Page 5 of 6

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:30 pm
by winston
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
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.


How is this my creation? Lookey here:

9.29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The conditions for establishing ones enemy are laid out in this verse and they are 'those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger i.e Shariah, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth i.e Islam.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
winston wrote:
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.


I did check it out again and no you didn't refute anything. Skynightblaze quoted your scripture which said that Muslims must not seek peace when they have the upper hand in a conflict. Here's a refresher:

"If Muslims are weak, a truce (note that this is only a truce and never a peace treaty, the fighting will resume when the Muslims have gathered their strength) may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.16).


And let us not forget the value of a truce in Islamic thinking:

Qur’an 8:58-59 “If you apprehend treachery from any group on the part of a people (with whom you have a treaty), retaliate by breaking off (relations) with them. The infidels should not think they can bypass (Islamic law or the punishment of Allah). Surely they cannot escape. The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”

"So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (47:35)


I didn't make that up.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
winston wrote:
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:

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.


Rubbish, the 'pact' of Dhima has every bit of relevance to this topic and you're right it does arise due to specific circumstances which are outlined above in verse 9.29 i.e. When a non-Muslim refuses to accept Islam but they do not want to fight for whatever reason then they may escape murder by paying the jizya and 'feeling themselves subdued'.

In addtion I'm not 'forcing my interpretation' onto anything. One mans kindness is another mans cruelty, don't deny it. If I were to live under Shariah law as a Dhimmi my Muslim masters would think themselves very kind and just that they don't cut my head off even if they feel entitled to. I however would not feel that my appalling living conditions were a product of any kindness or justice but rather Islamic supremacism and barbarity alone.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
winston wrote:
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:

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.


You betray your own intelligence here BOT1: "time when a prophet is on earth is different to the time when there is no prophet on earth." Special circumstances? You mean when a main claims to be a prophet and sets about committing every type of crime in the book from rape to piracy this person should be excused due to special circumstances? I don't make exceptions for Mohammed or anyone else for that matter. If Mohammed claimed to be a prophet then he should be judged to against a very high standard of behaviour, not be given leeway to do whatever he felt like. This is the standard operating procedure for a cult.

Did the non-Muslims start hostilities? Maybe it is you who be asking questions instead of making false statements:

Tabari
VII:18/Ishaq:287 "The Messenger sent Abd Allah out with a detachment of eight men of the Emigrants without any Ansari, or Helpers, among them. He wrote a letter, but ordered him not to look at it until he had traveled for two days. Then he was to carry out what he was commanded to do. When Abd Allah opened the letter it said, 'March until you reach Nakhlah, between Mecca and Ta'if. Lie in wait (in order to kill them) for the Quraysh there, and find out for us what they are doing. Having read the letter, Abd Allah said, 'To hear is to obey.' He told his companions, 'The Prophet has commanded me to go to Nakhlah and lie in wait for the Quraysh.


The fighting was organised and carried out by the Muslims under Mohammeds orders. The Quraysh were going about their business.

Ishaq:287 “The Muslim raiders consulted one another concerning them, this being the last day of Rajab. One of the Muslims said, 'By Allah, if we leave these people alone tonight, they will get into the Haram (the sacred territory of Mecca) and they will be safely out of our reach. If we kill them we will have killed in the sacred month.

Tabari VII:19 "They hesitated and were afraid to advance on them, but then they plucked up courage and agreed to kill as many as they could and to seize what they had with them.

The first Muslims conducted a terrorist raid with the sole intention of looting and killing under the orders of Mohammed.

Tabari VII:29 "This incident had provoked a state of war between the Prophet and the Quraysh and was the beginning of the fighting in which they inflicted casualties upon one another."

So before this Islamic raid there was no fighting, no Muslims had been killed or hurt by the Pagans.

Winston

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:01 pm
by Pragmatist
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
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.


Respond to KhaliL or clear off BALLS we all know what you are.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:07 pm
by Balls_of_Titanium_1
antineoETC wrote:
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.


Your logic would be perfect were it not for the fact that the word "fighting" is used in two different contexts in those two verses.

In the Qur'anic verse, fighting is used with the phrase "and drive you out of your houses" - a clear physical connotation. Secondly, the object to be fought is human - the Muslims, "YOU".

While in the hadith that a person here brought forth, fighting does not contain the above first connotation. Secondly, the object to be fought is a concept, a non-physical entity, "unbelief".

The above gives us full legtimacy in interpreting the two verses in the way I interpreted them, while rejecting your agenda driven interpretation.

Isn't my logic over your head? I hope not.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:19 pm
by Balls_of_Titanium_1
winston wrote:
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?


