with non-Muslims is when their position is weak. (Like they are in the Europe and Americas now). But once they get the upper hand, what Al-Dajaj mentioned is going to happen. A true Muslim should strive for it.

Because it is Quran which propels them;

Regds
KhaliL

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:50 am
by KhaliL
___________________________

I choose to answer Balls_of_Titanium1 since skynightblaze seems off-line.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:Pickthall:
[047:035] So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actio


Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:Yes. What is wrong with it?


Changing plates? You asked him to bring Picktal and he did. It is obvious from the verses: as a Muslim you are not supposed to be in peace with non-Muslims (infidels) when you have upper hand.

And you mean there is nothing wrong with that???

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote: At any point, the verses 8-9 from Surah 60 guide the behaviour of Muslims towards non-Muslims. That is, Muslims must be just and kind to Kufar who do not fight against them on the basis of Islam.

This is the general teaching of Islam.


It is the not the general teaching accorded by your authentic sources, but it is how you want to present here to save your face. I am coming to the Tafsir of Surah 60:8-9 very shortly. Seems to be the only thing you have with you…

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:The above verse that you quoted has to do with the attitude of Muslims. Muslim behaviour must not be cowardly. We should not BEG peace. We should seek it, we should prefer it, but we should not sit on our knees in front of the Kufar to mercy on us, if they desire fighting. This is the general impression the verse leaves on a reader who has read other Qur'anic verses.


Sadly, it is not the case. Do not seek peace means do not be in peace or do not be in good terms. Then what makes you say “you should seek peace or prefer peace”? Aren’t the verses obvious in your case? The whole world could get it right, but you could not?

The verse does not even remotely mention Kaffirs fighting, but only instructs Muslims to not to be in peace with Kaffirs when Muslims have upper hand. It is a command of your god to you Muslims on how you have to behave with Kaffirs when you have authority over them. You should not be in terms with them rather you should fight them. It is obvious from the verse.

Now I will look at how you defend your own sources, (Tafsirs).

Tafsir Jalalain wrote:So do not falter, [do not] be weak, and [do not] call for peace (read salm or silm), that is to say, a truce with the disbelievers should you encounter them, when you have the upper hand (al-a‘lawna: the third letter of the triliteral root, wāw, has been omitted), [when you are] the victors, the vanquishers, and God is with you, helping and assisting, and He will not stint you, diminish you, in [the reward for] your works, that is to say, of the reward for them.


Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:Let's for a moment believe the above exegesis must have to be accepted by any and every Muslim - which is definitely not the case


Very convenient…! Skynightblaze brought more Tafsirs than Jalalain to reinforce his contention. They are interpretations of the verse. The exact interpretation attested by many other Mufassirs, so what they mean is unanimous opinion of your authentic scholars. Not any present day apologist scholar but scholars who are belonging to the "Tabioon". The group Muhammad said are third best after his currents and next generation.

Just because you say it is not the case is not going to change the facts..

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:I have two issues with you then -

Quote Tafsir Jalalain in the case of the verses 8-9 of Chapter no. 60.


Here you are. I promised you this. Let us have a look at Tafsir Jalalain.

God does not forbid you in regard to those who did not wage war against you, from among the disbelievers, on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes, that you should treat them kindly (an tabarrūhum is an inclusive substitution for alladhīna, ‘those who’) and deal with them justly: this was [revealed] before the command to struggle against them. Assuredly God loves the just.

God only forbids you in regard to those who waged war against you on account of religion and expelled you from your homes and supported [others] in your expulsion, that you should make friends with them (an tawallawhum is an inclusive substitution for alladhīna, ‘those who’). And whoever makes friends with them, those — they are the wrongdoers.[Tafsir Jalalain]


Focus on the bolded part: What does it say? The verse you boast is revealed before the command to struggle (fight) against Infidels. That means this verse is abrogated by another verse as I clearly pointed out in my earlier encounter with you. You are trying with straws, but I say this Taqiyya is not going to work here.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:Secondly, let's see whether even the above tafsir supports your contention. It says that when you encounter the disbelievers, when you have a battle with them, do not offer a truce when you have the upperhand. An understandable military strategy. It SAYS NOTHING about THE REASON why this "enoucter" is taking place. It may be that the Kafirs are fighting Muslims "on the basis of their religion" in which case - as stated in verse 60:8-9, Muslims are to fight disblievers.


