MesMorial wrote:I wish too to clarify I that am a “Qur’an alone” Muslim and that Islam is represented by the Qur’an alone (not by opinions, traditions and histories which have resulted from various viewpoint over time). “Muhammad bin Lyin” had the opportunity to debate this assertion at the same time, but he did not take up the point.
Quran only is an excuse, and that's exactly how you use it. Because the Quran is not 100% explicit about something and behaves as though the audience already knows the meaning and/or background for what it is saying, this leaves you leeway to invent whatever "technicality" for the words that you can, even though the underlying meaning is evident, and not what you attempt to twist it to. For example, you do this with the jizyah, and I'll answer that later.
MesMorial wrote:The four main Qur’anic verses which “Muhammad bin Lyin” employed to support his viewpoint are:
Qur’an 8:39,9:5,9:33,9:29
No, it's 8:39,9:5,9:29,9:33
MesMorial wrote:Although 8:39 is quite clearly in self-defence, “Muhammad bin Lyin”’s claim is that it states that Muslims should fight against non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (SWT). To further “support” his point he states that “desist” means “convert to Islam” because according to him talking against Islam is fighting Islam. There are two things to remember:
1) This verse was revealed in the context of people hindering Muslims from their sacred Masjid (place of worship) (8:34) both via physical (8:30) and financial means (8:36):
“And when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they might confine you or slay you or drive you away; and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan; and Allah is the best of planners.”
Qur’an 8:30
“And what [excuse] have they that Allah should not chastise them while they hinder [men] from the Sacred Mosque and they are not [fit to be] guardians of it; its guardians are only those who guard [against evil], but most of them do not know.”
Qur’an 8:34
“Surely those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder [people] from the way of Allah; so they shall spend it, then it shall be to them an intense regret, then they shall be overcome; and those who disbelieve shall be driven together to hell.”
Qur’an 8:36
“Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed. And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.”
Qur’an 8:38-39
Therefore it must be concluded that “desist” means ceasing to inhibit Muslims from practicing their system/religion, and from attempting to dominate it.
Yes, non Muslims are inhibiting Muslims. As far as attempting to dominate it, I would more call it attempting to inhibit it's spread or practice in their land, if you do an actual historical investigation. But the funny part is that they did nothing different than what 80% of Muslims around the world do to other religions. They really don't allow very much propagation of any other religion besides Islam in Muslim dominated countries. So Islam must never be inhibited, and yet other religions must be inhibited in Muslim lands.
Islam is very aggressive in it's propagation, even when violence is not involved. and even today, that is the truth.
MesMorial wrote:2) 8:39 does not mention “all religion”, but simply mentions “the system (aldeen)”. This refers to the system of Islam (“religion” is “millati”). “Aldeen” is also used in some other verses:
“And fight with them until there is no persecution, and the religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.”
Qur’an 2:193
(Predictably “Muhammad bin Lyin” attempted to use this verse to support 8:39 after realising that “all religion” meant “the system”, although he seems to have made the same mistake once again.)
I think all religion and the system are the same thing. The belief system of religion itself must be for Allah. That's why so many translators translated it the way they did. You can't say all of Islam must be for Allah because if it's not for Allah, it isn't Islam. So all of Islam is always for Allah and anything else is not Islam. So you can't correct Islam, you can only bring people to it. So your twist attempt ends up making no sense.
MesMorial wrote:“…and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your system (deen), if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his system (deen)…”
Qur’an 2:217
(If “deen” represents all systems/religions, how can one party turn another from it?)
If all religion should be for Allah only, or all religious belief itself should only be for Allah, then they would be turning away from religion itself as Islam is actually the only valid religion and therefore the only religion. Again, this is why so many translators translated it that way. An invalid religion is not a religion. Religion itself should all be for Islam. You don't want to know the tafsir for this. It's a lot worse than what I'm saying.
MesMorial wrote:“There is no compulsion in the system; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.”
Qur’an 2:256
Abrogated later, at least in the case of the pagans, and it was semi or indirect compulsion in the case of Christians and Jews.
MesMorial wrote:“Surely the (true) system of Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning.”
Qur’an 3:19
The only valid religion is Islam.
MesMorial wrote:“This is because they say: The fire shall not touch us but for a few days; and what they have forged deceives them in the matter of their system.”
Qur’an 3:24
“And do not believe but in him who follows your system.”
Qur’an 3:73
Etc. etc…
Do not follow those who follow anything else but the only acceptable religion (and therefore, in essence, the only religion).