Now you are showing tons of ignorance. No respectable scholar of Islam - Muslim or non-Muslim - worth his salt will question the very fundamental concept of two prong Jihad - military and spiritual - in Islam. The issue that you have brought up is so childish that I would lower myself in answering it, but just for the sake of clearing the understanding of a person I think is coming of as sincere as of yet; the response is simple - elderly, sick, are exempt from physcial/military Jihad, and not Jihad as a whole. That's all.

Get it?

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:23 pm
by Balls_of_Titanium_1
winston wrote:That's the one, thanks :rock:

Are any of our Muslim posters going to contest any of these facts?


I am sorry, but after reading my responses, have you realized how stupid and childish your objections were? They have been addressed fully, and they are not worth to warrant rhetorical questions as the above.

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:


You have gone from curious to judgemental. You are responsible for your actions.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:59 pm
by Balls_of_Titanium_1
winston wrote:
Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
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.


How is this my creation? Lookey here:

9.29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


And yet, the verse which says "be kind and just to those who do not fight you" does not ring any bell to you?

Qur'an should be read as a whole, and not in parts.

The above verse from Surah Tawba talks about the special circumstance of Dhima. It arised when non-Muslims attacked Muslims, thus after Muslims defeated them, the above was to be implemented.

The injunctions which rule ordinary circumstances are the ones I have been repeating on this thread.

The conditions for establishing ones enemy are laid out in this verse and they are 'those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger i.e Shariah, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth i.e Islam.


Such a condition is laid well and truely in the verse of the Surah Mumtahina - those non-Muslims who fight Muslims on the basis of their religion, and drive Muslims out of their homes - are to be fought. Every insitution of Islam teaches this verse to establish those enemies of Muslims that Muslim should fight with, as part of Islamic teaching.

The above verse that you talk about talks within the context of non-Muslims instigating wars, and in this context Muslims fighting those "who believe not in Allah, nor the last day...".


Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
winston wrote:
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.


I did check it out again and no you didn't refute anything. Skynightblaze quoted your scripture which said that Muslims must not seek peace when they have the upper hand in a conflict.


And I said there is nothing wrong with it. Is there?

Here's a refresher:

"If Muslims are weak, a truce (note that this is only a truce and never a peace treaty, the fighting will resume when the Muslims have gathered their strength) may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.16).


First of all, don't express your ignorance here as authentic. The above is not any of "my scriptures". The above is a scholarly opinion, but certainly not part of established Islamic texts.

I hereby reject your quoting obscure sources and demand that you put forth real argument based on substance.



And let us not forget the value of a truce in Islamic thinking:

Qur’an 8:58-59 “If you apprehend treachery from any group on the part of a people (with whom you have a treaty), retaliate by breaking off (relations) with them. The infidels should not think they can bypass (Islamic law or the punishment of Allah). Surely they cannot escape. The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”


I have already told this forum that I do not give more importance to self-proclaimed Arabic speakers and translators on this forum than I give to fleas that caught my dog last summer.

So bring forth this verse in the recognized translation, of Yosuf Ali, Pikthal, etc.

Then I will address it.



"So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (47:35)


Addressed already. You are dishonestly superimposing two verses against each other to befool the readers that they are in sequence. This sort of tactic is cheap and completely unwelcomed.


I didn't make that up.


You didn't need to. None of the above has supported any of your argument.

winston wrote:

Rubbish, the 'pact' of Dhima has every bit of relevance to this topic and you're right it does arise due to specific circumstances which are outlined above in verse 9.29 i.e. When a non-Muslim refuses to accept Islam but they do not want to fight for whatever reason then they may escape murder by paying the jizya and 'feeling themselves subdued'.


What about "be kind and just to those kafirs who do not fight you on the basis of your faith"?

You are completely off the mark. The Pact of Dhima arises due to the following conditions - when non-Muslims start war against Muslims, but are defeated by Muslims and Muslims conquer their land. Those non-Muslims who wish to remain non-Muslims will now be the responsibility of the Muslim rulers who will sign a Dhima pact with them. They should pay tax like other citizens in the Islamic state, only that their tax will be called jizya.

Such a circumstance has arisen due to non-Muslim aggression. Muslims at any time must follow the commad governing ordinary circumstance - that of leaving those non-Muslims who do not fight Muslims completely unharmed.


In addtion I'm not 'forcing my interpretation' onto anything. One mans kindness is another mans cruelty, don't deny it.


Which may be true in your case.

