A Debate with Muhammad bin Lyin: Islam intends to rule world

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

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.

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

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.

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.

“…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.

“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.

“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.

“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).

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.

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.

“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?

“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??

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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??

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??

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.

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.

(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.

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.

This is against the source of the animosity and it does not have to be a physical fight since it is until they cease.

Please note that verbal/symbolical aggression towards Islam/Muslims is to be met only with equal retaliation:

Sure, tell that to Muhammad.

“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.

“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.

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.

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. "Truth stands out from error". Wasn't that what Muhammad said when he was practicing no compulsion in religion by smashing all of their idols in the kaaba??

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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......

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.

his case is left only with 9:29.

And that has been shown as wrong.

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.

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"?

“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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Verse 9:29 is his “last stand”,

It's anything but that now.

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

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).

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.

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

“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.

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.

“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.

“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?

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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??

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.

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).

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

Just keep making this stuff up for yourself.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

In conclusion (ignoring 8:39 due to the emptiness of the claim made against it)

No longer empty and never was.

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

[MesMorial]

Response Part II

“Muhammad bin Lyin” possesses the inability to mind and consolidate his own points and must respond to every paragraph I write in order to give the best illusion of authenticity and “thoroughness”. However, once more I will respond with a coherent and presentable statement which stands alone without needing to refer to the other’s response in order to understand what the presentation is actually saying. The petty nature of my critic’s response is demonstrated by his “correction” of my order for addressing the four verses discussed in Part I.

His first point is that the “Qur’an-alone” concept is an excuse for inventing my own meanings. He forgets that he had the opportunity to raise and support such a statement earlier, although his reason now is to highlight that the Qur’an “does not” provide the details for everything which was known at the time. For example, the meaning of the “Jizya” would have been known but it is difficult to ascertain today beyond that it fulfilled some purpose regarding the aggressors in 9:29. He could make the same claim about the “splitting of the moon” in verses 54:1-2, the sacred months or the exact identity of Abu Lahab, but then also the Qur’an does not teach us to understand Arabic because Allah (SWT) knew what was known then by Muhammad (SAW) and his companions. The Qur’an indeed is clear, complete and fully-detailed for our religious guidance, but it is a textbook for no other subject. Examples of its historical contextualisation have been demonstrated by the verses discussed in Part I of this article. If we desire clarity for deeper and ultimately less necessitous knowledge, we must consult the histories left by those who lived to bear the responsibility of the times. The historical nature of the Qur’an would be primarily responsible for the perceived necessity and hence enshrinement of the ahadith or “Prophetic Sunna” as a second source of religious law (as opposed to some history and contextual or technical interpretation). As a “Qur’an alone” Muslim I accept no other material as my source of religious law besides the Qur’an, yet I recognise that the ahadith are a valuable source of history and clarification for context providing that there is no apparent contradiction with the Qur’an (i.e. there will be found authentic accounts and fabrications, good examples and bad examples). Those ahadith which are expressions of the spirit of the Qur’an are acceptable as good examples which people can follow if they wish. In this way I am partly “traditional” whilst recognising that Islam is indeed and ultimately derived from one obligatory source alone. I just remember that tradition is simply not religion.

It will be difficult to explain directly my opponent’s points because his replies are in context of my previous arguments. I would have to list the relevant verses again as well as his response to explain exactly why they are flawed. Fortunately the strength of his replies is self-explanatory and so I would ask “Muhammad bin Lyin” to (instead of coming up with lame excuses for his views as opposed to rebutting mine) answer “Yes” or “No” to a straight-forward question. This of course is primarily for the benefit of readers’ judgement:


“Does my explanation of 8:39 in Part I of this article prove that it was instructing Muslims to fight the aggressors until they stopped fighting Muslims and inhibiting them from practicing a non-aggressive religion?”


“Muhammad bin Lyin”’s response is this (neither grammar nor flow is corrected):


“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.”


It is very easy for “Muhammad bin Lyin” since he need only cast aspersions to be satisfied. The pith of the matter is that the context of 8:39 tells us that the non-Muslims were attacking Muslims and inhibiting them from the Sacred Mosque. How he relates this to the matter of church-building (as an umbrella term for what he describes) is through desperation to divert the discussion from what we are discussing.


“[They are] those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah’s repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.”

Qur’an 22:40


So as we can see (among many verses listed in Part I), Islam promotes “inter-faith harmony”. This is precisely why Muslims are instructed to fight against those who fight them and those who oppress others, debarring them from freedom of belief/religious practice. A true Muslim has faith in Allah (SWT), and he/she accepts other Muslims as brothers/sisters in faith. Why should a true Muslim be insecure enough to be aggressive in offering the Word of Allah (SWT)? There is no basis for this, and once a Muslim society is established it is expected that the Muslims in power will ensure that the people are always free to practice Islam. The non-Muslims are free to practice and believe in their religion or creed, but regardless of whether the government is Islamic or not Muslims always carry a constitution unto itself (the Qur’an). If it be the common will that a state be controlled by non-Muslims, then so be it. Muslims would have to make sure that they were able to practice their religion, and any deliberate obstacles imposed by non-Muslims would be considered an offence. Regarding the propagation of other religions in an Islamic society, church-building etc. would require the consultation of the community. Regarding debate, there would be a time and place where people could have the opportunity to experience or participate in inter-faith dialogue (see 16:125). If non-Muslim propagation is becoming apparently overt or is “pushing the limits” such that it is bordering on a nuisance, Muslims could always employ the verse 16:126:


“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


In this context it would mean telling people to move on. Without point or purpose, the noisy expression of a particular viewpoint is no different to intrusive advertising. If we are talking about people who love their religion and they are not Muslim, then firstly nothing is stopping them from practicing their faith, and secondly if people want to inquire about it then they will do so when they are ready to. If there were a point or a grievance to be addressed, then that could be dealth with, too. The Qur’an provides practical and straight-forward wisdom for all societies.

To the next point, “Muhammad bin Lyin” provides an intriguing and otherwordly justification for correlating Islam (“the system” in 8:39) with “all religion”. He says:


“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.”