MesMorial wrote:Therefore “aldeen” certainly refers to Islam (in both the verses 2:193 and 8:39). “Muhammad bin Lyin” of course still says that he understands the verse properly.
Yes I do, as do the translators and the tafsir.
MesMorial wrote:REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIM ABOUT 9:5
“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
9:5
Firstly it must be explained that the Qur’an as given today is not in its chronological order of revelation. Historically it is said that Sura (chapter) 9 was the second-last to be revealed, with Sura 5 before it. The reason I mention this is that verse 5:3 declares that all of the precepts in Islam have been detailed:
Not the ones about fighting. And fighting is part of Islam. There are many verses that speak harshly of those who are not willing to fight in Allah's way, and we both know which ones they are.
MesMorial wrote:“This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your system, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your system and completed My favour on you and chosen for you Islam as a system…”
That means it is speaking of religion itself, and Islam is chosen to be that. How can there be other religions when Allah has defined what religion is and which one is clearly the correct one?
MesMorial wrote:“Muhammad bin Lyin”’s claim of internal abrogation (whereby the Qur’an allegedly cancels and replaces its laws as circumstances change) is therefore invalidated even before I demonstrate that there is no contradiction between what is written in Sura 9 and the rest of the Qur’an.
So because 5:3 claims to have completed religion and chosen Islam as the only acceptable one, there is no contradiction between 5:3 and Sura 9??
MesMorial wrote: Since there is no contradiction,
You didn't demonstrate that. You said abrogation is invalid before you even have to demonstrate that there is no contradiction and then you turn around and behave as though you have demonstrated that there is no contradiction. You seem to do this a lot. There seems to be gaps or strange leaps in the things you say. I don't know whether this comes from faulty reasoning abilities in general or from a willful desire to be tricky while considering this behavior to be clever rather than shameful, since it's in defense of the Quran.
MesMorial wrote: regardless of whether there is or there is not “abrogation” his claim does not affect my argument.
Then why did you even bother with the above?? Thanks for doing a meaningless circle for us that got us nowhere.
MesMorial wrote: His point is that 9:5 orders Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims unless or until they convert to Islam. He of course claims that this verse abrogates other verses in the Qur’an which promote freedom of belief. However, let us examine the first verse of Sura 9 to see what time and place the entire segment refers to:
“[This is a declaration of] immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.”
Qur’an 9:1
Already we can see that 9:5 applies only to the particular non-Muslims with which the Muslims at the time had a treaty.
It refers to people who don't have a treaty and the 4 month grace period that they are allowed, where Muslims can't fight them, is about to expire.
MesMorial wrote: Those with whom treaties had not been made (e.g. because they did not live in proximity to the Muslims) were of course exempt and this is why the targeted non-Muslims must also represent no liability to the Muslims (i.e. the Muslims were not at that time and under those circumstances subject to the Islamic ruling of never initiating combat (the reasons will be discussed)). Let us narrow it down further:
“Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful [of their duty].”
Qur’an 9:4
So we can see that it applies only to the non-Muslims of that time and place who had broken treaties and aided the enemies of the Muslims.
Why does an instruction for all times have instructions about what to do in only one time and place? It's pretty odd because elsewhere the Quran also curses individual people of Muhammad's time who ridiculed Muhammad. It also
MesMorial wrote:“And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.”
Qur’an 9:6
We can see that the non-Muslims who did not want to fight Muslims or those who did not agree with the animosity of their fellow people to Muslims are not to be harmed.
Grant him protection TILL he hears the word of Allah, and then becomes Muslim and attains his place of safety within the Muslim community. For they are only not Muslim because they did not know Islam, but once they do, surely they will become Muslim and THEN attain their place of safety in the Muslim community.
MesMorial wrote: “Muhammad bin Lyin” says that this verse implies attempting to convert those who surrender, but this is illogical because firstly they are to be taken to a place of safety
Safety within the Muslim community because surely he was not a Muslim only because he was someone with no knowledge, but after he hears the word of Allah after being granted protection, then he will surely be a Muslim and attain his place of safety.
MesMorial wrote: and not held captive (i.e. they do not have to be soldiers who fought against Muslims) and secondly the verse refutes his fantasy by stating that non-Muslims’ ignorance of Islam is the reason for offering them its knowledge.
Which means that the clear expectation is that surely they will be a Muslim after they hear the word of Allah and then attain their place of safety within the Muslim community, because the only reason they weren't a Muslim was because they had no knowledge.
MesMorial wrote: Let us examine the verse 9:7:
“How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful [of their duty].”