If I were to live under Shariah law as a Dhimmi my Muslim masters would think themselves very kind and just that they don't cut my head off even if they feel entitled to. I however would not feel that my appalling living conditions were a product of any kindness or justice but rather Islamic supremacism and barbarity alone.


Your personal take on any matter is the least of my concern.

What I said stands true - Muslims are to be kind and just to those non-Muslims who do not fight Muslims on the basis of their faith nor drive Muslims out of their homes.

Balls_of_Titanium_1 wrote:
winston wrote: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.


You betray your own intelligence here BOT1: "time when a prophet is on earth is different to the time when there is no prophet on earth." Special circumstances? You mean when a main claims to be a prophet and sets about committing every type of crime in the book from rape to piracy this person should be excused due to special circumstances?


I never said that. You are now indulging in nonsense.

I don't make exceptions for Mohammed or anyone else for that matter.


It doesn't matter what you do or don't. When was it about you?

If Mohammed claimed to be a prophet then he should be judged to against a very high standard of behaviour, not be given leeway to do whatever he felt like.


He satisfies every standard. Now keep to the topic and don't go on rambling after you have misunderstood my argument.

This is the standard operating procedure for a cult.


Which is non-consequential.


Did the non-Muslims start hostilities? Maybe it is you who be asking questions instead of making false statements:


Yes. Let's see:


Tabari
VII:18/Ishaq:287 "The Messenger sent Abd Allah out with a detachment of eight men of the Emigrants without any Ansari, or Helpers, among them. He wrote a letter, but ordered him not to look at it until he had traveled for two days. Then he was to carry out what he was commanded to do. When Abd Allah opened the letter it said, 'March until you reach Nakhlah, between Mecca and Ta'if. Lie in wait (in order to kill them) for the Quraysh there, and find out for us what they are doing. Having read the letter, Abd Allah said, 'To hear is to obey.' He told his companions, 'The Prophet has commanded me to go to Nakhlah and lie in wait for the Quraysh.


Now again you will compain after I educate you on this too.

First of all, Tabari is not an authentic source on the life of the Prophet as a whole. Parts of it are authentic parts of it are not. This again is beyond question to someone with a minimal understanding of Islamic studies.

Secondly, do you understand anything from the first line of the paragraph you quoted? Or are you dancing blindly on someone else's tone and doing the dirty work of someone else?


The very first line tells us that Muhammad at that time was in Madina.

Now ask yourself - what made him go to Madina?

Muhammad was born in Mecca. Hint.

Rest is your homework for today.


The fighting was organised and carried out by the Muslims under Mohammeds orders. The Quraysh were going about their business.


Don't insult me.


Ishaq:287 “The Muslim raiders consulted one another concerning them, this being the last day of Rajab. One of the Muslims said, 'By Allah, if we leave these people alone tonight, they will get into the Haram (the sacred territory of Mecca) and they will be safely out of our reach. If we kill them we will have killed in the sacred month.


Do your above given excercise and then we will discuss all the above in detail.


Tabari VII:19 "They hesitated and were afraid to advance on them, but then they plucked up courage and agreed to kill as many as they could and to seize what they had with them.


Tabari again - isn't matching Ishaq. Anyways, do your excercise first.


The first Muslims conducted a terrorist raid with the sole intention of looting and killing under the orders of Mohammed.


Do your excericse and stop going on a rampage with little knowledge. Don't be someone's puppet.


Tabari VII:29 "This incident had provoked a state of war between the Prophet and the Quraysh and was the beginning of the fighting in which they inflicted casualties upon one another."


Complete your excericse.


So before this Islamic raid there was no fighting, no Muslims had been killed or hurt by the Pagans.


Heck, your own sources betray you.

But I will give you a chance to educate yourself. So do the above excercise before you talk more.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:41 am
by KhaliL
________________________________

Balls_of_Titanium1 wrote:And yet, the verse which says "be kind and just to those who do not fight you" does not ring any bell to you?

Qur'an should be read as a whole, and not in parts.


This is sheer ignorance manifest. No wonder when a Jihadi Muslim bring up these kinds of arguments because even the most peaceful and eloquent Shabbir Ally was no exception. I heard this first from Shabbir Ally when he was debating Jay Smith on Quran or Bible which promotes peace. Shabbir Ally could not have argued so lest he will not be making a case in favour of Quran.

But the fact is, There is no such a necessity to read Quran as a whole to pass rulings on either Jihad or many other matters. Classic Muslim jurists read Quran as a whole but formulated their rulings based on certain verses following the doctrine of abrogation. When Allah himself says there are abrogated verses in Quran, what is the logic behind reading the book as whole and making opinions based on even abrogated verses?