All Tafsirs support my contention. It is: Muslims are not supposed to be in peace with unbelievers when they have upper hand. There is no encounter mentioned in either verses or Tafsirs. I challenge you to prove it with sources other than just making assertions on your own.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
Tafsir Tabrasi wrote:Not get weak from the fighting and let not any infidels to peaceful reconciliation when you have upper hand


Ditto - quote their tafsir of 60:8-9.
Not get weak - very understandable.
Again, don't accept true - fight the war to total victory if you have the upper hand
Why is there a war? No comment.


I say stop this falsification. Tabrasi mentions no war. The verse mentions no war. Then where did you pull off this war excuse?

I just brought a small portion of Tabrasi, but if you want it in full, go through this:

Do not falter and get frail from the fighting and do not let any infidels to peaceful reconciliation when you have the upper hand and authority of destroying them. It was said: If you are in a position to prevail over them do not call for peace at all.

This is the full version of Tabrasi. Any comment?

Where is war mentioned in above? Care to point it out?

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
Tafsir Al-Razi wrote:Obey Allah and his messenger requires fighting and do not make your position weakened nor tolerate “Kufr” when you (Muslims) are advancing
.

Ditto. (You know by now what I mean by that).

Secondly, "do not make your position weakened". NOTHING wrong.
.

You seem to have a lot of Dittos with you. Keep them with you. Here it is not going to work.

Tafsir Razi says do not weaken your (Muslims’) position by engaging in peace with Kaffirs when you are advancing means when you have the upper hand. There are a lot of things wrong for us Kaffirs in above because you are supposed to annihilate us when you have control.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote: "nor tolerate Kufr" - in which sense Razi says that, I don't know, when according to 60:8-9 we are to just and kind to kafirs if they do not against us on the basis of our religion.

Thus, no more comment on Al Razi behalf for me. Allah knows best.
.

No… no… no..., Do not leave it to"Allah knows best" Of course we know your Allah knows best, but that does not help when in fact we are asking questions to you not to your Allah.

Verse 60:8-9 has been dealt effectively. The Tafsir you asked says the verse was revealed before the verses which command for fighting Kaffirs were revealed. So, it is a Mansookh = Abrogated verse. Do not glue on it. Do you know anything about “Nasikh” and “Mansookh”?

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
Tafsir Al-Shoukani wrote:Those who disbelieve and die in disbelief will not be forgiven.


Point to be noted is that a Jews prosptitute was fogiven by God for her single good deed.
.

But you did NOT dare to answer me when I refuted your hadith but again bring the same here with another member…,the prostitute forgiven by Allah was not under Muhammad, and she was an Israelite. I checked the hadith in Arabic too to confirm. Here it is in its original form:

‏حدثنا ‏ ‏سعيد بن تليد ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏ابن وهب ‏ ‏قال أخبرني ‏ ‏جرير بن حازم ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أيوب ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏محمد بن سيرين ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنه ‏ ‏قال ‏
‏قال النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏بينما كلب ‏ ‏يطيف ‏ ‏بركية كاد يقتله العطش إذ رأته بغي من بغايا ‏ ‏بني إسرائيل ‏ ‏فنزعت موقها فسقته فغفر لها به


http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Disp ... 0&Rec=5333

Focus on the bolded underlined: Muhammad said a prostitute from the “Children of Israel”. He was mentioning an Israelite prostitute under Moses. There were many believers under Moses. Werent there? According to Islam, Yes. Then what makes you argue a Jewess prostitute forgiven by Allah and got accomodated in paradise?

Quran is very clear on this: It says "Whoever accepts any religion than Islam will be losers in hereafter"
Do you want to go against Quran to argue for a Hadith which clearly says "A prostitute from the Children of Israel"?

A Jewish prostitute along with a Jewish man who were under Muhammad were stoned to death. It was Muhammad who ordered for stoning them. It was the way of Muhammad to deal with prostitution or illegal sex. Did you by any means forget this fact?