Qur’an 9:7
Once again Allah (SWT) is re-emphasizing the importance of keeping to treaties. We can also derive from this verse that the non-Muslims could make peace by participating in the making of treaties at the Sacred Mosque. The following verses show that the reason for these declarations is that the non-Muslims had attacked the Muslims first and could not be trusted:
“How [can it be]! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors.”
Qur’an 9:8
“They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits.”
Qur’an 9:10
“What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people and remove the rage of their hearts; and Allah turns [mercifully] to whom He pleases, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.”
Qur’an 9:13-15
Therefore to be the subject of 9:5 the non-Muslims had to fulfil these criteria of hostily towards Muslims.
So the verses that followed 9:5 expound on why 9:5 is to be carried out, but, of course, the verses that follow 9:29 are NOT supposed to expound on why 9:29 is supposed to be carried out.
MesMorial wrote: Please note that from a Muslim perspective only Allah (SWT) knew what was in the hearts of the non-Muslims during that time. Thus if Allah (SWT) said that they could not be trusted, then they could not be trusted.
If I said "from a non Muslim perspective, ....", would that mean anything to you in this debate?? What does a Muslim or non Muslim perspective have to do with a debate that is supposed to be objective and seeking of the truth?? And if one side can't be objective, then what could ever be the point?? Debates are built on objectivity and objective rules.
MesMorial wrote: Sura 9 was revealed to clarify such things and to guide the Muslims through these dangerous times.
So parts of the Quran, the book for all times, are only an instruction for that particular time and place? Again, I asked this before. If it's only recounting what to do in a particular instance, then doesn't this belong in the hadiths??
MesMorial wrote: For example, the declaration of immunity in 9:1 and 9:3 is (according to the state of the non-Muslims’ hearts) an application of 47:35:
“And be not slack so as to cry for peace when you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught.”
Qur’an 47:35
We apply 9:1 and 9:3 to 47:35??
MesMorial wrote:Remember also that the guilty non-Muslims did not have to convert to Islam (after all, the non-Muslims in 9:29 did not have to),
That was the Christians and Jews after the pagans had essentially been completely conquered, and had died or became Muslim, and Islam ruled the area because of it. You are lying by omission. Muhammad first conquered all the pagans, and then used their numbers to rule over the Christians and Jews. The Christians and Jews never really bought into his fraud. They were more educated than the pagans were.
MesMorial wrote: but it was one of the few ways by which they could prove that they had truly repented
So if they TRULY repented, they would be Muslim.
MesMorial wrote: (another would be to make a treaty at the Sacred Mosque or to pay the “jizya”).
Verse 9:11 simply states that if they do establish Islamic practices (praying, paying of charity etc.) then they will be “brothers in faith”.
Muslims.
MesMorial wrote: 9:12 clarifies that if after converting they left the religion or system, they could only be fought if they openly attacked Islam:
“And if they break their oaths after their agreement and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.”
Qur’an 9:12
It only says defame it, not physically attack it. This gets back to my prior argument in the debate about how even speaking against Islam might as well be considered fighting it according to the Quran. Thank you.
MesMorial wrote:This is against the source of the animosity and it does not have to be a physical fight since it is until they cease.

MesMorial wrote: Please note that verbal/symbolical aggression towards Islam/Muslims is to be met only with equal retaliation:
Sure, tell that to Muhammad.

MesMorial wrote:“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way. And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.”
Qur’an 16:125-126
“Muhammad bin Lyin” claims without proof that such verses have been abrogated by 9:5 and 9:29 (which will be addressed later), but all throughout the Qur’an fighting is only in retaliation:
And the fighting went from defensive to offensive.
MesMorial wrote:“Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them.”
Qur’an 22:39
Oppression is a situation where Islam does not rule.
MesMorial wrote:Finally, given the context of the segment in question (9:1, 9:3, 9:4, 9:8-13), regardless of the policy dictated it is irrelevant to modern times since these days Muslims will not have a Sura revealed to them in similar circumstances (e.g. to tell them what is in particular non-Muslims’ hearts). Muslims can only fight in retaliation according to the injury suffered, and that is only what is described in these verses. The rest was up to Allah (SWT).
I would think that a very large percentage of Muslims would even say you are totally full of crap. The Quran is an instruction for all times, and for you to say that it has some instruction that only relate to one time and place causes a huge problem for many many Muslims. Although it is true that the Quran does also contain a specific curse against a person that didn't like Muhammad. What's that doing in the Quran?? So I suppose that's something you guys should fight out, because i already know that it's just further evidence that Muhammad used the Quran for himself.