Aside from seeming slightly disturbed, “Muhammad bin Lyin” begins his point which results in mine “making no sense” with the cute phrase “I think”. This means that my point makes no sense to him although the average reasonable person could understand my explanation of “aldeen” in Part I. He says “the system” refers to the “system of religion”… Let us use one of his favourite verses to teach him this lesson once more:


“He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the system of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all systems, though the polytheists may be averse.”

Qur’an 9:33


In spite of the Qur’an clearly expressing the fact that there are many systems, “Muhammad bin Lyin” claims that there is only one…and he calls that “Religion” (although “Muhammad bin Lyin”’s religion is Tafsirianism (some more on that later)). Please see my list of verses using the words “the system” in Part I of this article. Verse 5:3 alone proves “Muhammad bin Lyin” wrong, but as usual he misses the obvious facts. My advice to him is to be satisfied with his little opinions if he desires, but to keep them to himself. To close this point, the system “being all for Allah (SWT)” quite clearly means all devotion should be to Allah (SWT) alone by following His Way alone. Religion can be divided into sects, the sects can still be known as the religion, but they are not for Allah (SWT), are they?

Now “Muhammad bin Lyin” writes:


“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.”


“Muhammad bin Lyin” is making the same mistake yet again by mixing the words “the system” with “religion”. It has already been demonstrated that there is a plurality of systems, but there is according to the Qur’an only one valid one. That is a just part of Muslim belief. He refers to a tafsir, yet he does not present it. The tafsir is actually quite harmless and repeats only what the verse declares. Readers should note that “tafsir” conveys “interpretation” of the Qur’an. “Muhammad bin Lyin” relies on them to support his own interpretations, but what they say is simply what anyone would see if they read the verses (each is presented in isolation to other verses and thus are not to be used for “Muhammad bin Lyin”’s purpose). For example, in the debate he presented a tafsir of verse 9:33 which only referred to what I had already said: that Islam would be shown to be greater, and that is all. He thinks he has something, but it is only sad.

“Muhammad bin Lyin”’s response is very weak and I could skip most of it since Part I has it covered. In truth I think that he shows many signs of being a compulsive psychopath (or else he would have given up before he looked silly). He continues to chirp his assertion that “system” means “all religion”, and that is enough to certify my thoughts. He is a dangerous person (we do not need fanatics when we have him!) and represents the specific mental condition of Islamophobia as shared by many on Faithfreedom.org.

Part I of this article demonstrated that there was no contradiction between Sura 9 and the rest of the Qur’an regarding the rules for warfare. However, “Muhammad bin Lyin” thinks himself fit to dictate to Muslims about how they should run their religion. He is telling Muslims and the rest of the world that they should always be at war (that is why he is dangerous), yet there is no evidence in the Qur’an or ahadith to support him. He also says that defending the Qur’an is shameful. What is shameful is his warmongering though he will of course turn around and say that he is using truth and commonsense. The reader must be the judge here.

Here is what the Qur’an says in 9:1:


“[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


“Muhammad bin Lyin” applies his own tafsir:


“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.”


Really, “Muhammad bin Lyin”? I thought the verse stated “…those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement. If there were no treaties, how then could they have broken them (9:4)? It does not mention the “grace period” being about to expire.


“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 fulfil their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful [of their duty].”

Qur’an 9:4


“Muhammad bin Lyin” writes (without real rebuttal):


“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.”


The message of the Qur’an never changed since the Messenger of Ibrahim (SAW), but then of course the historical context did. The Qur’an provides examples for our guidance and instructs us on how to worship Allah (SWT), but it was also a guide to the believers of the time in that it would teach and instruct them in how to deal with different situations as they arose (it was a crucial time and partly why Muslims were instructed to follow and obey the Messenger). It always made this clear by providing reasons and qualifications (as discovered in Part I), some examples being 9:1, 9:13 and 9:36 which detail context. The Message was being revealed during these periods of time and thus it deals with the reality whilst accomplishing its purpose. This may sound strange to certain non-Muslims, but it is an undeniable fact that not every verse should be seen as “applicable for all time”. Other verses include the one concerning Abu Lahab and those which mention battles where Muslims are ordered to fight in self-defence. Obviously these are examples whereby Muslims can learn the importance of possessing and applying certain qualities (bravery, piety etc.) but then it is stupid and against commonsense to consider that we should take the verses themselves out of their context which is made clear.


“And certainly We have explained in this Quran every kind of example, and man is most of all given to contention.”

Qur’an 18:54


This is also my attitude to ahadith, the majority of which were witnessed by one or two people and only written down about two centuries following the death of Muhammad (SAW). The majority of statements and actions recorded there would be taken out of context, especially since the ahadith unlike the Qur’an provide very little context for the very specific words and actions described.

Moving on, “Muhammad bin Lyin” reiterates his weird interpretation of 9:6 which does not need a response.

“Muhammad bin Lyin” explains:


“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.”


The first portion is correct, but it is unclear how he arrives at the second. After all, Part I explained that verses 9:30-36 detailed the hostile attitude of the People of the Book, but it was also clearly explained that 9:33 could not logically mean what he said it did. Verse 9:33 was a response to 9:32, and even if it is in the context of 9:29 it still does not order Muslims to conquer or convert anyone (i.e. it is not a reason for 9:29 but a part of the description of the non-Muslims in that context). Please refer to Part I to understand the verse. As usual, playing dumb and casting aspersions is “Muhamad bin Lyin”’s only answer. However, we should stay patient!

“Muhammad bin Lyin” demonstrates his idiocy:


“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.”


“Muhammad bin Lyin” cannot comprehend some baby logic. He is attempting to explain why non-Muslims should be scared of Islam, but if Islam (i.e. the Word of Allah (SWT) which must be believed and accepted to be legitimately followed) commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims only under certain circumstances (i.e. when they are attacked by them) then the only possible way for non-Muslims to be scared of Islam is if non-Muslims believe the Islamophobes. In this instances I was stating that 9:5 was revealed in a specific context and although non-Muslims will not believe that Allah (SWT) knew what was in the non-Muslims’ hearts at the time (such that 9:5 was justified), Muslims will……and as long as Muslims understand Islam non-Muslims need not worry since the Islamophobes are not actually Muslims!

Now “Muhammad bin Lyin” says:


“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??”