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote: But I do not take much issues with that. What happens in Muslim after life must be of no consequence to you.
.

I am talking about Jews and what happens to them in this life and after-life. Do not bring red herrings.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
Then the Almighty forbade believers from the weakness and vulnerability, he said: do not get weak from the fighting, and not to let the infidels peace from you. Qatada said: the meaning of the verse is "be not the first to offer peace"


"forbade believers from the weakness and vulnerability" - NOTHING wrong.

Again, why the fighting is occuring is not made clear.
.

Bolding and emphasizing your shallow assertions… they are not going to work here.

And the reason for fighting is very well mentioned in Quran chapter 9:29. It is the final marching order of Muhammad. Chapter 9 is the last revealed chapter of Quran if Chapter Al-Nasr which only contains few verses can be omitted. And what you see in chapter 9:29 is to fight not against those who fight you but against those who do not believe in Allah and his prophet. Do you need to quote me the verse? If you need, ask for it.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote: Qatada says be not the first to make peace - which means, if Kafirs come to peace first, then it is ok - that's the collaray, isn't it?


Oooh… did you check Tafsir Shoukani? I did not bring the full Tafsir (not to consume space) but let me say, there is Dajaj’s opinion before Qatada in Tafsir Shoukani. It goes “Allah has prohibited Muslims to invite Kaffirs to peace. Allah has commanded to fight them until they become Muslims” (just have a look on my post above. I brought it in Arabic)

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote: Again, talkign about a conflict that is already under way. There is nothing about WHY the conflict is under way. as such, in a conflict, do not get weak, do not beg peace, do not compromise, but if you have the upperhand, follow the war to your goal - something that every major western miiltary strategtist will agree to.

As to Ibn Kathir comparing Prophet (P) attitude attitude towars Meccans, there is a prevalent thought among Muslims scholars represented by modern scholars like Ghamdi (this site also brags about debating him) which holds that the the specific commandments towards the Meccans and the disbelievers of those days cannot be applied in general circumstances - as that was the time when a prophet of God was on earth, while in generally, this is not the case.

That's enough, I think, for this argument from tafsir, and not Qur'an.


You single out phrases from Ibn Kathir conveniently.., and what you said finally? Argument from Tafsir and not Quran? Do you think Tafsirs are of no importance? If you have an argument Quran alone is sufficient or Quran can be understood without referring to other sources like Hadiths and Tafsirs just make the assertion so that I can ask you some questions of some verses of Quran.

And thanks for the laughs you gave us from the last paragraph. If Muhammad and his Quran were just meant for a certain period in the past, why do you still uphold this man and the book he supposedly brought? Why do you claim your prophet is the final messenger and his words and deeds are relevant to the end of times? Why do you argue for the infinite relevance of your book Quran?

Discard them both and be with humanity.


KF

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:32 pm
by Pragmatist
KhaliL FarieL wrote:___________________________

I choose to answer Balls_of_Titanium1 since skynightblaze seems off-line.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:Pickthall:
[047:035] So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actio


Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:Yes. What is wrong with it?





Now BALLS of GLASS has a problem he has to either respond to you Man to Man or RUNAWAY yet AGAIN. Either way his balls of glass will be shattered AGAIN

:*) :*)

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:53 pm
by skynightblaze
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:@BOT
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 125:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What kind of fighting is in Allah's cause? (I ask this), for some of us fight because of being enraged and angry and some for the sake of his pride and haughtiness." The Prophet raised his head (as the questioner was standing) and said, "He who fights so that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah's cause."


You are not asked just to fight in self defense but you are also supposed to take on offensive jihad as to spread islam. In other words you are supposed to spread islam by force.


"He who fights"? In which sense? Fighting does not always have a lethal connotation.

I am fighting LIES on this forum.

I am FIGHITNG hatred on this forum.

Police FIGHTS crime.

Judiciary FIGHTS corruption.

MUSLIMS FIGHT DISBEILEF!


Thanks for responding . It is very important for us to know what Muhhamad meant by fighting because we are debating islam and you are putting your opinions here.