MesMorial wrote:REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIM ABOUT 9:33
“He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.”
Qur’an 9:33
Firstly the literal translation actually renders “cause it to prevail over all religions” as “manifest it above all systems” (that is, to “show it as superior to other religions and thus attract more followers”). Indeed, the correct path stands out clear from error:
Especially when one used the sword to prove that.

MesMorial wrote:“There is no compulsion in the system; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error…”
Qur’an 2:256
Said under a time of less power, abrogated later. You keep repeating it, but you can't show why it is not abrogated.
MesMorial wrote:Nevertheless, I will bear with the more confronting interpretation of the verse because this is the rendering in 61:8-9. Let us examine the verse in its context of 9:29-36:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the jizya in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
Qur’an 9:29
“And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Qur’an 9:30
“They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).”
Qur’an 9:31
“They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.”
Qur’an 9:32
“He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.”
Qur’an 9:33
“O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah’s way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah’s way, announce to them a painful chastisement,”
Qur’an 9:34
“On the day when it shall be heated in the fire of hell, then their foreheads and their sides and their backs shall be branded with it; this is what you hoarded up for yourselves, therefore taste what you hoarded.”
Qur’an 9:35
“Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah’s ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).”
Qur’an 9:36
“Muhammad bin Lyin” claims that 9:33 is a mandate for Muslims to make Islam conquer the world by spreading it through any means possible.
Wrong, I claimed it was part of it. And there are other verse to support it.
MesMorial wrote: If we read it properly, it becomes apparent that it is a response to 9:32 in which the Jews and Christians in this context are expressing aversion to Islam. “Muhammad bin Lyin” declares overtly that 9:29 and 9:33 are directly linked, but to do so he must misread the verse.
I don't recall that 9:29 and 9:33 are directly linked any more than 9:30-32, I recall saying that 9:30-35 all involve reasons for why 9:29 is being prescribed or commanded. So while not all of them are linked to each other, they are all further explanation as to 9:29 should be done, and I've said this all along. They are all separate reasons as to why 9:29 should be carried out.
MesMorial wrote: 9:33 states that Allah (SWT) was the One who revealed the Qur’an to His Messenger to make it prevail over every other religion.
And it does not say by what means. Seems like violent means are quite acceptable.
MesMorial wrote: So first of all it is a standalone statement detailing what Allah (SWT) has done and not what Muslims should do.
It's an explanation as to why Muslims must make it strive to be the superior religion because it is the superior religion. And this comes right after trashing Christians and Jews, right after it talks about fighting them and bringing them under Muslim rule. It's like you're asking people to pay no attention to what they clearly see and instead are asking them to pay attention to what you tell them that they see. Allah Kazam!!! Poof!!

MesMorial wrote: Secondly the Qur’an is clearly stated to be the means by which Islam would prevail,
No, it's the cause, not the means. The means was the sword, and it's all over the Quran. Allah did not use the Quran to smite them nor even his own hands, he used "your hands" (the hands of Muslims). By your hands I will......
MesMorial wrote: and thus “Muhammad bin Lyin” would have to prove that there is a statement in the Qur’an urging Muslims to convert (forcibly or by other means) non-Muslims to Islam. Having failed to demonstrate this using the verses 8:39 and 9:5,
9:5 says if they pay the poor rate and keep up prayers. You still haven't directly explained why people keeping up prayer and the poor rate does not mean they are a Muslims. Of course it means they are Muslims. Nobody pays the poor rate except for Muslims. I've said this before. The poor rate is a pillar of Islam. Non Muslims are not allowed to pay charity directly, because they are disgraced and therefore cannot do honorable things as non Muslims. Therefore, they pay the jizyah to prevent Muslims from doing what they will with them as inferiors. It's all in the tafsir I've already posted.
MesMorial wrote: his case is left only with 9:29.
And that has been shown as wrong.
MesMorial wrote: Since 9:29 only concerns Jews and Christians of that time (not even Hindus or Buddhists of that time), he will, of course, fail.
Well then the Quran is not an instruction for all times.
MesMorial wrote:Here are some verses to clarify this:
“There is no compulsion in the system; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.”
Qur’an 2:256
Again with this verse?? How many times do I have to type "abrogated"?
MesMorial wrote:“Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers [he is] compassionate, but if they turn back, say: Allah is sufficient for me, there is no god but He; on Him do I rely, and He is the Lord of mighty power.”
Qur’an 9:128-129
(Notice that the above two verses are in Sura 9. Thus “Muhammad bin Lyin” must now push abrogation as he does with the rest of the Qur’an.)