An abrogated verse is not counted while creating sharia laws. That is why we do not see four jurists of Islam basing their rulings on abrogated verses.

In Fiqh, there are two “Qoul” = “Wordings” of Imams. Qadeem (old) and Jadeed. (new)Imams were inspired by the doctrine of abrogation. While it is permissible to weave rulings based on Imam’s Jadeed (new) Qoul, qadeems are only good in staying in the book. They are only kept there to show the Imam once had this opinion but it has been changed by a new one.

Coming back to the topic, in the matter of Jihad, none of the Jurists including, Abu Haifa, Shaifee, Malikee, Hanbalee, took the whole of Quran to pass rulings on it. They omitted abrogated verses to go with abrogating (nasikh) verses.

One verse often Muslim apologists bring on is Quran 2:190 which go as:

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not, aggressors.[Quran Chapter 2:190]

The verse looks somewhat better but majority of jurists hold this only as an abrogated verse. Quran chapter 9: verse 5 has abrogated the above verse, and that is why declaration of war against unbelievers is not because they (unbelievers) fight against Muslims. [Check Bidayat al-Mujtahid/ 10:3]

Let us see the jurists’ opinion on what are the prerequisites of declaring war against unbelievers in Islam. I am not going by my interpretation but these are “Ijama” unanimously approved rulings of jurists of Islam. Islamic Sharia is based on these rulings. Moreover, denying or bashing “Ijma” is considered as “kufr” by some scholars based on the word of prophet “My community will not agree on an error”

The condition for the declaration of war:

The condition for the declaration of war by agreement (by jurists)is the communication of the invitation to Islam. That is, it is not permitted to wage war on them unless the invitation has reached them. This is something upon which the Muslim jurists agreed because of the words of Allah “ We never punish until we have sent a messenger. [Quran 17:15] Jurists disagreed on whether the repetition was required on the recurrence of war. Some of them made this obligatory, some considered it desirable, while some of them neither considered it obligatory nor desirable.
The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of words of the prophet with his acts. It has been established that the prophet used to say to the commander upon sending a detachment “when you come to face your enemy, polytheists, invite them to opt for three choices or inclinations, and whichever of these they agree to, accept and withhold the attack. Invite them to Islam, then to move from their territory to the territory of emigrants and inform them that if they do this they shall the right granted to the emigrants. If they refuse to do this and choose their own abode let them know that their status will be that of the Muslim Bedouin. The law of Allah which is applicable to the believers would be applicable to them, and they would have no share in the booty or in the spoils, unless they fight along with the Muslims. If they, then refuse call on them to pay Jizya. If they agree, accept it from them and refrain from fighting them. But if they refuse, seek support from Allah and fight them.

[Ibn Rushd/Bidayat Al-Mujtahid. 10:4]


From the Jurists’ opinion fighting should be started once the enemy of Islam polytheists, Jews, Christians were invited to Islam. If they refuse, then Muslims should fight them until they either accept Islam or pay Jizya. This is in very much concordance to Quran chapter 9:29. And all Jurists have passed rulings based on this, and they all are unanimous in approving Quran chapter 9:5 is abrogating all peaceful verses of Quran.

But our new Jihadi Muslim has yet to get it.., There are more that you are yet to know in your Islam Mr. Jihadi. Try to learn at least the basics of your religion. I would highly recommend Umdat Al-Salik. Start from it. It must be available in Pakistan shhhhh.. U.K.


KF

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:46 am
by KhaliL
________________________________

I recently had an encounter with one Mike Ghouse on the same issue been discussed here. I will post here my second response to him for which I did not get any reply at all from the other side.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Thank you Mr. Ghouse for answering to my input. ,

The topic of this debate is whether Quran incites violence or not, and I see you in backfoot now with your Nuclear energy theory. Is it a subtle admission from your part Quran contains violent verses but believers should not follow them? If so, I am sorry to tell you things do not work in that way. 1400 years of bloody history is well behind us.

Religions never brought peace on this earth. Even the most passive Buddhists gone berserk at times. So the claim: purpose of religion is to bring peace and tranquillity to individuals and society is very much bogus. Sad but true; we have to accept this fact.
And at the same time this does not mean non-religious institutions are infallible. Violence is as old as mankind, even your holy book says it started from the time of the first Man Adam. My point is religions failed big time. Let us look for alternatives and time is running out very fast.

It is good to preach a holy book should not be abused but used for the betterment of the world, but in actuality, that never was the case. Islam holy book Quran has been the reason behind the cruellest massacres world witnessed. It never brought peace in history. There was never a moment Muslim Ummah stayed tranquil. 1400 years of failed history is what Islam offers to humanity in terms of peace.