The contextual nature of the Qur’an was explained earlier, and whether one believes the Qur’an or not it does not change the obvious. The Message is for all time, but “Muhammad bin Lyin” misunderstands the difference between the revelation of a strategy for dealing with the defence of religion (a strategy which is explained and justified such that there is no contradiction between it and the rest of the Qur’an) and the principles or precepts of the religion itself.

“Muhamad bin Lyin” then asks:


“We apply 9:1 and 9:3 to 47:35??”


That is correct, but not before taking into consideration 9:4 and 9:7-13. Notice he goes to some effort to make my explanations sound incredible when actually they are very simple.


“Muhammad bin Lyin” declares of verse 9:29:


“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.”


Actually according to his interpretation 9:29 is saying that the People of the Book must convert to Islam or pay the Jizya, so there is essentially no difference between the verses 9:29 and 9:5. The Pagans did not have to convert to Islam nor remain Muslims as per the verses 9:6, 9:7 and 9:12. As I explained in Part I it was one of the few ways by which the untrustworthy non-Muslims could demonstrate that they had truly repented for attacking the Muslims (9:13). Also we learnt from 9:36 and history that the People of the Book and the Pagans had allied against the Muslims (see once again Part I). Even if nothing else were clear, the Qur’an is clear that 9:5 and 9:29 were in retaliation. Furthermore, the fact that the People of the Book were singled out demonstrates that the reason for fighting was definitely not because they were non-Muslim. After all, the only Pagans who were excluded from treaties were those who were untrustworthy according to the reasons given (9:8-13), and then only those who had broken treaties and acted aggressively (9:4). Non-Muslims who did not live around there or who had not met Muslims were obviously not going to be attacked because only those who had broken their treaties and acted aggressively were excluded from the protection of Allah’s (SWT) mandate of non-aggression (9:3-4).

“Muhammad bin Lyin” says of 9:12:


“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.”

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.”


It would be amusing if the only valid point that “Muhammad bin Lyin” could make (since the rest are so far meaningless) was one that I helped him with. However, I explained in Part I that “fight” does not have to be physical and it is only against the source of the animosity. In the context of society the following verses are to be considered:


“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


Bear in mind that even if it were as simple as “Muhammad bin Lyin” dictates, 9:12 is still in the context as explained of Sura 9. It is therefore irrelevant to modern times. “Muhammad bin Lyin” then goes on to say that “oppression” is when Muslims do not rule society. Unfortunately he cannot bring a single verse to support his claim.

“Muhammad bin Lyin” argues:


“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.”


It is funny because he must never have associated with Muslims (or a large percentage of Muslims tried to kill him!). “Muhammad bin Lyin” is a media-fed baby who should step out of his cradle before too much rocking causes his diper to fall off and reveals what is or is not underneath. He claims that the majority of Muslims in the world believe they should fight and conquer all non-Muslims. He is appealing not to logic and what is actually written in the Qur’an, but to a phantom majority as his argument. He was never worth debating except to show the stupidity (and the dangerous nature) of what he represents and to be used as a springboard for presenting points around which I would have had to base future articles.

“Muhammad bin Lyin” vomits of verse 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.”


Just read Parts I and II. He also declares once again that the verses 9:30-35 “all involve reasons” as to why 9:29 should be carried out. They are certainly all reasons why the People of the Book fight the Muslims in 9:36! Furthermore, I explained that 9:29 did not have to mean a physical fight and that Muslims are to fight against them all together just as (i.e. just like) they are being fought against. It is an inescapable fact that 9:29 is telling Muslims to fight against the People of the Book not because they are non-Muslims (or else the command would be to fight non-Muslims!) but because their hostile attitude in 9:30-35 meant that they were fighting Muslims in 9:36.

“Muhammad bin Lyin” then launches an assault against my explanation of 9:33. Here is the verse:


“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


His fallacy is claiming that the Qur’an is the cause. No, the cause is described as “He” and not as “it”. Therefore the Qur’an is the means, and not the sword. “Muhammad bin Lyin” can find no verse in the Qur’an commanding Muslims to conquer or convert all non-Muslims and societies. He refers to verse 9:14:


“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.”

Qur’an 9:14


Muslims already believe that whatever happens is by Allah’s (SWT) decree:


“Say: Nothing will afflict us save what Allah has ordained for us; He is our Patron; and on Allah let the believers rely.”

Qur’an 9:51


The verse says nothing about Allah (SWT) aggressing against non-Muslims by using the swords of Muslims. In fact the Qur’an exhorts Muslims to obey Allah (SWT) and follow the Qur’an or go astray, and the Qur’an mandates warfare only as a means of self-defence. It should be noted that 9:14 demonstrates that the non-Muslims had injured the Muslims in some way.


“Muhammad bin Lyin” repeats the literal interpretation of 9:5 to show that it states the non-Muslims should convert to Islam. I never disagreed with that point, but he falls into the fallacy of using tafsir as his only argument by not realising that according to 9:6 and 9:7 (also 9:29) that converting was only one means of demonstrating true repentance. It does not say that they have to convert, but only that if they do then they are not to be harmed. Once more the context of verse 9:5 as explained renders it inapplicable to modern times.