It merely tells Muslims that if some turn back or away, don't worry, you are right in your beliefs.
MesMorial wrote:“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way. And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.”
Qur’an 16:125-126
Plans changed. Even you yourself said some can't be trusted anymore.
MesMorial wrote:“Say: Every one acts according to his manner; but your Lord best knows who is best guided in the path.”
Qur’an 17:84
“And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve…”
Qur’an 18:29
“Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.”
Qur’an 60:8
(This is the basic law governing social relations between Muslims and non-Muslims).
Abrogated later. I guess Allah got a little more mad and fed up as time went by.
MesMorial wrote:Furthermore we must ask ourselves: “If “Muhammad bin Lyin” is right, then how will the Qur’an help Muslims to forcibly convert non-Muslims when it would be easier to use the sword?”
They did use the sword in 9:5 and tafsir that I've already posted backs me up.
MesMorial wrote: Does knowledge of knowing what is written in the Qur’an make fighting any easier?
It motivates them and commands them to do this. Not to mention the warriors brothel paradise promises to those who fight in Allah's way and the threats that are given to those who don't.
MesMorial wrote: No, because the Qur’an would need only say “Convert all non-Muslims however you can!” to provide as much religious impetus/support as it could offer to assist this.
I told you for the 5th time now, that this discussion is not about Muslims converting others, it's about them ruling. I did not make the topic about them converting because in the case of the Christians and Jews, their choice was not die or become Muslims, but that was the choice of the pagans in 9:5. So not everyone was to be forcibly converted, as long as they accepted Muslim rule in superiority.
MesMorial wrote: The Qur’an will of course help Muslims to have the faith necessary to obey it, but then “Muhammad bin Lyin” can find no verse mandating Muslims to fight against any people who did not fight Muslims and injure them first.
Irrelevant to the conversation. The conversation is about what Muslims did after they got strong enough and started winning. They sought to conquer and rule.
MesMorial wrote: Verse 9:29 is his “last stand”,
It's anything but that now.
MesMorial wrote: and that will be dealt with shortly. From the evidence provided, the only rational explanation for verse 9:33 is that the revelation of the Qur’an itself will cause Islam to spread regardless of whether Muslims force it or not (though anyone who forces it is not a Muslim).
Hey just as long as they pay the Muslim poor rate like other Muslims do and keep up Muslim prayer, they are all set if they are a pagan of 9:5
MesMorial wrote: Thus the verse does indeed suggest that Islam will “dominate”, but only on the basis of the number of people who voluntarily convert and perhaps the presentation of the religion itself (as given via the Qur’an or its true adherents).
Funny how this verse is sandwiched between 9:29 and 9:36, which are both fight verses, and then in the middle of this Orea cookie, so to speak, are a whole bunch of verses as to why Christians and Jews are wrong (9:30-35), and sandwiched in between them is a statement as to why Islam is the supreme religion that mist prevail (9:30).
MesMorial wrote: The assertion that this verse was revealed specifically in context with 9:29 and not 9:32 is unfounded (not only due to the above explanation) because almost the exact same statements are found in Sura 61:
“They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths but Allah will perfect His light, though the unbelievers may be averse. He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the true religion, that He may make it prevail over the religions, all of them, though the polytheists may be averse.”
Qur’an 61:8-9
And what came before that??
61:4. Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall.
So it's the same thing. Fight, and then later on it tells you why. You even knew this verse was there so why didn't you bring it up?? This is really awful.
MesMorial wrote:REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIM ABOUT 9:29
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the jizya in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
Qur’an 9:29
The first thing to be noticed is that this verse is situated in the contextual Sura 9 and secondly it concerns only the “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians). The context was provided in the rebuttal to 9:5 and 9:33, but let us examine the criteria as we did with 9:5:
The word “jizya” derives from the Arabic word “jaza” which conveys “recompense” or “punishment”. Variations of the word are employed throughout the Qur’an to mean “recompense” (6:93, 10:52, 27:90, 36:54, 53:41 and some others). Therefore if we take the purely Qur’anic meaning of the word then it is clear that the commandment to fight in 9:29 is in self-defence or retaliation for an injury inflicted (it may well be a payment to be made for treaty-terms broken (9:4)). Evidence for this is presented in 9:34 and 9:36 where the rabbis and monks were not only hoarding wealth and debarring people from practicing their religion (just as in 8:39), but also making war on Muslims:
It does not say they were hoarding money it says they spent their money against Allah. You are very deceptive. Recompense means the same thing as compensation and that compensation was for protecting the Christians and Jews. Apologist Muslims will tell you it is for protecting the Christians and Jews from other invaders besides the Muslims that invaded, but tafsir will tell you that it is actually a compensation for Muslims holding back their hand against them, so to speak, and I posted that tafsir earlier as well only to be ignored because it wasn't convenient for your argument. you would love to pretend that I merely make this stuff up, but it is actually ME who the scholars agree with on the matter, unless, of course, they are modern ones who realize the need to whitewash Islam for popular public consumption so that they can get those very important numbers regardless of how they get them
MesMorial wrote:“O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and hinder (them) from Allah’s way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah’s way, announce to them a painful chastisement,”
Qur’an 9:34
“Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah’s ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).”