All that said; I brought Quran’s next last chapter and a verse or verses from it to prove the contention “Ultimate message of Quran is not peace but violence to the end of times. I do not know whether you had gone through the link I provided in parenthesis to my message. It was my article on http://www.faithfreedom.org. However, I am not promoting any website but the article was very much relevant to this ongoing discussion and I linked you to it. That’s all.

I see you are trying very hard to confine Quran in a certain context and as usual, you brought the verses “No compulsion in religion”. What I understand from your post is you want us to get the message of Quran assessing it en bloc. Unfortunately such an argument puts your Quran in trial when in one place it says “there is no compulsion in religion” and in another place it commands believers to “Fight unbelievers until they become Muslims or paying Jizya in humiliation”. Are not these verses contradicting each other? Yes. But how can there be a contradiction in Quran if it has been emanated from an infallible divine source?

The only way to counter this is to accept the doctrine of abrogation. That is what I said as introductory to my previous message. We know the history of Quran and it was not made within a day or two. When I asserted the context of Quran is the last 23 years of life history of Prophet Muhammad, you did not deny it. So, we have to treat the book accordingly. We know Muhammad was hopeless in the first few years of his life in Mecca; he did not have many followers and polytheist Meccans were a huge majority then. In that context, we can expect conciliatory words from Muhammad. That is why I said, all those peaceful verses in Quran belongs to Muhammad’s life in Mecca. In the second stage of his life, when Muhammad earned some followers in Medina, he implemented self-defence, and his conciliatory tone changed into somewhat self defensive. You project those verses in your response but they belong to the second stage of Muhammad’s life. And at last when Muhammad won one third of Arabian Peninsula, he has power and sources now to impose his religion upon others who are not attached to his belief system. The very context of Quran chapter 9 is a war named Tabuk which was utterly offensive. We see God admonishing his faithful for not going to war in this chapter (9) verse 38-39. Remember this occurs after one third of Arabia has fallen to Prophet Muhammad. There was no need of an offensive and most of Muhammad’s followers did not feel like so. (That is why God had to reveal verses on it). These group of. Muhammad’s followers never stayed idle whenever they attacked or whenever they were commanded to attack. That is why Muhammad emerged victorious through bloody wars. But this time, his followers held back because even they could not find the necessity of warfare when it was spring time in Arabia then. But God revealed verses admonishing them for not going offensive. Tabuk war is notorious for Muhammad’s followers’ desertion from it.

So, your assertion Quran should be understood as a whole is flawed for many reasons. First it does not make sense when we understand Quran’s history. If it was a book slowed down on a single occasion your argument can be understood but it is not the case with it. It took 23 years for God to reveal his last message to Muhammad. Allah himself admitted in Quran he revealed it in stages [Quran chapter 17: verse 6] Allah said he will abrogate his words accordingly (Quran chapter 2:106]. All these point out the fact, God was revealing verses in accordance with things going on in Muhammad’s life. When he was weak, God did not incite him to go offensive. When his position became somewhat better, God revealed verses of self defence. (Which you mentioned in your post). But when Muhammad emerged victorious and had enough power, God incited violence and inspired faithful to go offensive. We saw God even in the role of an admonisher as stated above.

Muhammad is the role model of Muslims and Quran should be understood in light of his life history or how he taught the holy book should be taken. His words, deeds and consent all are important for Muslims. Quran was revealed to Muhammad, and what leads a Muslim forward is his holy book and holy prophet’s Sunna (words, deeds and consent) If Muhammad had ordered to march on and on at the end stages of his life, and if we see those marching orders in the holy book Quran, we get the fact Quran’s ultimate message is violence and NOT peace. True, Quran has some passive verses too but those are never implemented later in Muhammad’s life or by his Sahaba (followers) or successors especially when they had the upper hand. The verse “No compulsion in religion” becomes a joke when we understand the first Caliph of Islam Abu Bakr fought against apostates of Islam for over a year only for the matter some groups in central Arabia refused to pay tithe. Imam Ibn Kathir mentions Quran chapter 9:5 was what inspired Abu Bakr to arm up against fellow Muslims who apostatized soon after Muhammad’s death. A lot of blood was shed only for the purpose of having apostatized tribes to get back to Islam. The wars known as “Riddah wars” lasted over a year, and if “no compulsion in religion” is a verse that is relevant; either Abu Bakr the first Caliph of Islam did not know of it or he ignored his God’s order. Otherwise, what reason can you provide for Abu Bakr going after tribes just because they denied only one of the pillars of Islam (tithe) and apostatized likewise? Why did not Abu Bakr recite the verse “No compulsion in religion” and leave those apostates? Remember he was the first elected Caliph of Islam

Just have a glace at Omar’s life. All his life was full of wars. He invaded nations after nations and wherever his army entered, either converting to Islam or paying Jizya in humiliation as prescribed in Quran 9:29 were the options offered for unbelievers. If there is no compulsion in religion, Omar the second Caliph of Islam too did not know of it as history suggests.