“Muhammad bin Lyin” informs me that I said that some non-Muslims cannot be trusted anymore. I never said that, but if I did then it would have meant that some could not be trusted to read the Qur’an properly. For example, I do not trust him in these matters and nor should anyone else. He is the one declaring that Muslims and non-Muslims should be perpetually at war, and therefore he is the one encouraging people to kill each other. I am “debating” an apparent psychopath. I once invited the members of Faithfreedom.org to support my cause (to help a proper understanding of the Qur’an to improve things), but their egos were too huge and they would rather glory in the thought of conflict to feed their sicknesses. They accuse me of changing Islam and the Qur’an, but their attempts to prove it are as good as you can see here. Let us suppose that they are right and somehow all of my logic is in truth flawed. Would the Islamophobes (warmongers) be naïve enough about human psychology to suppose that Muslims would simply see things their (the warmongers’) preferred way and give up their faith? They would not since even in the case of my being wrong there would still be a number of interpretations leading to a non-aggressive religion (as it stands, the Islamophobes fall flat before the truth). They (the warmongers) would still urge them to be violent since they see themselves as the true scholars of Islam and they think that the Muslims who do not want to convert or conquer the non-Muslim world are not real Muslims. Their attitude to my rationale suggests that having a violent Islam is more preferential to them than having a world with a peaceful Islam. They want Islam to be violent so that they can fight Muslims (i.e. sit in front of their televisions and watch others fight them). An Islamophobe who calls himself “Skynightblaze” said that he could not be bothered to read Part I and that I was a “burning example of why Islam is so dangerous”. How much perversion does it take before one can be labelled as twisted (I visited an atheist site yesterday critiquing the responsibility of religion as opposed to tradition for the plight of women in some countries, but at least they encouraged Muslims to show that the religion can be practiced better if tradition was the true culprit)? They are not interested in peace. They do not realise that the majority of Muslims are actually peaceful because they can read the Qur’an, but the Islamophobes (warmongers) do not urge these Muslims to speak up to at least help the world (even if they really did believe in their non-psychopathic selves that Islam was aggressive). Instead they see the majority as the cause of the violence they see on T.V., and think that labelling them as fake Muslims will help. Their sickness is revealed by their aversion to the Muslims who do speak up against violence. The “real Islam” is not what they see on T.V., but Islamophobes are so brainwashed that their every breathing minute is devoted to the one thought of absolutely eradicating Islam. An Islamophobic pensioner in the U.K. admitted to me that this was what she intended. It is for this reason that Islamophobes absolutely hate Muslims who explain why Islam is not aggressive, and they go to any lengths (as shown here) to preserve their fantasies. However one critic (during my stay) realised all of this, and left the forum.

On a new point, in Part I I made a statement concerning verse 9:33:


“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.”


“Muhammad bin Lyin”’s response is this:


“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.”


The conversation (and in fact the title of the debate and subsequent article) is about whether Islam intends to conquer the world. We already know that Islam became strong because people believed in it (it could not be done without the people’s consent! Look at Egypt today!) and those who did not like that lost the wars they began. One day while they were strong Allah (SWT) revealed Sura 9 according to the context explained and provided the reasons within. I do not see “Muhammad bin Lyin”’s point here since the statement he responded to had a pretty clear purpose.


“Muhammad bin Lyin” predictably responds to my comparison between 61:8-9 and 9:32-33 by claiming that they are both in the context of war. My purpose was to demonstrate 9:29 was not a special verse ordering Muslims to conquer non-Muslims simply because of 9:33. He displays verse 61:4:


“Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall.”

Qur’an 61:4


Notice that it says “in His way”. Unless “Muhammad bin Lyin” can bring a verse stating clearly that to fight in Allah’s (SWT) way is to fight aggressively against non-Muslims, his point does not stand up. His “abrogation” theory will make no historical sense since Sura 61 is said to have come well before Sura 5 in which it states:


“Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.”

Qur’an 5:69


“Muhammad bin Lyin”’s automated response is that this refers to the Jews and Christians who practice Islam. This is odd because he once said that non-Muslims who practice Islam are Muslims, and that if you were a Muslim you could not be anything else. However, the verse only specifies those who believe in Allah (SWT) and who do good…as well as the pious Jews and Christians. Besides, Allah (SWT) will judge justly on the Day of Resurrection:


“And We will set up a just balance on the day of resurrection, so no soul shall be dealt with unjustly in the least; and though there be the weight of a grain of mustard seed, (yet) will We bring it, and sufficient are We to take account.”

Qur’an 21:47


What else does Sura 5 declare?


“For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.”

Qur’an 5:32


This verse is still applied (according to Muslim belief, all Messages were the same with small variations in prohibitions):


“And how do they make you a judge and they have the Taurat wherein is Allah's judgment? Yet they turn back after that, and these are not the believers.”

Qur’an 5:43


“(They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden; therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allah loves those who judge equitably.”

Qur’an 5:42


(If they are allowed to come to Muslims then clearly Muslims do not have to go to them to conquer them! Secondly, turning away does not convey “controlling”.)

Sura 5 is sufficient proof that the statement in 9:33 has nothing to do with Muslims forcibly conquering or converting non-Muslims.


“Muhammad bin Lyin” calls me “deceptive” for stating that the Rabbis and monks were hoarding money rather than spending it in the way of Allah (SWT). Firstly it supports me more to say that they were spending it to inhibit Muslims, and secondly the Qur’an also mentions a punishment for their hoarding in verse 9:34:


“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


“Muhammad bin Lyin” is the liar, and he has no shame about it despite it being blatantly obvious he is wrong. Now alas comes his prime point: the Jizya! It is unfortunate for him that I already agreed “Jizya” could mean “tax” after considering several factors. This state-tax is a state-tax to be determined according to criteria since of course tax must serve a sustainable purpose and not exhaust the payer:


“(They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden; therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allah loves those who judge equitably.”

Qur’an 5:42


“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


“Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a controller over them.”

Qur’an 88:21-22


That (it seems) is why according to the records the Jizya was adjusted to suit the means of the citizen. It is in principle no way discrimination since Muslims must pay the Zakat (obligatory charity) according to their means (or if we follow ahadith out of context instead of the Qur’an, it is 2.5% of income).

Now if we look at the Qur’an we can see that the Jizya is never mandated to be a compulsory religious tax imposed by the Muslims on the non-Muslims in society. “Tax” in Arabic is actually “dhareeba”. All that we glean from the ahadith is that Muhammad (SAW) imposed a “Jizya” on his conquered enemies and other non-Muslim citizens during his time (perhaps as punishment and/or for protection that was necessary – or simply as a tax system). Now we must also bear in mind that the ahadith have their own context and doubtfulness whilst the Qur’an according to Muslim belief is clear, complete and fully-detailed. Whoever takes the ahadith out of context and declares “Jizya” to mean “tax” must disregard the special circumstances detailed by the Qur’an. Scholars disagree on the meaning of the word but common opinions are that it means a “recompense” for something (e.g. necessary protection), and also a “substitute” (i.e. recompense). It is definitely not on the basis of belief because firstly that was not the Messenger’s duty…


“And if Allah had pleased, they would not have set up others (with Him) and We have not appointed you a keeper over them, and you are not placed in charge of them.”