Qur’an 9:36
Therefore 9:29 is no different to any other verse in the Qur’an commanding Muslims to fight oppression and aggression. The “jizya” is simply reparation in accordance with the injury inflicted on Muslims
No, that's the booty. I told you this before. you try to say that it's a one time reparations payment, but what you fail to realize is that history itself tells us that Muhammad did impose a continual tax on them. And, for the fact that the Quran mentions jizyah as if it's something the listeners were already aware of, leads us to believe that this tax had already been imposed before. So if what you say is true, it would appear that you interpreted this verse better than Muhammad. Or, you can debunk all of the historians who are pretty much in unanimous agreement on this. Hey, invent what ever you want for yourself. It's your world, I'm just debating in it.

MesMorial wrote: It must be remembered that there are differences in religions and under no circumstances does the Qur’an acknowledge the validity of other religions as they are followed today. Nevertheless the Qur’an encourages mutual tolerance and respect amongst people themselves:
As long as Islamic rule reigns supreme.
MesMorial wrote:“Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”
2:62
This is talking about the Christians and Jews and Sabians who do not dispute Islam (so essentially, they have become Muslims). There are those from the people of the book that are bad and did not become Muslims.
MesMorial wrote:“And We did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them two but in truth; and the hour is most surely coming, so turn away with kindly forgiveness.”
Qur’an 15:85
To who?
MesMorial wrote:“And surely We have honoured the children of Adam, and We carry them in the land and the sea, and We have given them of the good things, and We have made them to excel by an appropriate excellence over most of those whom We have created.”
Qur’an 17:70
(Humanity is one family.)
We don't need to bring up what Allah thinks of non Muslims.
MesMorial wrote:“Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.”
Qur’an 60:8
Abrogated.
MesMorial wrote:However, it does not end there. “Muhammad bin Lyin” will of course divert discussion of Islam from the Qur’an alone and refer to the traditional (cultural) understanding of “jizya”.
Historically speaking, Muhammad himself imposed it. And the audience obviously knew what it entailed before the Quran even mentioned it, which is why the Quran knew it didn't have to explain it. This was something that was already being practiced before it even made it's way into the Quran. Nice try.
MesMorial wrote: He has not attempted to justify the required assertion that the religion (laws and precepts) of Islam is ultimately derived from more than one scripture,
History tells us what jizyah meant according to the history of Muhammad himself.
MesMorial wrote: and thus within this debate he has no basis to argue with the “Qur’an-alone” understanding of the word.
You mean the "last ditch effort to hold onto Islam by relying on any ambiguity so that you can mold it" understanding of the word.
MesMorial wrote: It is not my purpose here to discuss “Shia” vs “Sunni” vs “Qur’aniyun” understandings of the Qur’an,
Funny how Muslims can't agree upon the perfect book that was presented in the perfect way to make things clear.
MesMorial wrote: and thus I will bear with the unsupported transformation of the word “jizya” into “tax for being non-Muslim in a Muslim state”. However, please consider the following verse:
“Say: I do not ask you aught in return (for the Message) except that he who will, may take the way to his Lord.”
Qur’an 25:57
This is talking about taking no compensation for giving the message. What in God's earth are you trying to pull off??
MesMorial wrote:This shows that Muslims would not be rewarded by being exempt from normal state tax simply because they converted to Islam.
It says no such thing at all. This is ridiculous. Non Muslims didn't even pay the state tax. There was no state tax. Everything was religiously based. Non Muslims paid the humiliating jizyah tax to compensate Muslims for protecting them, and they paid whatever rate the ruler decided and Muslims paid the Zakat, which was 5% and is one of the 5 pillars.
MesMorial wrote: Therefore the “jizya” must have served some purpose besides humiliating or labelling non-Muslims,
Wrong, when they became Muslim, they paid the Zakat rather than the jizyah, and normally, they were expected to be part of the Muslim army as non Muslims could not be part (not that they would ever want to be).