If fighting here means something other than violence then you should be able to show us that strategies used by Muhhamad to spread his religion involved no violence at all and it was always done through a healthy way. Can you show me when muhhamad spread his religion by use of education , debates or any other way than violence ?? You should be able to bring proofs from islamic scriptures here to prove whatever you have written above is true .

Btw you have been replied by khalil for the tafsirs that i brought up. I couldnt have replied better than him so i guess you could refute him .

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:03 pm
by Pragmatist
skynightblaze wrote:
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:@BOT
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 125:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What kind of fighting is in Allah's cause? (I ask this), for some of us fight because of being enraged and angry and some for the sake of his pride and haughtiness." The Prophet raised his head (as the questioner was standing) and said, "He who fights so that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah's cause."


You are not asked just to fight in self defense but you are also supposed to take on offensive jihad as to spread islam. In other words you are supposed to spread islam by force.


"He who fights"? In which sense? Fighting does not always have a lethal connotation.

I am fighting LIES on this forum.

I am FIGHITNG hatred on this forum.

Police FIGHTS crime.

Judiciary FIGHTS corruption.

MUSLIMS FIGHT DISBEILEF!


Thanks for responding . It is very important for us to know what Muhhamad meant by fighting because we are debating islam and we shouldnt be caring what you or other muslims interpret.

If fighting here means something other than violence then you should be able to show us that strategies used by Muhhamad to spread his religion involved no violence at all and it was always done through a healthy way. Can you show me when muhhamad spread his religion by use of education , debates or any other way than violence ?? You should be able to bring proofs from islamic scriptures here to prove whatever you have written above is true .

Btw you have been replied by khalil for the tafsirs that i brought up. I couldnt have replied better than him so i guess you could refute him .


My bet is on Balls of Glass running away from KhaliL again.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:09 pm
by Hank Palooka
I think that's a safe bet sir. Bowels of Glass is shattered.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:05 pm
by charleslemartel
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:@BOT
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 125:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What kind of fighting is in Allah's cause? (I ask this), for some of us fight because of being enraged and angry and some for the sake of his pride and haughtiness." The Prophet raised his head (as the questioner was standing) and said, "He who fights so that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah's cause."


You are not asked just to fight in self defense but you are also supposed to take on offensive jihad as to spread islam. In other words you are supposed to spread islam by force.


"He who fights"? In which sense? Fighting does not always have a lethal connotation.

I am fighting LIES on this forum.

I am FIGHITNG hatred on this forum.

Police FIGHTS crime.

Judiciary FIGHTS corruption.

MUSLIMS FIGHT DISBEILEF!


Show us that in Muhammad, the uswa hasana,'s time, there were other kinds of fightings too, otherwise I earn the right to call you a liar. Show us that Muhammad, in the course of spreading Islam, had other types of fights apart from the beheading ones. Show us that when he invited other monarchs to Islam in his letters, he challenged them for debates if they refused.



Your inventions are not going to work at FFI.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:30 pm
by KhaliL
_________________________

Balls_of_Titanium1 wrote:I am fighting LIES on this forum.

I am FIGHITNG hatred on this forum.


You are very fascinating in your fighting and I would say do not give up at all. In fact I would encourage you to go on and on because you won considerably so far. There was a bit of sympathy left with some members of this forum towards Islam and Muslims but your fight have turned all upside down. You are effective to the extent that if any Non-Muslim goes through your posts, he/she will never ever bother of getting any closer to Muslims.

I have enclosed one of your magnificent quotes in my signature. It would be there for sometimes until another Muslim shows up with another gem.

Should I say thank you very much for this service?

KF

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:34 pm
by antineoETC
AMUSLIMSEMANTICJIGGERYPOKERIST wrote:"He who fights"? In which sense? Fighting does not always have a lethal connotation.

I am fighting LIES on this forum.

I am FIGHITNG hatred on this forum.

Police FIGHTS crime.

Judiciary FIGHTS corruption.

MUSLIMS FIGHT DISBEILEF!