Qur’an 6:107


“But if they turn back, then on you devolves only the clear deliverance (of the message).”

Qur’an 16:82


“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


(“Muhammad bin Lyin” thinks it is odd that I use this verse in relation to Jizya, but if we consider for one moment it becomes clear that Muhammad (SAW) is not asking for any special benefit which may be conferred to him by delivering the Message. An example would be the ability to impose tax on people who did not accept the Message.)


…and secondly verse 9:29 is not telling Muslims to impose the Jizya on the People of Book because they are non-Muslim or else Allah (SWT) would have commanded Muslims to convert/conquer all non-Muslims. “Muhammad bin Lyin” claims that the Qur’an mentions “Jizya” for the first time because of the “fact” that it was a practice already introduced, yet whatever was the necessary reason for Jizya and whatever form it took (e.g. tax or payment) it was most certainly not based on religion but on circumstances specifically formulated in Sura 9. Remember from Part I:


“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…”

Qur’an 5:3


What is of primary concern here is that 9:29 regardless of anything is in retaliation (see verse 9:36). Even if the derived meaning of “tax” is the true meaning of “Jizya”, we know from the Qur’anic verses above that the tax must be equitable and fair. Since the Jizya is not a part of Islamic policy outside of Sura 9, and since it was imposed in times of some uncertainty (suggesting that it was a sign of submission to state law as was required), the “Jizya” must ultimately be considered payment either in return for damages caused or a payment applicable to people who had committed certain actions and/or required certain protection or status. It may suffice to consider it an ordinary state tax to be differentiated from obligatory charity since non-Muslims need not practically be labelled as performing an Islamic duty (I noticed that “Muhammad bin Lyin” accuses me of contradicting myself or back-flipping, but he does not seem to be much of a reader since he does not realise that I am actually discussing various possibilities. His chide implying that I am not a “real Muslim” will not work since if he attempted to debate against the Qur’an-alone perspective he would be no harder to deal with than a rodent without front teeth. He would also find that the majority of Muslims would agree with the principles that I am applying). In this day and age, the Jizya would simply be a regular state tax that would have had to exist anyway.

For now, “Muhammad bin Lyin” needs to recognise that traditional understandings of the Qur’an reflect individual interpretations/preferences (at a time of empire) thus do not necessarily derive from the source of Islam itself. Amina Wadud writes:


“To avoid potential relativism, there is continuity and permanence in the Qu'ranic text itself as exemplified even through various readings by their points of convergence. However, in order for the Qur’an to achieve its objective to act as a catalyst affecting behavior in society, each social context must understand the fundamental and unchangeable principles of that text, and then implement them in their own unique reflection.”

(Amina Wadud-Muhsin, Qur'an and Woman (Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn Bhd, 1992), 5)


Summing up. it is impossible for him (or anyone) to argue that the Qur’an implements Jizya directly as “tax” and thus he must turn to tafsir written by people who have already accepted other individual interpretations of the word. Tafsir is completely useless to his case since what he brings only parrots what the verse is saying without referring to the rest of the Qur’an (I would challenge him to a discussion of one tafsir at a time). Such interpretations come from ahadith the vast majority of which were written down over two centuries after Muhammad (SAW) died. Even if they are true, as I mentioned before we still cannot be sure of their deeper context. What was appropriate for the defence of the religion during that time had to be implemented, but the Qur’an itself lives on unchanged in Islamic belief.


“And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal to thee the truth and the best tafsir (thereof).”

Qur’an 25:33


It is not incumbent on me to discuss further the context of the formation of Islam (those who read about it may find that the “conquest” was quite peaceful with voluntary acceptance) since “Muhammad bin Lyin” and his friends have been beaten by the Qur’an. They cannot prove Islam to be an aggressive religion, and this is why Islam lives. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to remember that moral relativism plays an important role in understanding that humans do not and have not lived in a topsy-turvy world where “world-peace” is not actually peace but rather access to modern technology and a comfortable lifestyle in ignorance of deeper yet higher yearnings…and at the expense of others. The Arabia of Muhammad’s (SAW) time was a dangerous and divided arena where the achievement of order, justice and peace could not come to being without bloodshed and bravery. Thus the Muslims of today will accept Muhammad (SAW) as an accomplisher of a sacred task with the purpose of improving societies and eliminating oppression based on power, competition and discrimination rather than the universal values necessary for fighting corruption:


“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


If this verse is abrogated, he should bring the verse that abrogates it explaining using the Qur’an how it is not in self-defence or retaliation. It has been explained many times that there exists no contradiction between the verses discussed in Part I and the rest of the Qur’an. It is also not difficult to take apart the verses he claims mandate internal abrogation.


“O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do.”

Qur’an 4:135


“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.”

Qur’an 16:125


“And seek by means of what Allah has given you the future abode, and do not neglect your portion of this world, and do good (to others) as Allah has done good to you, and do not seek to make mischief in the land, surely Allah does not love the mischief-makers.”

Qur’an 28:77


“And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our Allah and your Allah is One, and to Him do we submit.”

Qur’an 29:46


“And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! he between whom and you was enmity would be as if he were a warm friend. And none are made to receive it but those who are patient, and none are made to receive it but those who have a mighty good fortune.”

Qur’an 41:34-35


“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


And then countless others. These are at the core of every great ideal, and it is why the Qur’an in truth is harmonious with all societies. However, in the circumstances of today we should be looking for improvement, and not for final conflict which can never be won. “Muhammad bin Lyin” can use some ahadith to scorn Muslims (after all this was predicted in the Qur’an (6:112)), but then any Muslim can confront him with a much greater number of worthwhile examples from the same source. Just a minute sample:


“The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: I guarantee a house in the surroundings of Paradise for a man who avoids quarrelling even if he were in the right, a house in the middle of Paradise for a man who avoids lying even if he were joking, and a house in the upper part of Paradise for a man who made his character good…”

Abu Dawood


“The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character and the best of you are those who are best to their wives.”

Tirmidthi


“Keep God in mind wherever you are; follow a wrong with a right that offsets it, and treat people courteously.”

Tirmidthi


“The world and all things in the world are precious but the most precious thing in the world is a virtuous woman.”