MesMorial wrote: and then the only separation between jizya as “state tax” and “recompense” would be its purpose. What was appropriate at the time was appropriate, and it would be un-Islamic to implement a tax based on religion and not on a practical and fair basis

MesMorial wrote: (it would break the “no compulsion in the system” rule, for a start).
So what?? Abrogation. Things changed. Allah got more angry after they initially rejected his messenger, so the tone of the Quran changed because Allah's instructions began to change. But don't worry, because we replace it with something similar or better.
MesMorial wrote: This will be discussed further shortly, but my thoughts are that “jizya” is ultimately a recompense for some justifiable reason or another.
You are simply inventing it to be whatever you need it to be but you are going against every objective scholar and historian. This is the future of Islam. Muslims will simply reinvent it to however they need it to be in order to preserve it. The Quran only fad is yet but one sign of this.
MesMorial wrote: I am thus not disagreeing with the traditional understanding of the purpose of “jizya”, but merely the translation into “tax” without considering various factors.
You're hedging. If it was a continued tax, different than what Muslims paid, it was a sign of Muslim rule.
MesMorial wrote:As a side-note, those interested in the debate between traditional hadith-following Muslims and Qur’an-alone Muslims are advised firstly to read the Qur’an by paying attention to the meaning of each relevant verse and referring to both perspectives (the Qur’an-alone position represented by my commentary now over half-complete but covering all necessary arguments). Ultimately the matter does not affect the topic of this debate.
To begin, I will present the new verse:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
Qur’an 9:29
The tax is generally understood as either material proof of non-Muslims’ acceptance of subjection to the state and Islamic laws (this is un-Qur’anic) or a tax in return for protection or some practical purpose (it is easy to see how if Muslims considered non-Muslims to be “separate” and a burden to be carried that the tax would be implemented under all circumstances.
This is far different from what you initially said. sounds like a scholar straightened you out, but you're not going to directly admit it.
MesMorial wrote: Ultimately regardless of the rationale it would have at least some practical purpose and be no different to any tax in modern times).
You try to paint it as a one time fee or compensation, as to make it look like it doesn't represent Muslim rule, then you explain why it is a continued tax and it is justified. This is very very bad.
MesMorial wrote: If the Jews and Christians were not already living in the Muslim-controlled state (logical after reading verse 9:34 and considering the polytheists of 9:1-5),
9:29 was issued after 9:5 was already accomplished.
MesMorial wrote: then it is illogical that the Qur’an is telling Muslims to fight against the Jews and Christians who did not establish Muslim practices (including prohibiting what Allah (SWT) and His Messenger prohibited (e.g. pork)) because living under their own social rules one could not expect them to be Islamic!
It doesn't say they need to be Muslims or die. That was only the case of the polytheists earlier in 9:5. Practicing Muslim things means being a Muslim. it only says that they should be subdued or fought until they submit to Islamic rule. I showed you the tafsir where it gave an example of the agreement a Christian would give his new Muslim rulers and you read it and merely ignored it because it didn't meet your modern fantasy interpretation of Islam that you continually need to invent in order to hold onto it in the face of it's absurdities in modern times.
MesMorial wrote: That would mean attacking every non-Muslim state!
From an historical standpoint, that's actually what ended up happening, even while Muhammad was alive, and most certainly afterwards. Every non Muslim state possible or within their reach. Heck, Muhammad was even intending to invade the Romans. He took 30,000 of his own men to go out and find the Roman and fight them, but only returned because there was drought in his land. I guess Allah wasn't going to send the angels that time. Poor poor little defensive lamb that wanted nothing but peace and a little bit of land to practice his religion.
MesMorial wrote: However, the verse only specifies Jews and Christians making it terribly illogical that Muslims would be ordered to attack them simply for not upholding an Islamic society.
They were probably antagonistic. Even their disbelief itself would be antagonistic because all of the converted pagans would see that although they bought into Muhammad, the more educated Christians and Jews, whose religion he claimed to complete, weren't believing him at all. And, if he claimed he came to complete their religion, and then turned around and slaughtered them, that wouldn't look too good as well. I think Muhammad honestly believed they would eventually just cave in and fall under his wing (whoops, I mean Allah's wing)
MesMorial wrote:The first solution is that “jizya” means “recompense” as discussed. The second is that (assuming “jizya” means “tax”) Muslims were being ordered to conquer the Jewish and Christian states because they had done something wrong (see the verses 9:34, 9:36 and 9:1-28). It might be noted too that “fight” in the verse does not necessarily mean a physical fight,
Oh please. You are really getting desperate and making me sick. Nobody invents more angles and stories for their religion than Muslims. Nobody.