The fact can not be like that. Muhammad understood the message of Quran and in the last part of his life; he called for offensive wars and went totally offensive. The first Caliph of Islam Abu Bakr got inspired from verse 9:5 (which you try to misinterpret) and went for bloody wars against apostates of Islam. Omar the second caliph understood the message of Quran and implemented it in his life. That is why he could not stop invading nations and subduing all people giving them Islam or humiliation as options.

And history after Omar too is no exception to what I said above. I am not going into the full details of it.

What we come to know is the ultimate message of Quran is violent. Quran calls for violent Jihad. After the revelation of Quran chapter 9:29, Muhammad went for invading surrounding parts of Arabia even though one third has been already under is sway. Abu Bakr the first caliph implemented Quran’s message in his life, Omar too did the same. So, the way Prophet Muhammad, his followers, his successors understood Quran was right. They can not be wrong because that would be too arrogant a notion for any Muslim to digest. So, we have to conclude Quran definitely incites violence. Otherwise please have the audacity to trash your holy figures. Start from Prophet Muhammad; I am sure no Muslim can afford this.

So, there is no need of any deception. Quran is obviously violent. You can not deny it by bringing some verses with no contexts. Showing some flowery verses of Quran hardly makes your case. Because peaceful “no compulsion in religion” kinds of verses and Muhammad’s end stage of life and Caliphs actions do not match up.

If none of those Muslims (best among the Muslims as attested by Muhammad in a Sahih Hadith in Bukhari) did not get the message of Quran right and Mike Ghouse is going to get it, I am sorry Mike, you have to start preaching a different Quran and practicing a different Islam too that were not familiar to Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Omar and all those followed them.

Thank you for your time

Khalil Fariel [http://www.faithfreedom.org]

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:49 am
by Pragmatist
[quote="Balls_of_Titanium_1"][quote="winston"] [quote="Balls_of_Titanium_1"]

No. That is your own creation.

Try and answer KhaliL coward he has posted a refutation of your absurdities many times here and you continue to RUN AWAY.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:25 pm
by winston
So this debate has started up again with debunker taking the place of BOT1. Debunker has started on a backwards step by using tu quoque, Khalil has responded in the appropriate way but I hope he will have some patience so that something useful may come out of this discussion on the second attempt.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:40 am
by winston
debunker wrote:Ok, for those of you who don't speak Arabic, KNOW THIS: Arabic verbs have many forms. These two are relevant to the following discussion:

single-feminine form (SF)
plural-masculine form (PM)

Let me start here with asking this question: What's the difference between the following sentences?

a- The Arabs say (SF) treading the desert is a way of life. (it means: some Arabs say ....)
b- The Arabs say (PM) treading the desert is a way of life. (it means: The Arabs say ....)
c- The Arabs said (SF) treading the desert is a way of life. (it means: some Arabs said ....)
d- The Arabs said (PM) treading the desert is a way of life. (it means: The Arabs said ....)

So understand that in Arabic when use the single-feminine form desrcibing the actions/beliefs of a people, then you mean that these actions/beliefs were produced NOT by the whole nation, but only a certain group within this nation (even a SINGLE person in it).

For example, when I say: The Arabs said (SF): "Every head has its own headache", then I'm simply quoting a "single" Arab.

I'm sorry if you find this confusing but that's how the classical Arabic language is.

Now, regarding the idiots who think that the Quran claims that the "ALL" the Jews "SAY" that Uzair was a son of God, that's BS. The verse was:

The Jews SAID (SF) Uzair is a son of God... i.e. 'some' Jews 'said' that Uzair was a son of God.


This is the verse in Arabic:

وَقَالَتِ ٱلۡيَهُودُ عُزَيۡرٌ ٱبۡنُ ٱللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ ٱلنَّصَـٰرَى ٱلۡمَسِيحُ ٱبۡنُ ٱللَّهِ

Apart from the words (JEWS & UZAIR), (CHRISTIANS & MESSIAH) the Arabic wording is exactly the same for both parts of this sentence as underlined...so if the second part which refers to Christians is understood as 'All Christians call Christ the son of God' then why does the first part which refers to Jews only apply to 'some' Jews? Since the rest of the wording is identical it can only be the word for 'Jews' which debunker is claiming to be written in a different format. Can anyone comment on how the word 'Jews' should be written in Arabic if it were meant to apply to ALL Jews?