So "fight" doesn't have to mean PHYSICAL fighting? Fair enough. Let us look once again at verse 60:8 then:

60.8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who FIGHT you not for your Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them:

So if "FIGHT" can mean other than fighting with swords, fists etc then the above permission to treat people "kindly" cannot extend to people who, "FIGHT" the Muslims with, say, spoken or written word. Correct?

The door swings both ways. I challenge you to fault my logic.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:39 pm
by winston
antineoETC wrote:
So "fight" doesn't have to mean PHYSICAL fighting? Fair enough. Let us look once again at verse 60:8 then:

60.8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who FIGHT you not for your Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them:

So if "FIGHT" can mean other than fighting with swords, fists etc then the above permission to treat people "kindly" cannot extend to people who, "FIGHT" the Muslims with, say, spoken or written word. Correct?

The door swings both ways. I challenge you to fault my logic.


In addtion to this there is a quranic verse (can't remember off the top of my head) which says that the elderly and the sick are exempt from the struggle (jihad). So if jihad is a spiritual struggle or a 'fight' in a non physical sense, as many apoligists claim then why are these people exempt from it?

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:45 pm
by Pragmatist
Careful guys don't give BALLS of GLASS a way out of responding to KhaliL you know this COWARD will do anything to avoid KhaliL making a complete fool of him.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:51 pm
by KhaliL
winston wrote:In addtion to this there is a quranic verse (can't remember off the top of my head) which says that the elderly and the sick are exempt from the struggle (jihad). So if jihad is a spiritual struggle or a 'fight' in a non physical sense, as many apoligists claim then why are these people exempt from it?


You must be mentioning of the following verses Winston:

Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good, but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward: Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. And Allah is Ever Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful. [Quran Chapter 4:95-96]

Regds
KF

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 6:47 pm
by winston
That's the one, thanks :rock:

Are any of our Muslim posters going to contest any of these facts? It's understandable that the truth can often be very painful to acknowledge but i'd like to appeal to any peace-loving Muslims reading this thread to seriously consider the implications of these Islamic scriptures and really think about whether the dictates of the Quran/Sira are in any way compatible with a peacful society of coexistence and development? They are not :ermm:

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:41 am
by Pragmatist
Seems like the proven COWARD BALLS of GLASS has indeed RUNAWAY again. Anything to avoid being HUMILIATED again by KhaliL.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:03 pm
by Balls_of_Titanium_1
winston wrote:
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:Muslims must be just and kind to Kufar who do not fight against them on the basis of Islam.
This is the general teaching of Islam.


Is it not simply the case that when a non-Muslim refuses to accept the invitation of Islam, or the position of a Dhimmi under Islamic law, then they are viewed as people who are 'fighting' Muslims on the basis of Islam?


No. That is your own creation.

The condition as to when a non-Muslim should be seen as fighting Muslims is stated in the Qur'an in the same verse. Those non-Muslims who fight Muslims for their religion and drive Muslims from their homes - both are forms of physical aggression.

Islam is about political dominance and anyone who opposes the Shariah is a legitimate target of warfare, especially (as skynightblaze has already noted) when Muslims have the upper hand (through numbers or resources).


I have refuted skynightblaze's argument. Go check it out again. And no, you made them up.


When you say that Muslims must be just and kind to Kufar who do not fight Muslims, you mean that Muslims must behave according to the rules of Dhimmitude which Muslims view as kindness and justice but which the Kufar most certainly do not.


The pact of Dhima arises due to a specific circumstance. It is another subject.

As for "kind" and "just" the words simply mean what they are supposed to mean. Your forcing your interpretation onto them is unacceptable.

Mohammed himself instigated physical hostilities against all of his non-Muslim neighbours, Jews, Christians and Pagans on the very basis that they rejected Islam and Dhimmitude to boot.


Nonsense. First of all, the time when a prophet is on earth is different to the time when there is no prophet on earth. The former is special circumstances, while the later are ordinary. What may be allowed in special circumstances may not be allowed in ordinary circumstances.

Secondly, we know from history that it was the non-Muslims of Arabia who started hostilities against Muslims and not the other way round. If you are ignorant of facts, then ask questions rather than making false statements.