Ahmed and Muslim


“My servants, I have made injustice forbidden to myself, and I have made it forbidden to you, so do not be unjust.”

Hadith Qudsy


“The Jewish Rabbi, ‘Abd Allah ibn Salam went to see the Prophet and to hear what he had to say. He narrated that the first sermon that the Prophet delivered in Medina was: “Oh Humanity, spread peace. Provide nourishment for people. Pray in the night when people are asleep and you will enter into Paradise in security and Peace.””


“God is compassionate and loves those who are compassionate. He is gentle and loves those who are gentle to others. Whoever is merciful to creatures, to him is God merciful. Whoever does good for people, to him will God do good. Whoever is generous to them, to him will God be generous. Whoever benefits the people, God will benefit him.”


(Each of these is consistent with the Qur’an aside from the first since the Qur’an never gave Muhammad (SAW) the mandate to guarantee anyone anything.)


Where then are the Islamophobes left? They should not start that game, because the Qur’an must be judge:


“Say: What thing is the weightiest in testimony? Say: Allah is witness between you and me; and this Qur’an has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches…”

Qur’an 6:19


Every person can choose to call Muhammad (SAW) a conqueror or a Prophet, but the underlying issue is that Islam only spreads by voluntary conversion and that its ultimate ideal is the elimination of corruption and oppression such that the more powerful it becomes, the more contained will people’s ability to take advantage of others (by all means) become. It in fact enshrines the ideal society that most people claim to desire (there is no such place as Utopia on Earth), but the actual exercising of these “noble ideals” becomes too strenuous for those who would rather use Islam as a punching-bag. If they actually allowed themselves to admit that they agree with the “nice” principals in the Qur’an, we could then start discussing similarities instead of differences. If they want to argue against Islam, that is fine but firstly they should state why the principles of Islam are inferior to their views (i.e. they would have to present their own thoughts on life!) and having outlined how Islam could improve they should do something about it and take advantage of the “nice” things in Islam that ultimately are the message of the Qur’an (if one reads it!). But no, they have no thoughts of their own and they label attempts to improve it as “deception” whilst ignoring a simple principle that the average person could understand: freedom of belief and allegiance. Everything takes its evolutionary cause, and to expect that people will simply “give up their faith” to appease a few opinions is simply stupid. People choose their beliefs and then they choose to live by them. It is no-one’s business. Those who understand this and accept belief do not give a toss about attempts to “disprove” it using science etc, because ultimately religion is an ideal which itself is the beacon of the Divine. People all have their conceptions of God, and it is the following of the path and worship/celebration/appreciation of existence itself which makes religion and the believer inseparable. This is just plain, secure Faith which understands why it exists. The believer knows him/herself. That is why those who wage their own little war against Islam may as well wage a war against religious belief and human psychology itself, and why they are a detriment to and provocation of the situation seen today. They do not have to embrace the tides, just to help to clean up (if they are sincere). Sadly, their own standards are blurred. This is the way things are; I am neither promoting nor demoting it. As for other Muslims, the same message applies (this could continue in another article, and it is the point of this one).


Finally, “Muhammad bin Lyin” thinks it was stupid to quote the judgement of a Sunni judge in Saudi Arabia:


“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.”


All the better.


***


Khuda Hafiz

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Response Part II

“Muhammad bin Lyin” possesses the inability to mind and consolidate his own points and must respond to every paragraph I write in order to give the best illusion of authenticity and “thoroughness”.

No, when someone starts inventing things, you have to answer every single invention. In my experience, if something goes unanswered, Muslims assume their point is correct and taken. So this has to be done at least once. Since i have already done this for anybody to go back and look at, I'll switch over now to the form of debate you like, where each person merely explains his point and leaves it for the audience to determine. This form is more advantageous for you because the audience often won't see the holes in your claims. But I've answered enough piece by piece where they can go back and look at how I pointed out the holes in your answers. So now, I'll do it your way, as this is shorter anyway.

As far as I can see, your whole point is to separate 8:39 from violent verses and to say that 8:39 is only talking about wayward Muslims. You also seek to negate the jizyah as merely a one time recompense.

1) Here's where I got the idea from to relate 8:39 to 9:5. It is the tafsir for 8:39

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20140

(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah...).'' Ibn `Umar said, "We did that during the time of the Messenger of Allah, when Islam was weak and the man would be tried in religion, either tormented to death or being imprisoned. When Islam became stronger and widespread, there was no more Fitnah.'' When the man realized that Ibn `Umar would not agree to what he is saying, he asked him, "What do you say about `Ali and `Uthman'' Ibn `Umar replied, "What do I say about `Ali and `Uthman! As for `Uthman, Allah has forgiven him, but you hate that Allah forgives him. As for `Ali, he is the cousin of the Messenger of Allah and his son-in-law,'' and he pointed with his hand saying, "And this is his house over there.'' Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "Ibn `Umar came to us and was asked, "What do you say about fighting during Fitnah'' Ibn `Umar said, "Do you know what Fitnah refers to Muhammad was fighting against the idolators, and at that time, attending (or residing with) the idolators was a Fitnah (trial in religion). It is nothing like what you are doing, fighting to gain leadership!'' All these narrations were collected by Al-Bukhari, may Allah the Exalted grant him His mercy. Ad-Dahhak reported that Ibn `Abbas said about the Ayah,

[وَقَـتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ]

(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah...) "So that there is no more Shirk.'' Similar was said by Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, As-Suddi, Muqatil bin Hayyan and Zayd bin Aslam. Muhammad bin Ishaq said that he was informed from Az-Zuhri, from `Urwah bin Az-Zubayr and other scholars that

[حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ]

(until there is no more Fitnah) the Fitnah mentioned here means, until no Muslim is persecuted so that he abandons his religion. Ad-Dahhak reported that Ibn `Abbas said about Allah's statement,

[وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلهِ]

(and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone.) "So that Tawhid is practiced in sincerity with Allah.'' Al-Hasan, Qatadah and Ibn Jurayj said,

[وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلهِ]

(and the religion will all be for Allah alone) "So that La ilaha illa-llah is proclaimed.'' Muhammad bin Ishaq also commented on this Ayah, "So that Tawhid is practiced in sincerity towards Allah, without Shirk, all the while shunning all rivals who (are being worshipped) besides Him.''

`Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said about,

[وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلهِ]

(and the religion will all be for Allah alone) "So that there is no more Kufr (disbelief) with your religion remains.'' There is a Hadith collected in the Two Sahihs that testifies to this explanation. The Messenger of Allah said,

«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ، حَتَّى يَقُولُوا: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، فَإِذَا قَالُوهَا عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ، إِلَّا بِحَقِّهَا، وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَل»

(I was commanded to fight against the people until they proclaim, `There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah.' If and when they say it, they will preserve their blood and wealth from me, except for its right (Islamic penal code), and their reckoning is with Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored.)

Also, in the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Abu Musa Al-Ash`ari said, "The Messenger of Allah was asked about a man who fights because he is courageous, in prejudice with his people, or to show off. Which of these is for the cause of Allah He said,

«مَنْ قَاتَلَ لِتَكُونَ كَلِمَةُ اللهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا فَهُوَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَل»

(Whoever fights so that Allah's Word is the supreme, is in the cause of Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored.)''

Allah said next,

[فَإِنِ انْتَهَوْاْ]

(But if they cease), and desist from their Kufr as a result of your fighting them, even though you do not know the true reasons why they did so,

[فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ]

(then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.)

Allah said in similar Ayah,

[فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ]

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give Zakah, then leave their way free.) [9:5],

[فَإِخوَانُكُمْ فِى الدِّينِ]

(...then they are your brethren in religion.) [9:11], and,

[وَقَـتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لاَ تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ للَّهِ فَإِنِ انتَهَواْ فَلاَ عُدْوَنَ إِلاَّ عَلَى الظَّـلِمِينَ ]

(And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and the religion (worship) is for Allah (alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against the wrongdoers.) [2:193]

It is recorded in the Sahih that the Messenger of Allah said to Usamah bin Zayd when he overpowered a man with his sword, after that man proclaimed that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah;

«أَقَتَلْتَهُ بَعْدَ مَا قَالَ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ؟ وَكَيْفَ تَصْنَعُ بِلَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ؟»

(Have you killed him after he proclaimed, `La Ilaha Illallah' What would you do with regard to `La Ilaha Illallah' on the Day of Resurrection.)

Usamah said, "O Allah's Messenger! He only said it to save himself.'' The Messenger replied,

«هَلَّا شَقَقْتَ عَنْ قَلْبِهِ؟»

(Did you cut his heart open)

The Messenger kept repeating,

«مَنْ لَكَ بِلَا إِلهَ إِلَّا اللهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ؟»

(What would you do with regard to `La Ilaha Illallah' on the Day of Resurrection) until Usamah said, "I wished I had embraced Islam only that day.'' Allah said next,

[وَإِن تَوَلَّوْاْ فَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَوْلاَكُمْ نِعْمَ الْمَوْلَى وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ ]

(And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your protector, an excellent protector, and an excellent helper!)

Allah says, if the disbelievers persist in defying and fighting you, then know that Allah is your protector, master and supporter against your enemies. Verily, what an excellent protector and what an excellent supporter.

[وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّمَا غَنِمْتُم مِّن شَىْءٍ فَأَنَّ للَّهِ خُمُسَهُ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِى الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَـمَى وَالْمَسَـكِينِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ إِن كُنتُمْ ءَامَنْتُم بِاللَّهِ وَمَآ أَنزَلْنَا عَلَى عَبْدِنَا يَوْمَ الْفُرْقَانِ يَوْمَ الْتَقَى الْجَمْعَانِ وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَىْءٍ قَدِيرٌ ]

This doesn't sound like how MesMorial is painting things, and this was written by a well known scholar who spent his life studying this stuff and wrote this well before anybody such as MesMorial thought Islam needed to be whitewashed for modern consumption.

Next Mesmorial says that I said there is no difference between 9:29 and 9:5. i will make this very clear. 9:5 tells them to kill the pagans unless they convert. 9:29, gives them the choice of keeping their religion but being ruled by Muslims, because it is not talking about the pagans who were already conquered by that time, it is now talking about the Christians and Jews. After Muhammad conquered the pagans, he turned his sights on the Christians and Jews. Let's see what a scholar has to say rather than relying on MesMorial's imagination.

tafsir for 9:5
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20750

This is the Ayah of the Sword

Mujahid, `Amr bin Shu`ayb, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Qatadah, As-Suddi and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that the four months mentioned in this Ayah are the four-month grace period mentioned in the earlier Ayah,

[فَسِيحُواْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ]

(So travel freely for four months throughout the land.) Allah said next,

[فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ]

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...), meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,

[فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ]

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said,

[وَلاَ تُقَـتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّى يُقَـتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ فَإِن قَـتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ]

(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. )[2:191] Allah said here,

[وَخُذُوهُمْ]

(and capture them), executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

[وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ]

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush), do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

[فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ]

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاة»

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''

[وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ ]

So 9:5 means to fight them until they establish Muslim prayers (perform them) and pay the Zakah (tax for Muslims). This clearly means, fight them until they become a Muslim. But that is not my argument in this debate. I did not make that argument because that wasn't the choice for everybody. Christians and Jews had the choice to keep their religion, as long as they accepted Muslim rule in humble inferiority. This is clearly why my claim, from the very beginning is that while Islam does not demand that everybody be a Muslim, it DOES demand that everybody be ruled by them, and these demands started to come out of the quran because this was actually starting to look attainable after they conquered the pagans and were on a seemingly unstoppable roll (which stopped at the Romans due to necessity). So here's the tafsir for 9:29

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980

The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah

Allah said,

[قَـتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ ]

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,

[قَـتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ]

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace

Allah said,

[حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ]

(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,

[عَن يَدٍ]

(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,

[وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ]

(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,

«لَا تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى بِالسَّلَامِ، وَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِه»

(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.' When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.'''

[وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَـرَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ ذلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَهِهِمْ يُضَـهِئُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَبْلُ قَـتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ - اتَّخَذُواْ أَحْبَـرَهُمْ وَرُهْبَـنَهُمْ أَرْبَاباً مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَآ أُمِرُواْ إِلاَّ لِيَعْبُدُواْ إِلَـهاً وَحِداً لاَّ إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ سُبْحَـنَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ]

So this is pretty clear. So what does MesMorial need to do to make this conveniently go away?? Change the meaning of Jizyah, of course. He needs ther jizyah to be a one time fee so that it doesn't look like Muslim rule. Smoke and mirrors all of the time. So let's even ignore the scholars and just ask ourselves a few common sense questions.

1) Why didn't the Quran explain more about what the jizyah was?? MesMorial already asked this question, and my answer was that it didn't have to. Like many things in the Quran such as the battle of badr, it didn't need to go into detail because people already knew of it, so it merely reminded them of it. Same thing with jizyah. The Quran's lack of explanation for it clearly means it was already understood and already practiced and the Quran was merely confirming it. From an historical perspective, we know that Muhammad did indeed tax the Christians and Jews on a regular basis. So did Muhammad misinterpret what jizyah meant in the Quran?? Of course not. He was the one who put that word in the Quran to make it look like the Quran confirms things he was already practicing. And people knew exactly what he meant which is why the Quran didn't need to explain it. So MesMorial actually asked the correct question, but for the wrong reasons.

Then, he tries some more smoke and mirrors to deny history, the Quran and the scholars and tries to give us the literal meaning of the word and suggest that the Quran only means this. He says the literal meaning is recompense. But that's exactly what it was called. It was continued recompensation for continued Muslim protection. And according to Kathir, this wasn't even for protection from other armies, it was for protection from the Muslims themselves doing whatever they wished with the Christians and Jews. If they paid the tax, then Muhammad said they are not to be killed, but rather protected from any Muslims who might kill them.

From the tafsir above

These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.'''

And 9:5 tells us what is to be done with people of defiance and rebellion. Kill them unless they pay the zakah and practice Muslim prayers, which essentially amounts to being a Muslim. It does not say until they allow Muslim prayers, it says until they themselves establish Muslim prayers and they themselves pay the Zakah.

Next, MesMorial will tell you that I only make these claims because I hate Islam. A very typical and often used excuse or diversion to get the matter away from the facts and make it a personal matter about the debater himself. Well, then I guess Kathir and other scholars hate Islam as well. But this goes into larger things that all Muslims do. Muslims who come on this forum act like we are all making all of this up and pulling it out of thin air, but instead, we are actually quoting the Quran and tafsir, and it is Muslims who make things up here. It's not our fault that this is what the Quran and tafsir clearly tells us, but they demand that we ignore this because it doesn't fit modern sensibilities.

So in conclusion, unfortunately, the more militant of the Muslims today are actually the true Muslims, and people such as MesMorial are trying to reinvent Islam because it is so indigestible for modern sensibilities. And even the Quran itself said that in the end days, your religion will be like a hot coal in your hands. That is true for anybody who is a real Muslim and practices real Islam. MesMorial is not, because he cannot accept that hot coal and instead tries to reinvent it as a flower. Allah does not like those who are unwilling to slay and be slain in the name of Allah and it clearly says so all over the Quran.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Another interesting side note is the fact that the Muslims went out to attack the Romans but then turned back to Medinah because it was weakened by drought. So why did Muhammad take them out there in the first place if they were only going to turn back?? Whoops, I'm sorry, I meant why did Allah order them out there if he was only going to turn them back?? Where were the 2000 angels?? Where was the talk about "no matter how outnumbered or how unlikely it seems, Allah will grant you victory"?? Where did that go?? And if Allah sent them out there to fight the Romans, why did Muhammad have to pray for a decision whether to continue or not?? Didn't Allah already know whether they were even supposed to go there or not before they even went there?? Why did he ask Muhammad to collect 30,000 men to go and fight only to change his mind because of drought?? Did Allah not see the drought coming?? So Allah has them go out there and then he changes his mind?? Look at how incredibly human and suspicious this all is. Muhammad suddenly became very practical in the face of a new reality, because it was HIM giving these commands the whole time and not his Allah sock puppet. Think about it. Why would God command that 30,000 men be gathered and go out to Tabuk and then change his mind and send them back?? The only logical answer is that he did not, Muhammad did. That's what people do. They change their mind if the circumstances change. That's why the Quran had to be revealed in stages, because as the circumstances changed, so did the message in the Suras. But if one wrote it all up front, one couldn't change it to meet the circumstances. Look at how incredibly human this all is. Come on guys, it's right in front of your face, staring at you, waving at you, winking at you, waiting for you to see it. But Muslims simply cannot. They are so indoctrinated and brainwashed that they'll never see plain common sense right under their nose.

And according to history, while Muslims would often ultimately triumph, they lost plenty of battles. There was a guy in the middle ages named Charles "the hammer" Martel, who never once lost a battle. So who would seem to be guided by God and who is not?? The truth of the matter is that there was nothing spectacular about Muhammad's conquering. Promise a bunch of desert warriors that they will be sent to a male warrior's paradise in the sky if they sacrifice their life, and that makes for a pretty unstoppable soldier. What was it that was said?? Something like, I will bring upon you, people who love death more than life. That's a pretty unstoppable soldier. In fact, Hitler and his top General used to admire Islam as being able to create a great fighter and warrior, and he even tried to court them a little bit (although they didn't bite). Hitler and his General were upset that all they had to work with for their army were cowardly Christians who had no true warrior mantra for fighting (jihad). Yes, Hitler had great admiration for Muslims and he wished he had them in his army rather than Christians because they're more willing to simply jump in and die.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Whoops, i forgot another little point. MesMorial actually tries to paint the jizyah as being more fair than the zakat, because the zakat is set at a certain rate and the jizyah is not. Therefore, he twists this to mean an assumption of the jizyah being less rather than more, when clearly the opposite would have been the case. Think about it. Suppose a Muslim could not handle paying the zakat rate. He would have you believe that they would still have to pay it, because that is the rate, but in the case of a Christian being asked for the same rate in jizyah, the Christians can claim he can't afford it and the Muslim ruler will allow him to pay less.

Is this some kind of a joke or something?? MesMorial, are you honestly trying to insult people's intelligence??

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

I will also make it a rule that if one of us does not respond after a week, he accepts defeat (intellectually and in other ways).

In what other ways are you talking about??