There are other instances in the Quran which make it clear that only 'part' of a group are being addressed e.g.

A party of the People of the Scripture
long to make you go astray; and they make none to go astray except themselves, but they perceive not. 3.69

If the Quran were a 'clear' book as it claims then why did Allah not simply say: "A PARTY of the Jews say that Uzair is the son of God, and ALL the Christains say that Christ is the son of God."

This surely would have prevented a lot of confusion and would have made the Quran one error lighter.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:31 am
by skynightblaze
Debunked wrote:The Jews SAID (SF): "God's hand is tied up." their hands WERE tied up and they WERE accursed for the (blasphemy) they UTTERED. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He gives and spends (of His bounty) as He pleases. AND WHAT WAS REVEALED to you from your God increases in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God doth extinguish it; but they strive to do mischief on earth. And God loves not those who do mischief.


Here is the translation of the self proclaimed scholar of the verse 5:64.HE is of the opinion that the curse was specific to some jews of the past and not all the jews . Focus on the part in red. These verses are in present tense.If the curse was on specific jews of the past and not all the jews then the sentences should have been in the past tense like the following:

"God INCREASED in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF"


AND NOT
" INCREASES in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF"

Simple Present indicates that an action is repeated or usual so the process of increase of rebellion amongst jews is usual as per quran

Here is another part of the sentence in the same verse which should have been in the past tense if the curse was only on specific jews like the following .

Every time they kINDLED the fire of war, God doth EXTINGUISHED it; but they STROVE to do mischief on earth


AND NOT

" Every time they KINDLE the fire of war, God doth EXTINGUISH it; but they STRIVE to do mischief on earth


Again Simple Present indicates that an action is repeated or usual . Since the verse is in present tense it means the jews are frequently doing this activity of Kindling the fire and GOD extinguishing it . So if this verse was specific to the jews of the past then all the verbs should have been in the past tense.


Present tense indicates usual acitivity i.e In short jews are cursed till the end of times by quran when they show disbelief in Allah and his messenger.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:45 am
by winston
Spoiler! :
skynightblaze wrote:
Debunked wrote:The Jews SAID (SF): "God's hand is tied up." their hands WERE tied up and they WERE accursed for the (blasphemy) they UTTERED. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He gives and spends (of His bounty) as He pleases. AND WHAT WAS REVEALED to you from your God increases in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, God doth extinguish it; but they strive to do mischief on earth. And God loves not those who do mischief.


Here is the translation of the self proclaimed scholar of the verse 5:64.HE is of the opinion that the curse was specific to some jews of the past and not all the jews . Focus on the part in red. These verses are in present tense.If the curse was on specific jews of the past and not all the jews then the sentences should have been in the past tense like the following:

"God INCREASED in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF"


AND NOT
" INCREASES in MANY of them their obstinate rebellion and DISBELIEF"

Simple Present indicates that an action is repeated or usual so the process of increase of rebellion amongst jews is usual as per quran

Here is another part of the sentence in the same verse which should have been in the past tense if the curse was only on specific jews like the following .

Every time they kINDLED the fire of war, God doth EXTINGUISHED it; but they STROVE to do mischief on earth


AND NOT

" Every time they KINDLE the fire of war, God doth EXTINGUISH it; but they STRIVE to do mischief on earth


Again Simple Present indicates that an action is repeated or usual . Since the verse is in present tense it means the jews are frequently doing this activity of Kindling the fire and GOD extinguishing it . So if this verse was specific to the jews of the past then all the verbs should have been in the past tense.


Present tense indicates usual acitivity i.e In short jews are cursed till the end of times by quran when they show disbelief in Allah and his messenger.


This is made even more plain by the words "...we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment." Since the Day of Judgment is undoubtedly in the future this means that the curse is projected into the future. Therefore Muslims are ordered to hate the Jews for the rest of time, which they do quite well.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:17 pm
by Aksel Ankersen
winston wrote:
This is the verse in Arabic:

وَقَالَتِ ٱلۡيَهُودُ عُزَيۡرٌ ٱبۡنُ ٱللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ ٱلنَّصَـٰرَى ٱلۡمَسِيحُ ٱبۡنُ ٱللَّهِ

Apart from the words (JEWS & UZAIR), (CHRISTIANS & MESSIAH) the Arabic wording is exactly the same for both parts of this sentence as underlined...so if the second part which refers to Christians is understood as 'All Christians call Christ the son of God' then why does the first part which refers to Jews only apply to 'some' Jews? Since the rest of the wording is identical it can only be the word for 'Jews' which debunker is claiming to be written in a different format. Can anyone comment on how the word 'Jews' should be written in Arabic if it were meant to apply to ALL Jews?