MesMorial wrote: and that the words “pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority” could well convey a change in heart of the disbelievers and a voluntary conversion to Islam.
By "could well", you mean you just invented that possibility because you need it, and even if it's not very plausible, you are asking people to accept it merely because it's technically and remotely possible. Muslims do this all of the time. It's like if they can invent it, then they've answered it.

MesMorial wrote: This “fight” would be in response to the hostile attitude of the People of the Book in 9:30-36. In the second case (of Muslims being ordered to conquer) it would still be retaliatory and apparently necessary as per verse 9:36 (in which the polytheists (as which the particular “People of the Book” are described) fight the Muslims all together). However, with “jizya” as “tax” it is unclear why the polytheists of 9:1-5 are not subjected to it also.
Oh it's clear alright. They weren't to pay the jizyah, they were to pay the poor rate and keep up Muslim prayers (because they were still living and therefore Muslim). They didn't have the choice to pay jizyah.
MesMorial wrote: After all, although 9:36 can refer to them alone, to the Jews and Christians alone or to them all together, the wording of 9:36 implies all of them. Converting to Islam, forging an alliance and paying the jizya were all ways by which the untrustworthy non-Muslims (9:8-13) could prove that they had repented.
9:36 is a different people than in 9:5. The people in 9:5 were already conquered when 9:29 was being carried out. It's all in the scholar's tafsir i presented earlier which you tried to sweep under the rug because it wasn't convenient for your inventions.
MesMorial wrote:In the much less likely scenario that the People of the Book were already living in the Islamic society, the jizya as “tax” would make sense and their refusal to pay it would be justification to “fight” them until they did (after all, each state must uphold its tax laws).
It was a separate tax from the Muslim tax and you are 100% full of it and about 90% of Muslims that read this would have to unfortunately agree with me. It's not my fault that you need to invent your own fantasies for Islam in order to remain a Muslim.
MesMorial wrote: The amount of tax to be paid would be state-determined and it would obviously have to be fair and reasonable. Jizya as “recompense” in this context is less likely but the meaning itself would explain its purpose.
The Muslim tax was 5%. The Jizyah could be set at whatever rate the Muslim ruler decided. Historical fact, no matter what fairy tales you try to invent for yourself. Come on man, step up to the plate and accept the real Islam and become a real Muslim, not this wishy washy bunch of easy ideas you invent for yourself
MesMorial wrote:In conclusion (ignoring 8:39 due to the emptiness of the claim made against it)
No longer empty and never was.
MesMorial wrote: Sura 9 is a Sura revealed for a particular context. It concerns entirely the defence of the religion in particular circumstances,
And sura 4?? And sura 8?? And are they both the same exact time and circumstances??
MesMorial wrote: and does not influence the precepts of the religion itself. To claim that Islam intends to conquer the world using this chapter is thus a futile and desperate attempt at justifying the critic’s need to believe that Islam is unworthy of the thoughts which he or she is constantly and obsessively expressing despite having little or no knowledge of the Qur’an.
If I am obsessive, then how come the scholars agree with me and not you?? I posted the tafsir and you merely swept it under the rug.
MesMorial wrote: It has been said that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”,
Tell that to the renowned scholar who agrees with me. What kind of stupid little street scam are you attempting?? It is actually YOU who have no knowledge and ME that DOES have knowledge. I use my knowledge of what scholars say, you use your knowledge of your own imagination and creative restructuring and rewording abilities.
MesMorial wrote: and this is certainly the case with “Muhammad bin Lyin”.
Well then it's the case with Kathir and Al-Jalalyn too, right?? You want to ignore that fact at all costs.
MesMorial wrote: Below is shown a fatwa issued by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr at the Jeddah Supreme Court, Saudi Arabia:
“QUESTION: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack neighbouring non-Muslim states and collect “jizya” from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?
ANSWER: If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihad of a military nature is only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and to remove oppression from the people.
The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first. The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to assassinate the Prophet (SAW). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (SAW), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet’s (SAW) lifetime.”
Finally, Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:
“As for fighting the Jews (People of the Book), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace treaty and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29]”.
(Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80).
This is consistent with the conclusions above.
***
Khuda Hafiz
Are you serious?? This is the same person who would contradict you and explain why nobody must propagate any religion but Islam in Saudi Arabia. That was a really stupid choice.