There are other instances in the Quran which make it clear that only 'part' of a group are being addressed e.g.

A party of the People of the Scripture
long to make you go astray; and they make none to go astray except themselves, but they perceive not. 3.69

If the Quran were a 'clear' book as it claims then why did Allah not simply say: "A PARTY of the Jews say that Uzair is the son of God, and ALL the Christains say that Christ is the son of God."

This surely would have prevented a lot of confusion and would have made the Quran one error lighter.

The word is qul ( قَالَ ), the Ta ( ت ) added to the end does indeed make it singular feminine - as debunker said. Qulat is used for a female subject speaking... I.e. "قَالَتِ عائشة " = "Ayesha said".

I only know of the singular feminine being used for the plural of non-human subjects. Possibly it is also used to indicate consideration of archetypal Christians or Jews.

Another example:


قالت رسلهم افي الله شك فاطر السماوات والارض يدعوكم ليغفر لكم من ذنوبكم ويؤخركم الى اجل مسمى قالوا ان انتم الا بشر مثلنا تريدون ان تصدونا عما كان يعبد اباؤنا فاتونا بسلطان مبين

"Their Messengers said, 'Is there any doubt regarding God, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, who calls you so that He may forgive you your sins, and defer you to a term stated?' They said, 'You are nothing but mortals, like us; you desire to bar us from that our fathers served; then bring us a manifest authority.'"

-Koran 14:10


Now interestingly qalat (قالت) is supposed singular feminine but hum ( هم- ) suffix is plural masculine - i.e. the messengers are masculine plural. Something's wrong here. Maybe the Ta can be used in other ways to what I thought.

I need to get work on my reply to Debunker.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:20 pm
by debunker
Winston,

I just saw this post. I really don't have a lot of time so, I'll answer this question only (and I LOVE YOU for it):

You said: "so if the second part which refers to Christians is understood as 'All Christians call Christ the son of God' then why does the first part which refers to Jews only apply to 'some' Jews? Since the rest of the wording is identical it can only be the word for 'Jews' which debunker is claiming to be written in a different format. Can anyone comment on how the word 'Jews' should be written in Arabic if it were meant to apply to ALL Jews?"

Please remember first that the Quran consistently said that Jesus was NOT a son of God...

Now this verse in question described something happened after Jesus' ascendence. A group of Christians claimed that Jesus was a son of God (but NOT ALL Chrisians). Same with Jews, a group of Jews said that Uzair was son of God (but NOT all of them).

That's all what he verse said.


Now here's my "specualtion":

For the Jews, this group (claiming Uzair's being a son of God) dwindled with time. (maybe even they changed their mind in one day, who knows the Quran doesn't say).

For the Christians, this group, with time, became the dominate one until all Christians eventually made the same claim.

You might agree/disagree with this speculation all you want. HOWEVER, the Arabic lessons I gave to Khalil are 100% accurate.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:21 pm
by KhaliL
debunker wrote:HOWEVER, the Arabic lessons I gave to Khalil are 100% accurate.


:lol: :lol: What a waste of time..!!!

KF

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:37 pm
by debunker
Aksel: You're are by far the finest debater in this forum.

Now,

Jew = yahoodi (masucline)
Jews = Yahood (still masculine)

mountain = jabal (masculine)
mountains = jibal (feminine)!!!

prophet = rasool (masculine)
prophets = rusul (feminine) !!!

so if you imagine the mountains spoke

A mountain qal ...
The mountains qalat ...

A prophet qal
The prophets qalat

A jew qal
The Jews (qal or qalat, or qaloo) !!!!

If I say the Jews qal (then ALL Jews said)
The jews qaloo (the majority of them said)
the jews qalat (some of them said)

A f.cked up language? I don't care... but please stup lecturing me on it (I'm talking about the genius expert whom I'm debating and calling me pathetic)

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:45 pm
by charleslemartel
Hello Debunker,

Sorry to say this, but you do seem to be avoiding the debate in the exclusive room with KhaliL.

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:52 pm
by debunker
I'm going to go to school now...

and you charles seem to be avoiding my yes/no question regarding khalil accusation of me treating you flagrantly...

Re: Comments: KhaliL F VS BOT1

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:56 pm
by winston
Aksel,
Thank you for that, very informative!

debunker,
Ditto...although easy on the love, i'm still نجس remember :D